rpietila Wall Observer - the Quality TA Thread ;)

[Syke]

they can't call it iWatch as that's the name of the program they gave to the govt to use with cctv cameras

Apple names things whatever they damn well please. They don't care if the name is already in use.

[1714469357]

1714469357

[1714469357]

1714469357

[1714469357]

1714469357

[1714469357]

1714469357

[giveBTCpls]

Despite the apparent simplicity of Apple Pay for the user (just put a finger in your smartphone screen and go), there are several problems:
- Apple only has 18% of the smartphone market, and falling.
- A free iPhone 6 cost, minimum 700€.
- If while paying your battery goes out of energy, you're fucked. Not so with plastic cards. And remember that the short battery life of iPhones is one of their major defects.
- Businesses need to install these payment terminals.

And like I said before, they may make the API public, which could benefit BTC.

Personally, my impression is that Apple is going to get hit by a train with Apple Pay and especially with Apple Watch (350€ the cheapest).

[loopgate88]

Apple adopting Bitcoin isn't even remotely likely. Simply put, it is impossible that Apple will adopt Bitcoin.

The term adoption when used in relation to Bitcoin is consistently misused. When merchants use a service that accepts Bitcoin from holders and converts it into fiat for themselves, they are not adopting Bitcoin. They are exploiting the popularity of the term and converting BTC into fiat. This is not a case of merchants helping Bitcoin but a case of Bitcoin helping merchants. Equally, overall fiat conversion into Bitcoin isn't increasing but decreasing.

Bitcoin is being stress tested and the question isn't which load will make it move faster but which push will make the load lighter. And I see no discussion regarding real Bitcoin development. NXT, Ethereum, Exocoin, NEM and maybe even to a certain degree Monero and Emunie are where development, not armchair discussions about development, is happening.

It is impossible to know which child will grow to be the greatest adult though even if we knew, we still would be left with a definition of great that may be incorrect.
Bitcoin has hit adulthood and is great but it is very limited. Trying to change the definition of 'great' only helps with making it impossible to call Bitcoin great without doing a single bit of work toward making it greater.

[sidhujag]

Apple adopting Bitcoin isn't even remotely likely. Simply put, it is impossible that Apple will adopt Bitcoin.

The term adoption when used in relation to Bitcoin is consistently misused. When merchants use a service that accepts Bitcoin from holders and converts it into fiat for themselves, they are not adopting Bitcoin. They are exploiting the popularity of the term and converting BTC into fiat. This is not a case of merchants helping Bitcoin but a case of Bitcoin helping merchants. Equally, overall fiat conversion into Bitcoin isn't increasing but decreasing.

Bitcoin is being stress tested and the question isn't which load will make it move faster but which push will make the load lighter. And I see no discussion regarding real Bitcoin development. NXT, Ethereum, Exocoin, NEM and maybe even to a certain degree Monero and Emunie are where development, not armchair discussions about development, is happening.

It is impossible to know which child will grow to be the greatest adult though even if we knew, we still would be left with a definition of great that may be incorrect.
Bitcoin has hit adulthood and is great but it is very limited. Trying to change the definition of 'great' only helps with making it impossible to call Bitcoin great without doing a single bit of work toward making it greater.

Actually I would say BitsharesX is probably better than any other competitor to bitcoin that you have listed there.. its got alot of things going for it and I think it would tag along with bitcoin for a while as bitcoin would be used as a currency and bitshares used for well, everything else including anything that shares are issued for (stocks, bonds, any assets(voting, music, dns)).. NXT tries to do the same thing but doesn't do it quite aswell.. and the other ones I dont think are even close (yet). I think the winner will be the ones that will complement bitcoin not replace it.

[Brewins]

they can't call it iWatch as that's the name of the program they gave to the govt to use with cctv cameras

Apple names things whatever they damn well please. They don't care if the name is already in use.

But they don't want mess with the government, so I highly doubt they would do that

[zimmah]

Apple adopting Bitcoin isn't even remotely likely. Simply put, it is impossible that Apple will adopt Bitcoin.

The term adoption when used in relation to Bitcoin is consistently misused. When merchants use a service that accepts Bitcoin from holders and converts it into fiat for themselves, they are not adopting Bitcoin. They are exploiting the popularity of the term and converting BTC into fiat. This is not a case of merchants helping Bitcoin but a case of Bitcoin helping merchants. Equally, overall fiat conversion into Bitcoin isn't increasing but decreasing.

Bitcoin is being stress tested and the question isn't which load will make it move faster but which push will make the load lighter. And I see no discussion regarding real Bitcoin development. NXT, Ethereum, Exocoin, NEM and maybe even to a certain degree Monero and Emunie are where development, not armchair discussions about development, is happening.

It is impossible to know which child will grow to be the greatest adult though even if we knew, we still would be left with a definition of great that may be incorrect.
Bitcoin has hit adulthood and is great but it is very limited. Trying to change the definition of 'great' only helps with making it impossible to call Bitcoin great without doing a single bit of work toward making it greater.

but by accepting bitcoin (even if they just sell it), they are advertising bitcoin, and increasing the utility.

Even if the short term effect is a downward pressure (which is probably not as severe as many of you make believe), the medium to long term effect is a price boom.

and in my opinion, bitcoin has barely even scratched the surface of childhood, it's not running, it's barely started standing up straight.

[loopgate88]

Apple adopting Bitcoin isn't even remotely likely. Simply put, it is impossible that Apple will adopt Bitcoin.

The term adoption when used in relation to Bitcoin is consistently misused. When merchants use a service that accepts Bitcoin from holders and converts it into fiat for themselves, they are not adopting Bitcoin. They are exploiting the popularity of the term and converting BTC into fiat. This is not a case of merchants helping Bitcoin but a case of Bitcoin helping merchants. Equally, overall fiat conversion into Bitcoin isn't increasing but decreasing.

Bitcoin is being stress tested and the question isn't which load will make it move faster but which push will make the load lighter. And I see no discussion regarding real Bitcoin development. NXT, Ethereum, Exocoin, NEM and maybe even to a certain degree Monero and Emunie are where development, not armchair discussions about development, is happening.

It is impossible to know which child will grow to be the greatest adult though even if we knew, we still would be left with a definition of great that may be incorrect.
Bitcoin has hit adulthood and is great but it is very limited. Trying to change the definition of 'great' only helps with making it impossible to call Bitcoin great without doing a single bit of work toward making it greater.

Actually I would say BitsharesX is probably better than any other competitor to bitcoin that you have listed there.. its got alot of things going for it and I think it would tag along with bitcoin for a while as bitcoin would be used as a currency and bitshares used for well, everything else including anything that shares are issued for (stocks, bonds, any assets(voting, music, dns)).. NXT tries to do the same thing but doesn't do it quite aswell.. and the other ones I dont think are even close (yet). I think the winner will be the ones that will complement bitcoin not replace it.

The winner is never defined as the one who complements number 1. To be the winner a cryptocurrency has to necessarily replace Bitcoin.

The most basic reason why Bitcoin cannot and will not persist long term is that it requires large processing power as well as storage capacity but offers a tiny number of transactions per second at 7. The exponential nature of technology doesn't concern me when it comes to the processing power and storage requirements. What concerns me is how little it delivers for so much consumption. Meanwhile NXT which is an early 2.0  is over there featuring 100tps right now and eyeing 1000tps. SPV nodes don't really offset this either.

Another reason that comes to mind is the fact that satoshi and at least whoever has gox stolen coins holds hundreds of thousands of BTC. So much for not trusting FIAT and going to BTC because it is 'decentralized' as the useful idiots keep repeating. FIAT is magnitudes more decentralized than Bitcoin as it is currently distributed.

I understand that Bitcoin could be changed to handle more but that increase will cause a proportional increase in processing power and storage requirements which means it will keep being really slow.

[loopgate88]

Apple adopting Bitcoin isn't even remotely likely. Simply put, it is impossible that Apple will adopt Bitcoin.

The term adoption when used in relation to Bitcoin is consistently misused. When merchants use a service that accepts Bitcoin from holders and converts it into fiat for themselves, they are not adopting Bitcoin. They are exploiting the popularity of the term and converting BTC into fiat. This is not a case of merchants helping Bitcoin but a case of Bitcoin helping merchants. Equally, overall fiat conversion into Bitcoin isn't increasing but decreasing.

Bitcoin is being stress tested and the question isn't which load will make it move faster but which push will make the load lighter. And I see no discussion regarding real Bitcoin development. NXT, Ethereum, Exocoin, NEM and maybe even to a certain degree Monero and Emunie are where development, not armchair discussions about development, is happening.

It is impossible to know which child will grow to be the greatest adult though even if we knew, we still would be left with a definition of great that may be incorrect.
Bitcoin has hit adulthood and is great but it is very limited. Trying to change the definition of 'great' only helps with making it impossible to call Bitcoin great without doing a single bit of work toward making it greater.

but by accepting bitcoin (even if they just sell it), they are advertising bitcoin, and increasing the utility.

Even if the short term effect is a downward pressure (which is probably not as severe as many of you make believe), the medium to long term effect is a price boom.

and in my opinion, bitcoin has barely even scratched the surface of childhood, it's not running, it's barely started standing up straight.

There is zero evidence that "the medium to long term effect is a price boom". Care to provide some?

Independently from what stage Bitcoin is, it definitely isn't standing nor is it straight.

[minerpumpkin]

I also believe that the biggest problem will be Apple loading off the fees on the credit cards company. They can't do this with Bitcoin. CC-companies will be gladly paying their share if they can be part of that potential revolution. Who will pay that for Bitcoin? Maybe Satoshi? The Foundation?

[SlipperySlope]

I also believe that the biggest problem will be Apple loading off the fees on the credit cards company. They can't do this with Bitcoin. CC-companies will be gladly paying their share if they can be part of that potential revolution. Who will pay that for Bitcoin? Maybe Satoshi? The Foundation?

NFC bitcoin payment applications from mobile devices will likely be paid for, directly or indirectly, by the merchant. Even considering the cost of currency exchange, BitPay, for example, is less expensive for merchants than say Visa. Once a tipping point is reached after which merchants prefer to retain bitcoin revenue to pay some of their own expenses with bitcoin, then exchange to fiat is not required.

[SlipperySlope]

The most basic reason why Bitcoin cannot and will not persist long term is that it requires large processing power as well as storage capacity but offers a tiny number of transactions per second at 7. The exponential nature of technology doesn't concern me when it comes to the processing power and storage requirements. What concerns me is how little it delivers for so much consumption. Meanwhile NXT which is an early 2.0  is over there featuring 100tps right now and eyeing 1000tps. SPV nodes don't really offset this either.

I wrote a whitepaper back in May describing a simple solution to this problem that also has the advantage of providing instant acceptance of transactions. One nomadic mint agent creates the new blocks on a non-branching blockchain. Peers verify the result and copy new blocks to their own copies of the canonical blockchain. A single writer to the immutable blockchain should be very fast. Full nodes share the block rewards without proof-of-work mining effort. Fewer than one hundred lines of code are modified in Bitcoin Core, provided that suitable software agents operate the distributed network.

All core devs I speak to are skeptical, but some encourage my project anyway to see if there is a better way than Satoshi's proof-of-work.

[loopgate88]

I also believe that the biggest problem will be Apple loading off the fees on the credit cards company. They can't do this with Bitcoin. CC-companies will be gladly paying their share if they can be part of that potential revolution. Who will pay that for Bitcoin? Maybe Satoshi? The Foundation?

NFC bitcoin payment applications from mobile devices will likely be paid for, directly or indirectly, by the merchant. Even considering the cost of currency exchange, BitPay, for example, is less expensive for merchants than say Visa. Once a tipping point is reached after which merchants prefer to retain bitcoin revenue to pay some of their own expenses with bitcoin, then exchange to fiat is not required.

That tipping point cannot be reached without government backing of the currency. Great economic crashes come from regular people speculating. For this tipping point you mention to occur without government backing would require many normal people to become speculators. By many I mean almost everyone and this is not possible.
Bitcoin cannot be government backed because it is proof of concept and it is great at it. This said, crypo-currencies without a doubt will do to money what money did to land and titles. Bitcoin isn't the biggest player in this revolution, it is just the biggest player in the evolution.

[loopgate88]

The most basic reason why Bitcoin cannot and will not persist long term is that it requires large processing power as well as storage capacity but offers a tiny number of transactions per second at 7. The exponential nature of technology doesn't concern me when it comes to the processing power and storage requirements. What concerns me is how little it delivers for so much consumption. Meanwhile NXT which is an early 2.0  is over there featuring 100tps right now and eyeing 1000tps. SPV nodes don't really offset this either.

I wrote a whitepaper back in May describing a simple solution to this problem that also has the advantage of providing instant acceptance of transactions. One nomadic mint agent creates the new blocks on a non-branching blockchain. Peers verify the result and copy new blocks to their own copies of the canonical blockchain. A single writer to the immutable blockchain should be very fast. Full nodes share the block rewards without proof-of-work mining effort. Fewer than one hundred lines of code are modified in Bitcoin Core, provided that suitable software agents operate the distributed network.

All core devs I speak to are skeptical, but some encourage my project anyway to see if there is a better way than Satoshi's proof-of-work.

Sounds interesting. Could I have a link to the whitepaper?

[SlipperySlope]

Sounds interesting. Could I have a link to the whitepaper?

Whitepaper: Bitcoin Cooperative Proof-of-Stake Stephen Reed

Note that the May 2013 whitepaper above describes a hard fork of bitcoin. That cannot possibly happen unless TexaiCoin is successful and subsequently convinces the Bitcoin community that a good alternative exists for the current industrial mining method. Furthermore, the current approach is not proof-of-stake. Now the block rewards are used to pay for network infrastructure, developers and community support, e. g. through institutions such as the Bitcoin Foundation.

I will briefly speak, describing my approach, at the Hashers United Conference in Las Vegas next month on the mining algorithms panel.

[sidhujag]

Sounds interesting. Could I have a link to the whitepaper?

Whitepaper: Bitcoin Cooperative Proof-of-Stake Stephen Reed

Note that the May 2013 whitepaper above describes a hard fork of bitcoin. That cannot possibly happen unless TexaiCoin is successful and subsequently convinces the Bitcoin community that a good alternative exists for the current industrial mining method. Furthermore, the current approach is not proof-of-stake. Now the block rewards are used to pay for network infrastructure, developers and community support, e. g. through institutions such as the Bitcoin Foundation.

I will briefly speak, describing my approach, at the Hashers United Conference in Las Vegas next month on the mining algorithms panel.

You should take to Larimer about DPOS and maybe you can gain insight on a non proof of stake approach working in the field.. or maybe he can learn some things from your approach.. he is keynote on day 3 i believe

[SlipperySlope]

Sounds interesting. Could I have a link to the whitepaper?

Whitepaper: Bitcoin Cooperative Proof-of-Stake Stephen Reed

Note that the May 2013 whitepaper above describes a hard fork of bitcoin. That cannot possibly happen unless TexaiCoin is successful and subsequently convinces the Bitcoin community that a good alternative exists for the current industrial mining method. Furthermore, the current approach is not proof-of-stake. Now the block rewards are used to pay for network infrastructure, developers and community support, e. g. through institutions such as the Bitcoin Foundation.

I will briefly speak, describing my approach, at the Hashers United Conference in Las Vegas next month on the mining algorithms panel.

You should take to Larimer about DPOS and maybe you can gain insight on a non proof of stake approach working in the field.. or maybe he can learn some things from your approach.. he is keynote on day 3 i believe

I was not aware that Dan will be at this conference. Awesome. Good that the conference organizers are reaching out to altcoins and treating cryptocurrency infrastructure provisioning and operation as an industry segment, e.g. at current prices, bitcoin mining revenue is $1.7 million daily.

I shared ideas with Dan a few months ago and look forward to meeting him in person as well as Charlie Lee (Litecoin), Phil Mayer (Mastercoin), Poramin Insom (Vertcoin) and Vitalik Buterin (Ethereum).

[prophetx]

Lots of "Quality TA" going on in this thread the last few pages  

btw you ought to be proud that this thread ranks #1 for "Quality TA" (use incognito)

https://www.google.com/search?q=quality+TA

[blatchcorn]

Lots of "Quality TA" going on in this thread the last few pages  

btw you ought to be proud that this thread ranks #1 for "Quality TA" (use incognito)

https://www.google.com/search?q=quality+TA

Incognito still uses your history to tailor search results.  It simply just does not record any more history. Having said that, using a fresh browser and this thread is #1 for that key phrase 

[BitThink]

Apple adopting Bitcoin isn't even remotely likely. Simply put, it is impossible that Apple will adopt Bitcoin.

The term adoption when used in relation to Bitcoin is consistently misused. When merchants use a service that accepts Bitcoin from holders and converts it into fiat for themselves, they are not adopting Bitcoin. They are exploiting the popularity of the term and converting BTC into fiat. This is not a case of merchants helping Bitcoin but a case of Bitcoin helping merchants. Equally, overall fiat conversion into Bitcoin isn't increasing but decreasing.

Bitcoin is being stress tested and the question isn't which load will make it move faster but which push will make the load lighter. And I see no discussion regarding real Bitcoin development. NXT, Ethereum, Exocoin, NEM and maybe even to a certain degree Monero and Emunie are where development, not armchair discussions about development, is happening.

It is impossible to know which child will grow to be the greatest adult though even if we knew, we still would be left with a definition of great that may be incorrect.
Bitcoin has hit adulthood and is great but it is very limited. Trying to change the definition of 'great' only helps with making it impossible to call Bitcoin great without doing a single bit of work toward making it greater.

Actually I would say BitsharesX is probably better than any other competitor to bitcoin that you have listed there.. its got alot of things going for it and I think it would tag along with bitcoin for a while as bitcoin would be used as a currency and bitshares used for well, everything else including anything that shares are issued for (stocks, bonds, any assets(voting, music, dns)).. NXT tries to do the same thing but doesn't do it quite aswell.. and the other ones I dont think are even close (yet). I think the winner will be the ones that will complement bitcoin not replace it.

The winner is never defined as the one who complements number 1. To be the winner a cryptocurrency has to necessarily replace Bitcoin.

The most basic reason why Bitcoin cannot and will not persist long term is that it requires large processing power as well as storage capacity but offers a tiny number of transactions per second at 7. The exponential nature of technology doesn't concern me when it comes to the processing power and storage requirements. What concerns me is how little it delivers for so much consumption. Meanwhile NXT which is an early 2.0  is over there featuring 100tps right now and eyeing 1000tps. SPV nodes don't really offset this either.

Another reason that comes to mind is the fact that satoshi and at least whoever has gox stolen coins holds hundreds of thousands of BTC. So much for not trusting FIAT and going to BTC because it is 'decentralized' as the useful idiots keep repeating. FIAT is magnitudes more decentralized than Bitcoin as it is currently distributed.

I understand that Bitcoin could be changed to handle more but that increase will cause a proportional increase in processing power and storage requirements which means it will keep being really slow.

I think you misunderstand what "decentralized" mean. It has nothing to do with the distribution but who issue the coin, who record and verify the transaction.

[User705]

Have you looked at the current "decentralization" of those who record transactions?  Half a dozen pools record the vast majority of all transactions.  And that assumes those pools aren't owned/controlled by same entities.