Bitcoin Forum
November 25, 2017, 12:16:41 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 ... 1363 1364 1365 1366 1367 1368 1369 1370 1371 1372 1373 1374 1375 1376 1377 1378 1379 1380 1381 1382 1383 1384 1385 1386 1387 1388 1389 1390 1391 1392 1393 1394 1395 1396 1397 1398 1399 1400 1401 1402 1403 1404 1405 1406 1407 1408 1409 1410 1411 1412 [1413] 1414 1415 1416 1417 1418 1419 1420 1421 1422 1423 1424 1425 1426 1427 1428 1429 1430 1431 1432 1433 1434 1435 1436 1437 1438 1439 1440 1441 1442 1443 1444 1445 1446 1447 1448 1449 1450 1451 1452 1453 1454 1455 1456 1457 1458 1459 1460 1461 1462 1463 ... 1558 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.  (Read 2014256 times)
tvbcof
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2324


View Profile
July 06, 2015, 04:52:31 PM
 #28241

...
3. How is it that 1MB just "happened" to be the magic number at which blocks are deemed to be "large" ?
...
3.  Time to verify (via CPU-hard although parallelizable ECDSA) incoming block's tx is already (absent clusters of 48-core Xeons) problematic at sizes near 1MB, hence use of the subjective descriptor "large" and your conflation of that term with "full."

Whether 1MB is ideal or not, it's what we have.  It's pretty evident that Bitcoin would be lucky to avoid annihilation on attempts to change it in any way at this point in time.  That may or may not be the case in the future.

As it happens, 1MB seemed to have been at least quite fortuitous for us, and I wonder if it were not somewhat well considered when Satoshi made the setting as opposed to the perception promulgated by some that he pulled a random number out his ass.

 - It is/was just under the realistic limits needed to run the network behind TOR.

 - It got us all the way into mid 2015 before it became much of a stressor at all.  Had it been smaller, interest in Bitcoin may have died while at the current interest levels it is more likely that significant efforts will be made to solve any necessary engineering efforts rather than to walk away.

 - Even now that touching transaction rate limitations is within sight, the transaction body is chalk full of freeloaders who do nothing worthwhile for network support (e.g., Multibitch users) and there is much room to grow by simply allowing these users to drain away as a transaction fee market develops.

 - It looks like for some time the entire blockchain will fit on a MicroSD meaning that new nodes can be brought up with nodes which are modest in expense and a concealable bit of physical media.  There is an easily calculable and reasonable ceiling on the power and bandwidth necessary to operate this support infrastructure, and it is low enough in value that most operators can walk away from their investment if there were pressures applied from the mainstream legal and law enforcement world.

In retrospect, 1MB seems like a pretty ideal setting for the past history of Bitcoin and some distance into the future.  To me.


1511612201
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1511612201

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1511612201
Reply with quote  #2

1511612201
Report to moderator
1511612201
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1511612201

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1511612201
Reply with quote  #2

1511612201
Report to moderator
1511612201
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1511612201

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1511612201
Reply with quote  #2

1511612201
Report to moderator
Join ICO Now A blockchain platform for effective freelancing
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1511612201
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1511612201

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1511612201
Reply with quote  #2

1511612201
Report to moderator
1511612201
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1511612201

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1511612201
Reply with quote  #2

1511612201
Report to moderator
1511612201
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1511612201

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1511612201
Reply with quote  #2

1511612201
Report to moderator
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
July 06, 2015, 04:54:43 PM
 #28242

2.  Is F2Pool/AntPool more likely to produce an empty block when mempool swells?

...I don't see why the answer to Q2 would be yes for any reason other than the previous block is more likely to be large when mempool swells (i.e., mempool is not the cause, just correlated).

Exactly.  Dr. Frappuccino is letting his deranged, unreasonable hatred and fear of 1MB blocks color his thinking beliefs about completely unrelated (or, at best, merely "correlated") matters.

I'm shocked to discover how little he actually understands about technical issues on which he has such strong, stridently/frequently expressed opinions.

As Gmax was just saying, the end result of this trend is to burn up whatever is left of his tattered credibility.

As miners have created larger blocks F2Pool expirenced high orphaning (>4% according to them); they responded by adding software to mine without transfering or verifying blocks to avoid delays related to transfering and processing block data. Contrary to your claim-- the blocksize limit stems the bleeding here. Their issue is that large blocks take more time to transfer/handle and that they're falling behind as a result. Making blocks _bigger_ would not help this problem, it would do the _opposite_. If a miner wanted to avoid any processing of transaction backlog they'd simply set their minimum fee high and they'd never even mempool the large backlog.

Reasonable minds can differ on the relative importance of difference considerations, but when you're falling all over yourself to describe evidence against your position as support of it-- redefining F2pools crystal clear and plain descption of "large blocks" as their source of problems with the technically inexplicable "full" that you think supports your position, it really burns up whatever credibility you had left. That you can get away with it in this thread without a loud wall of "WTF" just shows what a strange echochamber it has become.

The trouble with our Gavinsta friends is not that they are ignorant, but that they know so much that isn't so.

i hope ppl here can discern the fact that most or all of what the Cripplecoin ppl have to say involves ad hominems and iCEBlow.  not to mention the obfuscation that attempts to link my dispute with the HF lawyers to the block size debate and Blockstreams financial conflict of interest in core dev.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
July 06, 2015, 04:57:51 PM
 #28243

...
3. How is it that 1MB just "happened" to be the magic number at which blocks are deemed to be "large" ?
...
3.  Time to verify (via CPU-hard although parallelizable ECDSA) incoming block's tx is already (absent clusters of 48-core Xeons) problematic at sizes near 1MB, hence use of the subjective descriptor "large" and your conflation of that term with "full."

Whether 1MB is ideal or not, it's what we have.  It's pretty evident that Bitcoin would be lucky to avoid annihilation on attempts to change it in any way at this point in time.  That may or may not be the case in the future.

As it happens, 1MB seemed to have been at least quite fortuitous for us, and I wonder if it were not somewhat well considered when Satoshi made the setting as opposed to the perception promulgated by some that he pulled a random number out his ass.

 - It is/was just under the realistic limits needed to run the network behind TOR.

 - It got us all the way into mid 2015 before it became much of a stressor at all.  Had it been smaller, interest in Bitcoin may have died while at the current interest levels it is more likely that significant efforts will be made to solve any necessary engineering efforts rather than to walk away.

 - Even now that touching transaction rate limitations is within sight, the transaction body is chalk full of freeloaders who do nothing worthwhile for network support (e.g., Multibitch users) and there is much room to grow by simply allowing these users to drain away as a transaction fee market develops.

 - It looks like for some time the entire blockchain will fit on a MicroSD meaning that new nodes can be brought up with nodes which are modest in expense and a concealable bit of physical media.  There is an easily calculable and reasonable ceiling on the power and bandwidth necessary to operate this support infrastructure, and it is low enough in value that most operators can walk away from their investment if there were pressures applied from the mainstream legal and law enforcement world.

In retrospect, 1MB seems like a pretty ideal setting for the past history of Bitcoin and some distance into the future.  To me.



it's a Magic Number!

no, it was always meant to be a DoS prevention mechanism and Satoshi foresaw much wider and greater usage of Bitcoin as a worldwide p2p cash system to challenge the big banks:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=68655.msg11625671#msg11625671

it's is MUCH more likely these SPV mining attacks are a direct result of full blocks.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
July 06, 2015, 05:02:10 PM
 #28244

and here we go again:

cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
July 06, 2015, 05:03:11 PM
 #28245

unconf tx's at 14,700   Roll Eyes
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
July 06, 2015, 05:04:42 PM
 #28246

and here we go again:



that 1 tx block is f2pool
kazuki49
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 350



View Profile
July 06, 2015, 05:07:57 PM
 #28247

The coin needs to be the first legitimate instance of its kind, had a fair start/emission, and a market niche
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Litecoin FAIL (not the first of its kind)
Peercoin FAIL (no market niche)
Bytecoin FAIL (not fair start)
Boolberry FAIL (not the first of its kind)
Ethereum FAIL (questionable start)
All shitcoins FAIL (2-3 counts)

Only BTC and XMR fulfill all conditions, so it makes sense to invest into them (and them alone). To be fully hedged, you can keep 99.8% in BTC and set 0.2% aside in XMR. Going over this ratio, is overinvesting in XMR.

It is not hard to come with these understandings after a generous overview of the top 50 altcoins, reason why I'm as uninpressed with LTC market as with its innovative features (none).
Peter R
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1064



View Profile
July 06, 2015, 05:23:51 PM
 #28248

It's been two months since I plotted the original version of this chart.  We're still tracking the dashed line, as we progress deeper into the red zone:


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

Activity: 1764



View Profile
July 06, 2015, 05:24:23 PM
 #28249

do we have a detailed statement from the Chinese pools as to "why" from their perspective they are SPV mining?  unfortunately, they might not tell us.
tvbcof
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2324


View Profile
July 06, 2015, 05:25:29 PM
 #28250

...
3. How is it that 1MB just "happened" to be the magic number at which blocks are deemed to be "large" ?
...
3.  Time to verify (via CPU-hard although parallelizable ECDSA) incoming block's tx is already (absent clusters of 48-core Xeons) problematic at sizes near 1MB, hence use of the subjective descriptor "large" and your conflation of that term with "full."

Whether 1MB is ideal or not, it's what we have.  It's pretty evident that Bitcoin would be lucky to avoid annihilation on attempts to change it in any way at this point in time.  That may or may not be the case in the future.

...

In retrospect, 1MB seems like a pretty ideal setting for the past history of Bitcoin and some distance into the future.  To me.

it's a Magic Number!

no, it was always meant to be a DoS prevention mechanism and Satoshi foresaw much wider and greater usage of Bitcoin as a worldwide p2p cash system to challenge the big banks:
...

We don't know who Satoshi was and if what 'he' said about this or that is even especially reliable.  Assuming it is, we don't know that he said exactly what he was thinking.

If Satoshi said that he wanted to build a niche monetary system for big players and insiders to use as a reserve currency, I would not have been interested and would not have gotten involved.  Only after having dwelt on it some did I come to the conclusion that in spite of the faults and somewhat distasteful nature of the solution, it is the best way to have a chance of enduring success (and thereby at least partially dislodge those who do the same under a vastly inferior monetary system design such is our current crop of fiat solutions.)  So, Satoshi may well have tuned much of his writings (and code) to play on social pressures as much as computer science ones.

From a fairly early stage Satoshi seems to have gathered a contingent of fairly small-minded adherent (in addition to some brilliant ones such as Hal.)  Lesser minds tend to be attracted to shiny and simplistic things such as the 'Bitcoin is everything to everyone always and forever' philosophical construct.  I don't find it at all difficult to believe that Satoshi may have tuned his messages to retain these folks and build a 'critical mass' using these as footsoldiers.  If it were that or nothing, that is preferable in the battle to achieve a viable solution.


iCEBREAKER
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1848


[LOL2X]


View Profile WWW
July 06, 2015, 05:35:48 PM
 #28251

i hope ppl here can discern the fact that most or all of what the Cripplecoin ppl have to say involves ad hominems and iCEBlow.  not to mention the obfuscation that attempts to link my dispute with the HF lawyers to the block size debate and Blockstreams financial conflict of interest in core dev.

These days, the only difference between you and the Buttcoiners is that you say "Cripplecoin" instead.   Tongue

You're the one who hired the guy that under oath represented you as the LeBron of BTC.

When you aggressively and egregiously misunderstand the flow and causation of tx broadcasting from clients to pools to block inclusion and then on to verification, of course we're going to have fun with that amusing apparent contradiction (however unfair it may be to confuse athletic, financial, and technical expertise).

If you don't want to be called LeBron until the day Lord Satoshi moves His Holy Coins, I suggest apologizing for accusing the core devs (who write the free code you run) of impropriety/malfeasance/obstructionism/etc.

Quote
it's is MUCH more likely these SPV mining attacks are a direct result of full blocks.

More SPV mining, which is not an attack but rather explicitly permitted/encouraged by the protocol and arguably beneficial, is the result of larger (not "full") blocks.

Even Peter, your fellow Gavinista, has tried explaining you are full of shit, to no avail:

Quote
2.  Is F2Pool/AntPool more likely to produce an empty block when mempool swells?

...I don't see why the answer to Q2 would be yes for any reason other than the previous block is more likely to be large when mempool swells (i.e., mempool is not the cause, just correlated).

What's your excuse for ignoring Peter's attempt to inject you with sanity?  He's not a Cripplecoiner, nor did he mention ad hom/HF/iceblow.

Can't you just man up and admit being wrong?  Come on LeBron, the ball is in your court!   Grin Grin Grin


██████████
█████████████████
██████████████████████
█████████████████████████
████████████████████████████
████
████████████████████████
█████
███████████████████████████
█████
███████████████████████████
██████
████████████████████████████
██████
████████████████████████████
██████
████████████████████████████
██████
███████████████████████████
██████
██████████████████████████
█████
███████████████████████████
█████████████
██████████████
████████████████████████████
█████████████████████████
██████████████████████
█████████████████
██████████

Monero
"The difference between bad and well-developed digital cash will determine
whether we have a dictatorship or a real democracy." 
David Chaum 1996
"Fungibility provides privacy as a side effect."  Adam Back 2014
Buy and sell XMR near you
P2P Exchange Network
Buy XMR with fiat
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
July 06, 2015, 05:38:21 PM
 #28252

...
3. How is it that 1MB just "happened" to be the magic number at which blocks are deemed to be "large" ?
...
3.  Time to verify (via CPU-hard although parallelizable ECDSA) incoming block's tx is already (absent clusters of 48-core Xeons) problematic at sizes near 1MB, hence use of the subjective descriptor "large" and your conflation of that term with "full."

Whether 1MB is ideal or not, it's what we have.  It's pretty evident that Bitcoin would be lucky to avoid annihilation on attempts to change it in any way at this point in time.  That may or may not be the case in the future.

...

In retrospect, 1MB seems like a pretty ideal setting for the past history of Bitcoin and some distance into the future.  To me.

it's a Magic Number!

no, it was always meant to be a DoS prevention mechanism and Satoshi foresaw much wider and greater usage of Bitcoin as a worldwide p2p cash system to challenge the big banks:
...

We don't know who Satoshi was and if what 'he' said about this or that is even especially reliable.  Assuming it is, we don't know that he said exactly what he was thinking.

If Satoshi said that he wanted to build a niche monetary system for big players and insiders to use as a reserve currency, I would not have been interested and would not have gotten involved.  Only after having dwelt on it some did I come to the conclusion that in spite of the faults and somewhat distasteful nature of the solution, it is the best way to have a chance of enduring success (and thereby at least partially dislodge those who do the same under a vastly inferior monetary system design such is our current crop of fiat solutions.)  So, Satoshi may well have tuned much of his writings (and code) to play on social pressures as much as computer science ones.

From a fairly early stage Satoshi seems to have gathered a contingent of fairly small-minded adherent (in addition to some brilliant ones such as Hal.)  Lesser minds tend to be attracted to shiny and simplistic things such as the 'Bitcoin is everything to everyone always and forever' philosophical construct.  I don't find it at all difficult to believe that Satoshi may have tuned his messages to retain these folks and build a 'critical mass' using these as footsoldiers.  If it were that or nothing, that is preferable in the battle to achieve a viable solution.



that's pretty sad but totally expected from you.

if you'll recall, it wasn't actually that long ago when i was of similar thought; doing nothing to the protocol.  ever.

but reading some of JR's stuff and thinking about the concept of digital gold, i think Bitcoin has to be reliably and cheaply accessible by everyone worldwide for maximum decentralization and value.  whether that's achievable via future tech improvements remains to be seen but we need to try.  otherwise, gold will continue to be used and valued by an outside large contingent that won't bother with Bitcoin and will even compete to a very large degree. 
gmaxwell
Staff
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2338



View Profile
July 06, 2015, 05:40:03 PM
 #28253

1.  Why do larger mining pools have less orphans, assuming most miners even small ones are connected to the relay network?
Because it greatly reduces the time it takes to transmit blocks but does not completely eliminate it-- nothing can (due to the speed of light).  In particular, something I didn't know until my conversation with them on July 4th:  the nearest relay network hub to F2Pool is still 200ms away due to insane routing that sends traffic between some networks in china and singapore via the US (thanks NSA?).

Quote
2. Even if mining pools set higher fees, aren't the unconfirmed TX's still added to their mempools?
No.

Quote
3. How is it that 1MB just "happened" to be the magic number at which blocks are deemed to be "large" ?
I don't know what you're talking about there.  AFAICT F2Pool would also consider e.g. 750k "large".

Do you mean why was 1MB selected as the particular hard limit in the protocol?   ::shrugs:: It happens to be the the highest value you could sync over a modem and stay up with the network (though not for mining, due to latency), though that could be by chance.

Bitcoin will not be compromised
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
July 06, 2015, 05:52:35 PM
 #28254

1.  Why do larger mining pools have less orphans, assuming most miners even small ones are connected to the relay network?
Because it greatly reduces the time it takes to transmit blocks but does not completely eliminate it-- nothing can (due to the speed of light).  In particular, something I didn't know until my conversation with them on July 4th:  the nearest relay network hub to F2Pool is still 200ms away due to insane routing that sends traffic between some networks in china and singapore via the US (thanks NSA?).

since small pools can also connect to the relay network, and i assume they do, there is no reason to believe that large miners can attack small miners with large blocks.  in fact, we've seen the top 5 chinese miners deprecated due to the GFC making it clear they CANNOT perform this attack despite what several guys have FUD'd.

Quote
2. Even if mining pools set higher fees, aren't the unconfirmed TX's still added to their mempools?
No.

Quote

how can that be?  mining pools all use a full node around which they coordinate their mining.  all full nodes are relatively in sync with their mempools which is the whole concept on which IBLT depends on. 
Quote
Quote
3. How is it that 1MB just "happened" to be the magic number at which blocks are deemed to be "large" ?
I don't know what you're talking about there.  AFAICT F2Pool would also consider e.g. 750k "large".

750 kB blocks are clearly being mined by miners who haven't changed the default.  in fact, i think the top 2 Chinese miners only recently changed their default to 1MB.

pt being, it's statistically unlikely that full blocks today represent the magical level of "large" blocks that Satoshi set 6 yrs ago.  the problems we are having with the forks are a result of the defensive tactics being taken from those full blocks.

have the Chinese miners given you a technical reason why they're SPV'ing?
tvbcof
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2324


View Profile
July 06, 2015, 05:55:02 PM
 #28255


We don't know who Satoshi was and if what 'he' said about this or that is even especially reliable.  Assuming it is, we don't know that he said exactly what he was thinking.

If Satoshi said that he wanted to build a niche monetary system for big players and insiders to use as a reserve currency, I would not have been interested and would not have gotten involved.  Only after having dwelt on it some did I come to the conclusion that in spite of the faults and somewhat distasteful nature of the solution, it is the best way to have a chance of enduring success (and thereby at least partially dislodge those who do the same under a vastly inferior monetary system design such is our current crop of fiat solutions.)  So, Satoshi may well have tuned much of his writings (and code) to play on social pressures as much as computer science ones.

From a fairly early stage Satoshi seems to have gathered a contingent of fairly small-minded adherent (in addition to some brilliant ones such as Hal.)  Lesser minds tend to be attracted to shiny and simplistic things such as the 'Bitcoin is everything to everyone always and forever' philosophical construct.  I don't find it at all difficult to believe that Satoshi may have tuned his messages to retain these folks and build a 'critical mass' using these as footsoldiers.  If it were that or nothing, that is preferable in the battle to achieve a viable solution.

that's pretty sad but totally expected from you.

if you'll recall, it wasn't actually that long ago when i was of similar thought; doing nothing to the protocol.  ever.

but reading some of JR's stuff and thinking about the concept of digital gold, i think Bitcoin has to be reliably and cheaply accessible by everyone worldwide for maximum decentralization and value.  whether that's achievable via future tech improvements remains to be seen but we need to try.  otherwise, gold will continue to be used and valued by an outside large contingent that won't bother with Bitcoin and will even compete to a very large degree. 

I've alternately nearly given up on Bitcoin multiple times over the last few years, and these periods coincide with the attacks on reasonable blocksize.

The 'trust everyone' idea of sidechains has given me new hope for Bitcoin in light of the fact that the lite and supportable nature necessary for a core solution has not yet been killed.  This makes for a situation where total shit-heads can own the 'reserve currency' and the world still have a scenario where the benefits can be used unencumbered by the masses.  Yes, the shit-heads may become even more rich, but they would and do do so anyway.   And yes, these large fish probably could game things, but the transparency inherent in Bitcoin allows end-users to migrate to solutions which take measures to avoid the manipulation.


Wexlike
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 975


View Profile
July 06, 2015, 05:56:53 PM
 #28256

Then why don't we decrease the blocktime from 10 min down to let's say 2 min. This way we can also have more transactions/second without touching the blocksize.
iCEBREAKER
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1848


[LOL2X]


View Profile WWW
July 06, 2015, 06:02:32 PM
 #28257

Whether 1MB is ideal or not, it's what we have.

As it happens, 1MB seemed to have been at least quite fortuitous for us, and I wonder if it were not somewhat well considered when Satoshi made the setting as opposed to the perception promulgated by some that he pulled a random number out his ass.

In retrospect, 1MB seems like a pretty ideal setting for the past history of Bitcoin and some distance into the future.  To me.

Exactly this.  Intentionally or not, 1MB turned out to be a serendipitous choice.  Now it has ossified and is ready for the next layers to be built on its solid foundation.

I favor Adam Backamoto's extension block proposal.

The 1MB blocksize limit reminds me of the old 640k limit in DOS.

Rather than destroy Window's interoperability with the rich/valuable legacy of 8088 based software, that limit was extended via various hacks sublime software engineering.

Before resorting to the nuclear option of a contentious hard fork, we should attempt to achieve the desired result with soft forks.


██████████
█████████████████
██████████████████████
█████████████████████████
████████████████████████████
████
████████████████████████
█████
███████████████████████████
█████
███████████████████████████
██████
████████████████████████████
██████
████████████████████████████
██████
████████████████████████████
██████
███████████████████████████
██████
██████████████████████████
█████
███████████████████████████
█████████████
██████████████
████████████████████████████
█████████████████████████
██████████████████████
█████████████████
██████████

Monero
"The difference between bad and well-developed digital cash will determine
whether we have a dictatorship or a real democracy." 
David Chaum 1996
"Fungibility provides privacy as a side effect."  Adam Back 2014
Buy and sell XMR near you
P2P Exchange Network
Buy XMR with fiat
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
July 06, 2015, 06:03:33 PM
 #28258

wow, Varoufakis out.  one less Bitcoin Bear; altho we still have lots of them roaming around here:

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/07/business/international/yanis-varoufakis-abruptly-resigns-as-greek-finance-minister.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=a-lede-package-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
July 06, 2015, 06:06:41 PM
 #28259

and you thought Bitcoin was volatile?  pfft.  peanuts to the stock mkt; huge opening gap down from last nights futures dump, all the way back up to retest the flat, followed by another huge dump down.  it will only get worse:

cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
July 06, 2015, 06:07:57 PM
 #28260


I favor Adam Backamoto's

stop equating Adam to Satoshi.  no contest.

you have a serious Daddy problem.
Pages: « 1 ... 1363 1364 1365 1366 1367 1368 1369 1370 1371 1372 1373 1374 1375 1376 1377 1378 1379 1380 1381 1382 1383 1384 1385 1386 1387 1388 1389 1390 1391 1392 1393 1394 1395 1396 1397 1398 1399 1400 1401 1402 1403 1404 1405 1406 1407 1408 1409 1410 1411 1412 [1413] 1414 1415 1416 1417 1418 1419 1420 1421 1422 1423 1424 1425 1426 1427 1428 1429 1430 1431 1432 1433 1434 1435 1436 1437 1438 1439 1440 1441 1442 1443 1444 1445 1446 1447 1448 1449 1450 1451 1452 1453 1454 1455 1456 1457 1458 1459 1460 1461 1462 1463 ... 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!