Bitcoin Forum
November 20, 2017, 02:07:03 PM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.15.1  [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 ... 1279 1280 1281 1282 1283 1284 1285 1286 1287 1288 1289 1290 1291 1292 1293 1294 1295 1296 1297 1298 1299 1300 1301 1302 1303 1304 1305 1306 1307 1308 1309 1310 1311 1312 1313 1314 1315 1316 1317 1318 1319 1320 1321 1322 1323 1324 1325 1326 1327 1328 [1329] 1330 1331 1332 1333 1334 1335 1336 1337 1338 1339 1340 1341 1342 1343 1344 1345 1346 1347 1348 1349 1350 1351 1352 1353 1354 1355 1356 1357 1358 1359 1360 1361 1362 1363 1364 1365 1366 1367 1368 1369 1370 1371 1372 1373 1374 1375 1376 1377 1378 1379 ... 1558 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.  (Read 2010033 times)
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
June 16, 2015, 02:50:35 PM
 #26561

check out of the gold collapse

I told you all upthread there would likely be a bounce this June in both gold and BTC but the final lows are still coming.

I continue (via Armstrong) to predict every price move. Yet I (and he) get no acknowledgement.

What a shame! The feet of the prophets are to be kissed!

Has it ever been any different?

What you have to remember about this thread is that if all the egos were laid end to end....


...no-one would be in the least bit surprised.

TRUE. One huge egotrip in this thread. It should be locked and forgotten about.
But BTC is dropping and gold will climb, so at the very least it should have it's title changed.


sorry, Gold collapsing, Bitcoin UP.
1511186823
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1511186823

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1511186823
Reply with quote  #2

1511186823
Report to moderator
1511186823
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1511186823

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1511186823
Reply with quote  #2

1511186823
Report to moderator
No Gods or Kings. Only Bitcoin
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1511186823
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1511186823

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1511186823
Reply with quote  #2

1511186823
Report to moderator
1511186823
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1511186823

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1511186823
Reply with quote  #2

1511186823
Report to moderator
1511186823
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1511186823

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1511186823
Reply with quote  #2

1511186823
Report to moderator
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
June 16, 2015, 02:51:11 PM
 #26562

I now see full-node count as a red herring; the number of full nodes is dropping because we don't need that many full nodes (see my arguments above).  There's a huge gap between running bitcoin on a raspberry pie and "only the Googles of the world will be able to run bitcoin."  According to all my analysis, we are so far away from bitcoin being runnable by "a few mega corporations," that the "don't-increase-the-blocksize-because-centralization-arguments" come across as hyperbole to me.  

You are forgetting propagation delay and the need for IBLT to deal with it, which is a paradigm which will eventually hand a winner-take-all to the entities that can handle Visa volume on the block chain.

I believe before the big boys throw their transactions at Bitcoin, they want to make sure the paradigm is in place for them to capture it. Coinbase, Circle, Paypal, etc its all primed and ready to go after IBLT is implemented or large enough block size to handle the scale they want to throw at Bitcoin and force IBLT.

Mike Hearn and the Foundation appears to be captured by those big boys (TPTB).

Blockstream is attempting a rear guard and trying to not give them so much headroom all at once.

Or you might have two factions of the TPTB competing (since the end result if the same for as long as PoW is not fixed).

In any case, I don't really care. It is a morass and needs to be replaced by something that remains truly decentralized long-term.

you do realize the Foundation has been defunct for months now?

Or so you were lead to believe.

And the Rothschilds and Rockefellers also divested all their wealth too.

P.S. I am fairly certain Cypherdoc is a mouthpiece for TPTB. I posit he was purposely compromised by the HashFast offer to maintain his allegiance. This is their usual modus operandi. This is evident by his public role and other factors such as his denial of the fact that Bitcoin core is heading towards a centralized end game.

i am in agreement to talk with you on video Skype.  what's your handle?

yoohoo, TPTB_need_war, yoohoo.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
June 16, 2015, 02:58:03 PM
 #26563

$DJI up a measly +38 while the $DJT down -73.

simply more divergence.  not good.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
June 16, 2015, 03:00:14 PM
 #26564

sickpig
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1218


View Profile
June 16, 2015, 03:00:31 PM
 #26565

http://www.8btc.com/blocksize-increase-2

Courtesy of google translator:

Quote
Beijing June 11, 2015, five Chinese mine pool jointly organized the "mine pool Technology Seminar" at the National Convention Center participating F2pool.com, BW.com, BTCChina, Huobi.com, Antpool.com five mine pool cell technology for ore-depth discussions and reached consensus on the expansion part of the block. They agreed that capacity is needed Bitcoin block size; in ensuring the premise of unified Bitcoin network intends in the next period of time to accept the size does not exceed 8MB (8,000,000Bytes) blocks.

edit: just found out there's already a thread in the speculation section https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1091170.0

Bitcoin is a participatory system which ought to respect the right of self determinism of all of its users - Gregory Maxwell.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
June 16, 2015, 03:01:21 PM
 #26566

I now see full-node count as a red herring; the number of full nodes is dropping because we don't need that many full nodes (see my arguments above).  There's a huge gap between running bitcoin on a raspberry pie and "only the Googles of the world will be able to run bitcoin."  According to all my analysis, we are so far away from bitcoin being runnable by "a few mega corporations," that the "don't-increase-the-blocksize-because-centralization-arguments" come across as hyperbole to me.  

You are forgetting propagation delay and the need for IBLT to deal with it, which is a paradigm which will eventually hand a winner-take-all to the entities that can handle Visa volume on the block chain.

I believe before the big boys throw their transactions at Bitcoin, they want to make sure the paradigm is in place for them to capture it. Coinbase, Circle, Paypal, etc its all primed and ready to go after IBLT is implemented or large enough block size to handle the scale they want to throw at Bitcoin and force IBLT.

Mike Hearn and the Foundation appears to be captured by those big boys (TPTB).

Blockstream is attempting a rear guard and trying to not give them so much headroom all at once.

Or you might have two factions of the TPTB competing (since the end result if the same for as long as PoW is not fixed).

In any case, I don't really care. It is a morass and needs to be replaced by something that remains truly decentralized long-term.

you do realize the Foundation has been defunct for months now?

Or so you were lead to believe.

And the Rothschilds and Rockefellers also divested all their wealth too.

P.S. I am fairly certain Cypherdoc is a mouthpiece for TPTB. I posit he was purposely compromised by the HashFast offer to maintain his allegiance. This is their usual modus operandi. This is evident by his public role and other factors such as his denial of the fact that Bitcoin core is heading towards a centralized end game.

i am in agreement to talk with you on video Skype.  what's your handle?

yoohoo, TPTB_need_war, yoohoo.

yoohoo, TPTB_need_war, yoohoo.

hooohoooohoooo.
Peter R
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1064



View Profile
June 16, 2015, 03:06:02 PM
 #26567

I now see full-node count as a red herring; the number of full nodes is dropping because we don't need that many full nodes (see my arguments above).  There's a huge gap between running bitcoin on a raspberry pie and "only the Googles of the world will be able to run bitcoin."  According to all my analysis, we are so far away from bitcoin being runnable by "a few mega corporations," that the "don't-increase-the-blocksize-because-centralization-arguments" come across as hyperbole to me.  

You are forgetting propagation delay and the need for IBLT to deal with it, which is a paradigm which will eventually hand a winner-take-all to the entities that can handle Visa volume on the block chain.

I believe before the big boys throw their transactions at Bitcoin, they want to make sure the paradigm is in place for them to capture it. Coinbase, Circle, Paypal, etc its all primed and ready to go after IBLT is implemented or large enough block size to handle the scale they want to throw at Bitcoin and force IBLT.

Mike Hearn and the Foundation appears to be captured by those big boys (TPTB).

Blockstream is attempting a rear guard and trying to not give them so much headroom all at once.

Or you might have two factions of the TPTB competing (since the end result if the same for as long as PoW is not fixed).

In any case, I don't really care. It is a morass and needs to be replaced by something that remains truly decentralized long-term.

you do realize the Foundation has been defunct for months now?

Or so you were lead to believe.

And the Rothschilds and Rockefellers also divested all their wealth too.

P.S. I am fairly certain Cypherdoc is a mouthpiece for TPTB. I posit he was purposely compromised by the HashFast offer to maintain his allegiance. This is their usual modus operandi. This is evident by his public role and other factors such as his denial of the fact that Bitcoin core is heading towards a centralized end game.

i am in agreement to talk with you on video Skype.  what's your handle?

yoohoo, TPTB_need_war, yoohoo.

yoohoo, TPTB_need_war, yoohoo.

hooohoooohoooo.

Lol I just realized that you probably can't run bitcoin on a raspberry pie  Cheesy


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

Activity: 1764



View Profile
June 16, 2015, 03:09:07 PM
 #26568

I now see full-node count as a red herring; the number of full nodes is dropping because we don't need that many full nodes (see my arguments above).  There's a huge gap between running bitcoin on a raspberry pie and "only the Googles of the world will be able to run bitcoin."  According to all my analysis, we are so far away from bitcoin being runnable by "a few mega corporations," that the "don't-increase-the-blocksize-because-centralization-arguments" come across as hyperbole to me.  

You are forgetting propagation delay and the need for IBLT to deal with it, which is a paradigm which will eventually hand a winner-take-all to the entities that can handle Visa volume on the block chain.

I believe before the big boys throw their transactions at Bitcoin, they want to make sure the paradigm is in place for them to capture it. Coinbase, Circle, Paypal, etc its all primed and ready to go after IBLT is implemented or large enough block size to handle the scale they want to throw at Bitcoin and force IBLT.

Mike Hearn and the Foundation appears to be captured by those big boys (TPTB).

Blockstream is attempting a rear guard and trying to not give them so much headroom all at once.

Or you might have two factions of the TPTB competing (since the end result if the same for as long as PoW is not fixed).

In any case, I don't really care. It is a morass and needs to be replaced by something that remains truly decentralized long-term.

you do realize the Foundation has been defunct for months now?

Or so you were lead to believe.

And the Rothschilds and Rockefellers also divested all their wealth too.

P.S. I am fairly certain Cypherdoc is a mouthpiece for TPTB. I posit he was purposely compromised by the HashFast offer to maintain his allegiance. This is their usual modus operandi. This is evident by his public role and other factors such as his denial of the fact that Bitcoin core is heading towards a centralized end game.

i am in agreement to talk with you on video Skype.  what's your handle?

yoohoo, TPTB_need_war, yoohoo.

yoohoo, TPTB_need_war, yoohoo.

hooohoooohoooo.

Lol I just realized that you probably can't run bitcoin on a raspberry pie  Cheesy



how many hoos can a yahoo like TPTB_need_war hoo?

answer:  zeroo
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
June 16, 2015, 03:17:59 PM
 #26569

wow, that shut his ass up quick didn't it?  Cheesy

anyone who shills so hard for Martin Armstrong so much, who writes so poorly as Martin Armstrong so much (probably using spellchecker and grammar check), and who argues against Bitcoin as Martin Armstrong so much, probably is Martin Armstrong.

of course i could be entirely wrong.  which is why i'm perfectly fine to video Skype with TPTB_need_war.
 
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
June 16, 2015, 03:23:57 PM
 #26570

wow, that shut his ass up quick didn't it?  Cheesy

anyone who shills so hard for Martin Armstrong so much, who writes so poorly as Martin Armstrong so much (probably using spellchecker and grammar check), and who argues against Bitcoin as Martin Armstrong so much, probably is Martin Armstrong.

of course i could be entirely wrong.  which is why i'm perfectly fine to video Skype with TPTB_need_war.
 

and, yahoo TPTB_need_war, if you are Martin Armstrong, don't you dare try to get a sit in for yahoo TPTB_need_war  because i will quiz that kid up the wazoo, you yahoo, on the massive content of what you've spammed in this thread which the poor kid would have no hope or understanding of that history.
illodin
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 966


View Profile
June 16, 2015, 03:29:08 PM
 #26571

Are you on the manic phase currently?

I thought you had him on ignore btw.  Roll Eyes
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
June 16, 2015, 03:30:41 PM
 #26572

Are you on the manic phase currently?

I thought you had him on ignore btw.  Roll Eyes

took him off obviously.

otoh, you should consider i have him trapped in a corner.  but i'm happy to be proven wrong.  all he has to do is video Skype.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
June 16, 2015, 03:33:34 PM
 #26573

Are you on the manic phase currently?

I thought you had him on ignore btw.  Roll Eyes

since you're so quick to defend him, defend his assertions that he was never going to return to this thread.  and how about his manic phase where he clogs up entire thread pages on end?
TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
June 16, 2015, 03:34:19 PM
 #26574

i have him trapped in a corner

Lol. Yes he does. That corner in his mind.

cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
June 16, 2015, 03:35:06 PM
 #26575

i have him trapped in a corner

Lol. Yes he does. That corner in his mind.

Skype address please  Roll Eyes
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
June 16, 2015, 03:43:14 PM
 #26576

Big Bitcoin breakout underway.
thezerg
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1246


View Profile
June 16, 2015, 03:47:44 PM
 #26577

Big Bitcoin breakout underway.

ok you've made me go to bitcoinity.  This had better be good... Cheesy

Edit: Big O notation is just a way to describe that the "order" of a function is less than that of another function, not counting the constant factor.

Typically used to describe CPU or memory complexity.  Painfully, people rarely identify the variables in their function or what complexity is being described.  So someone will say: "A bitcoin node scales as O(n)", but should really say "A bitcoin node's CPU use scales at O(t), where t = # of transactions, its disk use at O(b) where b = # of blocks, and memory use at O(u) where u = # of individual unspent accounts (UTXOs)"


EDIT2: ok, broke $250 (on all major exchanges) that IS good!
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
June 16, 2015, 03:49:44 PM
 #26578

we've broken over the top of resistance:

cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
June 16, 2015, 03:51:42 PM
 #26579

Long term MACD confirming:

cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
June 16, 2015, 03:56:31 PM
 #26580

Ouch, short squeeze up the ass. Cheesy
Pages: « 1 ... 1279 1280 1281 1282 1283 1284 1285 1286 1287 1288 1289 1290 1291 1292 1293 1294 1295 1296 1297 1298 1299 1300 1301 1302 1303 1304 1305 1306 1307 1308 1309 1310 1311 1312 1313 1314 1315 1316 1317 1318 1319 1320 1321 1322 1323 1324 1325 1326 1327 1328 [1329] 1330 1331 1332 1333 1334 1335 1336 1337 1338 1339 1340 1341 1342 1343 1344 1345 1346 1347 1348 1349 1350 1351 1352 1353 1354 1355 1356 1357 1358 1359 1360 1361 1362 1363 1364 1365 1366 1367 1368 1369 1370 1371 1372 1373 1374 1375 1376 1377 1378 1379 ... 1558 »
  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!