Bitcoin Forum
December 06, 2016, 04:18:30 PM *
News: To be able to use the next phase of the beta forum software, please ensure that your email address is correct/functional.
 
   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 ... 1009 1010 1011 1012 1013 1014 1015 1016 1017 1018 1019 1020 1021 1022 1023 1024 1025 1026 1027 1028 1029 1030 1031 1032 1033 1034 1035 1036 1037 1038 1039 1040 1041 1042 1043 1044 1045 1046 1047 1048 1049 1050 1051 1052 1053 1054 1055 1056 1057 1058 [1059] 1060 1061 1062 1063 1064 1065 1066 1067 1068 1069 1070 1071 1072 1073 1074 1075 1076 1077 1078 1079 1080 1081 1082 1083 1084 1085 1086 1087 1088 1089 1090 1091 1092 1093 1094 1095 1096 1097 1098 1099 1100 1101 1102 1103 1104 1105 1106 1107 1108 1109 ... 1560 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.  (Read 1805115 times)
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
February 09, 2015, 08:26:24 PM
 #21161

i love this chart.  can't get enough of it.  it's a record after all.  down 99.83% from its 2007 high.  how low can it go?  dead, dead, and deader:

1481041110
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481041110

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481041110
Reply with quote  #2

1481041110
Report to moderator
1481041110
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481041110

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481041110
Reply with quote  #2

1481041110
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1481041110
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481041110

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481041110
Reply with quote  #2

1481041110
Report to moderator
1481041110
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481041110

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481041110
Reply with quote  #2

1481041110
Report to moderator
1481041110
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481041110

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481041110
Reply with quote  #2

1481041110
Report to moderator
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
February 09, 2015, 08:42:55 PM
 #21162

Melbustus
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1554



View Profile
February 09, 2015, 08:51:39 PM
 #21163




Looks like a chart of 99% of alt-coins.

Bitcoin is the first monetary system to credibly offer perfect information to all economic participants.
But Bitcointalk & /r/bitcoin are heavily censored. bitco.in/forum, forum.bitcoin.com, and /r/btc are open.
Best info on Casascius coins: http://spotcoins.com/casascius
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
February 09, 2015, 08:58:53 PM
 #21164

Bitcoin volatility?  pfffft:

rocks
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1153


View Profile
February 09, 2015, 09:01:03 PM
 #21165

...
 so it is probably in the 'good enough' category.  It is not in the 'safe' category (though Andreas A. disagrees with me on this).

That is a great way to put it. It also highlights that people's views on bitcoin largely depend upon their risk aversion preferences and/or what they view as risky. Someone who views maintaining a fixed dollar amount as low risk and their primary goal, will likely see negatives to bitcoin since it's not "safe" (i.e. 100% guaranteed), while someone who views the value of a fixed dollar amount as itself being risky, will likely  see value to the project since it is "good enough".
justusranvier
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1400



View Profile WWW
February 09, 2015, 09:08:04 PM
 #21166

If there exist entities that both care about Bitcoin and want to end it (and have sufficient motivation and resources)
...then they will succeed, and there's no technological solution we can implement that will stop them.

There is no substitute for growth as a defence against such attackers.
Pruden
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 457

Sirius Iberia - Nos tomamos el Bitcoin en serio


View Profile
February 09, 2015, 10:38:55 PM
 #21167

Dow rolling again.  -100.

desperately trying to stay up.
Volume was very low, what is your idea of desperation?
The trend is UP!

sidhujag
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 1288


View Profile
February 09, 2015, 10:48:12 PM
 #21168

Im gonna give that to a coworker who is a conspiracy theorist yet pessimistic about bitcoin.. He always asks who controls bitcoin and never satsified as a fork can cause a large loss to his investment.. Thus labels it a ponzi scheme aimed at luring in small fish

He will panic-buy at much higher prices.
His pessismistic attitude is worrying as im sure he thinks hes right just like most of the other engineers i know. I told him last year and i remind him again.. The day you buy is the day i sellout
Melbustus
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1554



View Profile
February 09, 2015, 11:28:19 PM
 #21169

If there exist entities that both care about Bitcoin and want to end it (and have sufficient motivation and resources)
...then they will succeed, and there's no technological solution we can implement that will stop them.

There is no substitute for growth as a defence against such attackers.

+1

Bitcoin is the first monetary system to credibly offer perfect information to all economic participants.
But Bitcointalk & /r/bitcoin are heavily censored. bitco.in/forum, forum.bitcoin.com, and /r/btc are open.
Best info on Casascius coins: http://spotcoins.com/casascius
smooth
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1246



View Profile
February 10, 2015, 12:07:28 AM
 #21170

If there exist entities that both care about Bitcoin and want to end it (and have sufficient motivation and resources)
...then they will succeed, and there's no technological solution we can implement that will stop them.

There is no substitute for growth as a defence against such attackers.

That's an interesting line of reasoning.

It suggests that Bitcoin can only succeed if no such attackers exist.


justusranvier
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1400



View Profile WWW
February 10, 2015, 12:08:23 AM
 #21171

That's an interesting line of reasoning.

It suggests that Bitcoin can only succeed if no such attackers exist.
Bitcoin can only succeed by growing larger than all attackers.
smooth
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1246



View Profile
February 10, 2015, 12:16:16 AM
 #21172

That's an interesting line of reasoning.

It suggests that Bitcoin can only succeed if no such attackers exist.
Bitcoin can only succeed by growing larger than all attackers.

"Growing" implies a stage of being smaller, at which point such attackers can and will destroy it. How can anything grow if it is already destroyed?

Melbustus
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1554



View Profile
February 10, 2015, 12:44:05 AM
 #21173

That's an interesting line of reasoning.

It suggests that Bitcoin can only succeed if no such attackers exist.
Bitcoin can only succeed by growing larger than all attackers.

"Growing" implies a stage of being smaller, at which point such attackers can and will destroy it. How can anything grow if it is already destroyed?




Kinda the unlikely miracle of Bitcoin's current size, perhaps. This is partly why Wences Casares, for example, likes to assert that it's much less likely for Bitcoin to have gotten from 0 to where it is today, than for it to get to 1B users from where we are now.

Bitcoin is the first monetary system to credibly offer perfect information to all economic participants.
But Bitcointalk & /r/bitcoin are heavily censored. bitco.in/forum, forum.bitcoin.com, and /r/btc are open.
Best info on Casascius coins: http://spotcoins.com/casascius
Melbustus
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1554



View Profile
February 10, 2015, 12:51:54 AM
 #21174

That's an interesting line of reasoning.

It suggests that Bitcoin can only succeed if no such attackers exist.
Bitcoin can only succeed by growing larger than all attackers.


Maybe you and Peter Todd need to get in a room:

"Nifty paper proving what we knew already: w/o a blocksize limit there's no PoW security -> death of Bitcoin." http://t.co/VPsgVkdzj9
(https://twitter.com/petertoddbtc/status/564934207487897601?s=03)

Since his tweet misrepresents what the paper says, it seems to me that he's irrationally entrenched in his opinion.

Bitcoin is the first monetary system to credibly offer perfect information to all economic participants.
But Bitcointalk & /r/bitcoin are heavily censored. bitco.in/forum, forum.bitcoin.com, and /r/btc are open.
Best info on Casascius coins: http://spotcoins.com/casascius
smooth
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1246



View Profile
February 10, 2015, 12:53:52 AM
 #21175

That's an interesting line of reasoning.

It suggests that Bitcoin can only succeed if no such attackers exist.
Bitcoin can only succeed by growing larger than all attackers.

"Growing" implies a stage of being smaller, at which point such attackers can and will destroy it. How can anything grow if it is already destroyed?



Kinda the unlikely miracle of Bitcoin's current size, perhaps.

Bitcoin is already too large for "entities that both care about Bitcoin and want to end it (and have sufficient motivation and resources)" to destroy it?
Melbustus
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1554



View Profile
February 10, 2015, 01:00:06 AM
 #21176

That's an interesting line of reasoning.

It suggests that Bitcoin can only succeed if no such attackers exist.
Bitcoin can only succeed by growing larger than all attackers.

"Growing" implies a stage of being smaller, at which point such attackers can and will destroy it. How can anything grow if it is already destroyed?



Kinda the unlikely miracle of Bitcoin's current size, perhaps.

Bitcoin is already too large for "entities that both care about Bitcoin and want to end it (and have sufficient motivation and resources)" to destroy it?


No, but it's not easy anymore. And we're not that far off a technical attack being feasible only for highly motivated nation-states....which, as JR points out, seems like a bad choice of attack vector for a motivated sovereign, given the legal and regulatory tools available to them.

Bitcoin is the first monetary system to credibly offer perfect information to all economic participants.
But Bitcointalk & /r/bitcoin are heavily censored. bitco.in/forum, forum.bitcoin.com, and /r/btc are open.
Best info on Casascius coins: http://spotcoins.com/casascius
smooth
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1246



View Profile
February 10, 2015, 01:09:37 AM
 #21177

That's an interesting line of reasoning.

It suggests that Bitcoin can only succeed if no such attackers exist.
Bitcoin can only succeed by growing larger than all attackers.

"Growing" implies a stage of being smaller, at which point such attackers can and will destroy it. How can anything grow if it is already destroyed?



Kinda the unlikely miracle of Bitcoin's current size, perhaps.

Bitcoin is already too large for "entities that both care about Bitcoin and want to end it (and have sufficient motivation and resources)" to destroy it?


No, but it's not easy anymore. And we're not that far off a technical attack being feasible only for highly motivated nation-states....which, as JR points out, seems like a bad choice of attack vector for a motivated sovereign, given the legal and regulatory tools available to them.

Yes legal and regulatory strangulation seem more obvious methods both in theory and practice, but that still doesn't answer the question of how it can ever grow to be too large to attack if adversaries want to end it while it's small enough to successful attack (by whatever method), and have the ability to do so.

JR's arguments seem to lead to the logical conclusion that Bitcoin can't succeed.

solex
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1078


100 satoshis -> ISO code


View Profile
February 10, 2015, 01:33:17 AM
 #21178

That's an interesting line of reasoning.

It suggests that Bitcoin can only succeed if no such attackers exist.
Bitcoin can only succeed by growing larger than all attackers.


Maybe you and Peter Todd need to get in a room:

"Nifty paper proving what we knew already: w/o a blocksize limit there's no PoW security -> death of Bitcoin." http://t.co/VPsgVkdzj9
(https://twitter.com/petertoddbtc/status/564934207487897601?s=03)

Since his tweet misrepresents what the paper says, it seems to me that he's irrationally entrenched in his opinion.

Yep. It is another downside of problems like this remaining unresolved for so long. As the debate continues people do become entrenched when they have have invested so much time and mental energy in their position. They have to admit to themselves that they wasted a lot of effort, if they reverse their view. This is further "cemented" once they go public and stake their reputation on an entrenched position. Peter did this with his video, and Mircea has done it on his blog in front of all his followers.

I have still not seen any reasonable argument why Bitcoin can't be allowed to scale at the rate of the slowest improving computing technology that it uses:  (bandwidth, at present).

rocks
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1153


View Profile
February 10, 2015, 01:48:18 AM
 #21179

That's an interesting line of reasoning.

It suggests that Bitcoin can only succeed if no such attackers exist.
Bitcoin can only succeed by growing larger than all attackers.

"Growing" implies a stage of being smaller, at which point such attackers can and will destroy it. How can anything grow if it is already destroyed?




Kinda the unlikely miracle of Bitcoin's current size, perhaps. This is partly why Wences Casares, for example, likes to assert that it's much less likely for Bitcoin to have gotten from 0 to where it is today, than for it to get to 1B users from where we are now.

Haven't heard that before, but completely agree with the sentiment. It is also explains the 2011 bubble, which represented almost a 1000x increase in valuation. The reason was bitcoin crossed from being a small project among a few people (i.e. 0) to being a stand alone entity, this was a massive transition and validation of the platform.
justusranvier
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1400



View Profile WWW
February 10, 2015, 01:49:02 AM
 #21180

That's an interesting line of reasoning.

It suggests that Bitcoin can only succeed if no such attackers exist.
Bitcoin can only succeed by growing larger than all attackers.

"Growing" implies a stage of being smaller, at which point such attackers can and will destroy it. How can anything grow if it is already destroyed?


I thought I already answered that.

http://bitcoinism.liberty.me/2015/02/09/economic-fallacies-and-the-block-size-limit-part-2-price-discovery/

Quote
The good news is that the largest and most dangerous attackers tend to be slow (compared to the pace of software development) to believe that a threat exists, decide on the correct response to neutralize the threat, and effectively execute the response.

The bad news is that Bitcoin’s inherent speed advantage is diluted by people who oppose growth based on the mistaken belief that smallness is an effective defense.
Pages: « 1 ... 1009 1010 1011 1012 1013 1014 1015 1016 1017 1018 1019 1020 1021 1022 1023 1024 1025 1026 1027 1028 1029 1030 1031 1032 1033 1034 1035 1036 1037 1038 1039 1040 1041 1042 1043 1044 1045 1046 1047 1048 1049 1050 1051 1052 1053 1054 1055 1056 1057 1058 [1059] 1060 1061 1062 1063 1064 1065 1066 1067 1068 1069 1070 1071 1072 1073 1074 1075 1076 1077 1078 1079 1080 1081 1082 1083 1084 1085 1086 1087 1088 1089 1090 1091 1092 1093 1094 1095 1096 1097 1098 1099 1100 1101 1102 1103 1104 1105 1106 1107 1108 1109 ... 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!