Bitcoin Forum
December 07, 2016, 08:35:05 PM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.13.1  [Torrent].
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Poll
Question: Will you support Gavin's new block size limit hard fork of 8MB by January 1, 2016 then doubling every 2 years?
1.  yes
2.  no

Pages: « 1 ... 559 560 561 562 563 564 565 566 567 568 569 570 571 572 573 574 575 576 577 578 579 580 581 582 583 584 585 586 587 588 589 590 591 592 593 594 595 596 597 598 599 600 601 602 603 604 605 606 607 608 [609] 610 611 612 613 614 615 616 617 618 619 620 621 622 623 624 625 626 627 628 629 630 631 632 633 634 635 636 637 638 639 640 641 642 643 644 645 646 647 648 649 650 651 652 653 654 655 656 657 658 659 ... 1560 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.  (Read 1805677 times)
STT
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1204



View Profile WWW
September 16, 2014, 04:50:21 PM
 #12161

Bitcoin is going down.

Gold is not fallling.

Upside down world.

Nasty ass reversal:


It shouldnt correlate on a daily basis anyway.  Its a basic technical analysis rule that the longer time frames are more accurate and easier to predict then one off occurances like daily trading.   The minimum really is weekly bars due to the weekend forcing day traders to flush their positions (every short is a buy eventually Tongue)  Obviously there are bigger fisher and most options are quarterly but I take weekly as minimum for proper comparison personally

Quote
Cue the integrated asic mining chip in personal computers as some premium feature.

Shouldnt we expect a distributed network to eventually become commonplace not a tendency towards specialisation as bitcoin mining has currently lent towards

1481142905
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481142905

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481142905
Reply with quote  #2

1481142905
Report to moderator
1481142905
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481142905

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481142905
Reply with quote  #2

1481142905
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1481142905
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481142905

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481142905
Reply with quote  #2

1481142905
Report to moderator
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
September 16, 2014, 04:57:31 PM
 #12162

You are so full of FUD.

I am leaving this thread then. Please stay in your blissful ignorance.

you ditch out after the most important question of all?  i'll ask again given that gvt's are the fundamental unit of organization that has the ability to point a gun at mining centers:

"so which gvt are you talking about? The US? China? Russia? Or all of them together since they all seem to get along so well?"
Peter R
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 938



View Profile
September 16, 2014, 04:58:57 PM
 #12163

once the chip set size becomes standardized, at least for a while, the prices for miners should come down.
Exactly.  Once they stop pushing to newer processes, they quit spending huge development effort on each run and just start rolling out the proven design.  Marginal cost on just the chip should be around $5, but with the first few generations, they had to pay for development costs in one run.

And once those chips become commodities, there will be very little advantage of "vertical integration" in the style of BitFury/GHash.io.  This will open the door to smaller mining hardware companies, because competition will move away the ASIC design and towards less capital-intensive system design and supply-chain management.  Cypher's Nash equilibrium will be equilibrating for a while still….

Run Bitcoin Unlimited (www.bitcoinunlimited.info)
devphp
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 336


View Profile
September 16, 2014, 05:00:47 PM
 #12164

You are so full of FUD.

I am leaving this thread then. Please stay in your blissful ignorance.

you ditch out after the most important question of all?  i'll ask again given that gvt's are the fundamental unit of organization that has the ability to point a gun at mining centers:

"so which gvt are you talking about? The US? China? Russia? Or all of them together since they all seem to get along so well?"

Any and all of them can do it, separately or together. Bitcoin is a threat to them all, they could agree on this single point, I don't see why they would not. Not immediately, because it's not a threat yet, also they could wait till it gets even more centralized, which is inevitable, that will make it an easier target.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
September 16, 2014, 05:07:48 PM
 #12165

You are so full of FUD.

I am leaving this thread then. Please stay in your blissful ignorance.

you ditch out after the most important question of all?  i'll ask again given that gvt's are the fundamental unit of organization that has the ability to point a gun at mining centers:

"so which gvt are you talking about? The US? China? Russia? Or all of them together since they all seem to get along so well?"

Any and all of them can do it, separately or together. Bitcoin is a threat to them all, they could agree on this single point, I don't see why they would not. Not immediately, because it's not a threat yet, also they could wait till it gets even more centralized, which is inevitable, that will make it an easier target.

your arguments are basically a never ending series of buts; but, but, but...

at some pt you have to make an assessment of what is likely and plausible.
STT
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1204



View Profile WWW
September 16, 2014, 05:11:54 PM
 #12166

That argument can apply to the internet itself.  Its decentralised but easy to argue it can be attacked, it is on a daily basis by various collectives ?    Does it fail easily, or would BTC collapse;  I think in both cases it would reform and redistribute more thinly, processing times would suffer and difficulty would have to change

Peter R
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 938



View Profile
September 16, 2014, 05:12:39 PM
 #12167

I personally think bitshares x has a better product than nxt with a truly decentralized AND collateralized market.  I believe this achievement is being overlooked because this is the first time in human history that any asset on earth can be traded with actual collateral backing up the trade (btsx) and enforced automatically by an algorithm instead of people.  This is NOT an IOU for an asset, which has been the only option in markets until now.  Also, the DPOS model will be great if it stands the test of time because of the 10s confirmation times. 

Bitcoin and nxt have both been tested with bailouts/qe/inflation with Mt gox and bter repectively and both have passed the test.  The question remains; is work truly required to give a money it's value?  This is more of a socionomic question and a bit harder to predict but I don't think so.  I believe we will see 3 to 5 dominant chains emerge with Bitcoin being the primary POW, or digital gold.  Other chains will provide other uses but their associated currencies will act as money in many cases.  The alternative is for Bitcoin to survive as the sole form of money with open transactions, side chains, or some type of m of n oracle system to provide collateralized markets with Bitcoin being collateral. 

Is not the alternative (bolded) more likely?  Is this a true statement?:

   The features of any appcoin can be emulated by a m-of-n oracles system that uses tokens pegged to bitcoin as fuel.  

If that is true, I don't see why, should some useful "app" actually emerge, that the equivalent systems that use bitcoin wouldn't outcompete the appcoins that use proprietary tokens.  Which, like Cypher said, suggests that the value of these proprietary tokens should trend to zero.  

Run Bitcoin Unlimited (www.bitcoinunlimited.info)
devphp
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 336


View Profile
September 16, 2014, 05:17:37 PM
 #12168

at some pt you have to make an assessment of what is likely and plausible.

I only post what I think is very plausible and put my money where my mouth is.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
September 16, 2014, 05:22:05 PM
 #12169

That argument can apply to the internet itself.  

this is the argument.  

i've always argued that the internet has been built to handle a nuclear blast wiping out a significant part of the country.  it will route around that kind of damage.  the worse case scenario is for the US to block the internet here to stop Bitcoin to defend the USD's world reserve status.  even in that unlikely event, Bitcoin should be able to route around the damage via other countries.  let's see how the banking system fairs with that.

we know that China and Russia are doing what they can to undermine the USD.  they've headed towards gold as their strategy.  for all the arguments i've made since Gold: I smell a trap, i doubt that will work.  point being, cooperation with the US to block Bitcoin seems very unlikely.  as long as a few countries accept it, Bitcoin should survive.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
September 16, 2014, 05:25:17 PM
 #12170

here's a counter 51% argument from someone i respect very much, sgornick:

http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/2gjkpv/is_this_the_reason_the_bitcoin_price_is_not/ckjs5l6
FNG
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 588


View Profile
September 16, 2014, 05:25:21 PM
 #12171



we know that China and Russia are doing what they can to undermine the USD.  

Hedge against it's certain death

cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
September 16, 2014, 05:35:27 PM
 #12172

oh my:

https://twitter.com/jgarzik/status/511928969000943616
vuduchyld
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 364


View Profile
September 16, 2014, 05:39:35 PM
 #12173


Anybody care to translate to third-gradeese so even I can understand the significance?
devphp
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 336


View Profile
September 16, 2014, 05:41:17 PM
 #12174


Anybody care to translate to third-gradeese so even I can understand the significance?

Hashes don't have to match. Jeff just found that out with first-hand experience Grin
It'll be curious to find out what further research by Jeff reveals Smiley
https://twitter.com/jgarzik/status/511930314977853442
Hunyadi
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1199


☑ ♟ ☐ ♚


View Profile
September 16, 2014, 06:01:57 PM
 #12175


   The features of any appcoin can be emulated by a m-of-n oracles system that uses tokens pegged to bitcoin as fuel.  

If that is true, I don't see why, should some useful "app" actually emerge, that the equivalent systems that use bitcoin wouldn't outcompete the appcoins that use proprietary tokens.  Which, like Cypher said, suggests that the value of these proprietary tokens should trend to zero.  

We have already this kind of situation. IMO anoncoins (drk, xmr, xc, bbr, etc.) are kind of pointless, because bitcoin + Darkwallet does everything, anoncoins offer, better.

▂▃▅▇█▓▒░BTC-Cultist░▒▓█▇▅▃▂
kodtycoon
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 770


View Profile
September 16, 2014, 06:11:17 PM
 #12176


Anybody care to translate to third-gradeese so even I can understand the significance?

Hashes don't have to match. Jeff just found that out with first-hand experience Grin
It'll be curious to find out what further research by Jeff reveals Smiley
https://twitter.com/jgarzik/status/511930314977853442

CFB's long reply... putting jeff to shame..

https://nxtforum.org/general-discussion/a-longer-reply-to-jeff-garzik/msg102488/#msg102488

"Pioneering a revolutionary novel consensus mechanism called proof of importance."
Peter R
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 938



View Profile
September 16, 2014, 06:21:30 PM
 #12177


Who needs soap operas.  Can't wait for the movie.

Run Bitcoin Unlimited (www.bitcoinunlimited.info)
domob
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 936


View Profile WWW
September 16, 2014, 06:31:48 PM
 #12178


Except that it contains the same bullshit "Java bytecode is sourcecode" thing and dodges the calls for deterministic builds and secure procedures once more without really giving arguments as to why this is not done.  (Except that "it is not necessary, trust us or decompile the code", which completely misses the point.)

Use your Namecoin identity as OpenID: https://nameid.org/
Donations: 1domobKsPZ5cWk2kXssD8p8ES1qffGUCm | NMC: NCdomobcmcmVdxC5yxMitojQ4tvAtv99pY
BM-GtQnWM3vcdorfqpKXsmfHQ4rVYPG5pKS | GPG 0xA7330737
_mr_e
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 815



View Profile
September 16, 2014, 06:33:54 PM
 #12179

Well at least there is an actual explanation as to why this is not possible with java: https://nxtforum.org/index.php?topic=5388.msg102789#msg102789

Try this:

Download and unzip nxt-client-1.2.8.zip.

cd nxt
jar xvf nxt.jar
mv nxt nxt-orig
rm -f nxt.jar
./compile.sh
jar xvf nxt.jar
diff -r nxt nxt-orig

If you don't see a difference, this means the class files contained in the nxt.jar file included in the nxt-client-1.2.8.zip package (now under nxt-orig) are exactly the same as those produced when compiling the jar file yourself, under nxt.

The reason for non-reproducible builds is that the jar packaging tool includes time dependent information in the jar archive, which depends not only on the timestamps of the class files being packaged but the time the package is built too.

Different javac compilers and on different platforms may also result in different class files.
I am using the 64-bit Oracle JDK for Linux, my current javac version is:

$ javac -version
javac 1.7.0_67
tvbcof
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 1988


View Profile
September 16, 2014, 06:40:02 PM
 #12180


I saw nothing especially shameful.  For my part, if I cannot compile the compiler I'm not happy in this day and age.  It's cumbersome and barely worked with JDK last time I tried it, and the thing is so bloated that I have very limited confidence that the kinds of issue which would concern me would be spotted in code.  Last time I put JDK on my throw-away Windows machine it caused so much weirdness that I re-installed the OS itself.  And again, this was my throw-away machine!


Pages: « 1 ... 559 560 561 562 563 564 565 566 567 568 569 570 571 572 573 574 575 576 577 578 579 580 581 582 583 584 585 586 587 588 589 590 591 592 593 594 595 596 597 598 599 600 601 602 603 604 605 606 607 608 [609] 610 611 612 613 614 615 616 617 618 619 620 621 622 623 624 625 626 627 628 629 630 631 632 633 634 635 636 637 638 639 640 641 642 643 644 645 646 647 648 649 650 651 652 653 654 655 656 657 658 659 ... 1560 »
  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!