Author

Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. - page 555. (Read 2032291 times)

legendary
Activity: 4760
Merit: 1283
January 14, 2015, 01:55:24 AM

Buddy you sound really touchy. Why is that?

No I really do not care to do any research. I figure you make the claim you back it up with evidence and not more hand waving.

It looks to me like you are back pedaling on your claim and proof of it.

Dont worry it isnt like you need to convince me.  Roll Eyes

Not cross at all.  More amused than anything.

You are welcome to follow my work more closely to know my ways and pick up some knowledge and trading tips and stuff.  Some people probably have followed my lead and have been rewarded for doing so.

I doubt that many people are buying your suggestion that I'm being a poser or a hand-waver after you challenged me on a statement and I popped up info that put your suspicions to rest.  I actually could not give two shits less one way or another however.

legendary
Activity: 2492
Merit: 1491
LEALANA Bitcoin Grim Reaper
January 14, 2015, 01:24:04 AM
I miss the old kitco board. That was good times.

I never spent much time there (if any.)  I used to read the usagold forum pretty regularly until it shut down, but I never really participated.

In other news, I might be interested in trading somewhere in the 100 to 200 large USD's worth of BTC straight across for gold and/or silver sometime in January next year if nothing much changes.  If I do so, it will be in a way which protects my ass 100% and is totally legal.  Anyone who is interested is welcome to ping me to discuss the possibilities.  I'm not interested in a whole lot of smaller deals because this promises to be a hassle.  I'm only interested if the fees that I (and the other party) save make it worthwhile.


Do you have any other confirming info (links/quotes etc) about a deal or deals that you made to show you actually transacted as such in Jan?

I didn't make any deals.  I did all my work through Coinbase.  It resulted in the shutdown of my Wells Fargo account, but they were not quick about it and I did more than the volumes I mentioned before getting shut down.  I've got a well documented thread somewhere outlining the details of that story, but this forum is to difficult to search.  If you really care (and I don't see why you would) knock yourself out.  I think all my posts are available if you wish to wade back through them.  I never delete posts.  If you want to see my bank statements, get a warrant.



Buddy you sound really touchy. Why is that?

No I really do not care to do any research. I figure you make the claim you back it up with evidence and not more hand waving.

It looks to me like you are back pedaling on your claim and proof of it.

Dont worry it isnt like you need to convince me.  Roll Eyes
legendary
Activity: 4760
Merit: 1283
January 14, 2015, 01:15:54 AM
I miss the old kitco board. That was good times.

I never spent much time there (if any.)  I used to read the usagold forum pretty regularly until it shut down, but I never really participated.

In other news, I might be interested in trading somewhere in the 100 to 200 large USD's worth of BTC straight across for gold and/or silver sometime in January next year if nothing much changes.  If I do so, it will be in a way which protects my ass 100% and is totally legal.  Anyone who is interested is welcome to ping me to discuss the possibilities.  I'm not interested in a whole lot of smaller deals because this promises to be a hassle.  I'm only interested if the fees that I (and the other party) save make it worthwhile.


Do you have any other confirming info (links/quotes etc) about a deal or deals that you made to show you actually transacted as such in Jan?

I didn't make any deals.  I did all my work through Coinbase.  It resulted in the shutdown of my Wells Fargo account, but they were not quick about it and I did more than the volumes I mentioned before getting shut down.  I've got a well documented thread somewhere outlining the details of that story, but this forum is to difficult to search.  If you really care (and I don't see why you would) knock yourself out.  I think all my posts are available if you wish to wade back through them.  I never delete posts.  If you want to see my bank statements, get a warrant.

legendary
Activity: 2492
Merit: 1491
LEALANA Bitcoin Grim Reaper
January 13, 2015, 10:26:22 PM
I miss the old kitco board. That was good times.

I never spent much time there (if any.)  I used to read the usagold forum pretty regularly until it shut down, but I never really participated.

In other news, I might be interested in trading somewhere in the 100 to 200 large USD's worth of BTC straight across for gold and/or silver sometime in January next year if nothing much changes.  If I do so, it will be in a way which protects my ass 100% and is totally legal.  Anyone who is interested is welcome to ping me to discuss the possibilities.  I'm not interested in a whole lot of smaller deals because this promises to be a hassle.  I'm only interested if the fees that I (and the other party) save make it worthwhile.



Do you have any other confirming info (links/quotes etc) about a deal or deals that you made to show you actually transacted as such in Jan?
legendary
Activity: 1320
Merit: 1007
January 13, 2015, 09:55:34 PM
Satoshi said himself 1mb blocksize can be raised later on.

It can be phased in, like:

if (blocknumber > 115000)
    maxblocksize = largerlimit

It can start being in versions way ahead, so by the time it reaches that block number and goes into effect, the older versions that don't have it are already obsolete.

When we're near the cutoff block number, I can put an alert to old versions to make sure they know they have to upgrade.

legendary
Activity: 4760
Merit: 1283
January 13, 2015, 09:45:32 PM

I would prefer 256k limit.

That was tried and it did not work. Users started to experience significant delays:

Delays in getting news that their Satoshi Dice bet was a failure.  However did they survive?

Perhaps he should stick with "the real Bitcoin" from before the hard fork that created the 1 MB limit.
Hilarious how many people defend the 1 MB limit without realizing that it wasn't part of the original release.

Lots of bugs were fixed in the early days.  This was one of the biggies.

legendary
Activity: 2492
Merit: 1491
LEALANA Bitcoin Grim Reaper
January 13, 2015, 08:02:04 PM
...
the problem here is that when the price doesn't conform to ppl's expectations, low level thinkers like tvbcof & even high level thinkers like Adam ...

Say, I was just thinking, wasn't it about a year ago I was moving some of my position out of Bitcoin and into USD and gold if I could figure out an expedient and cheap way to do it and telling everyone about my plans?

Why don't you be a sport, cyph, and tell everyone here how my ass tastes?


Link please.

The first I found was this, but there are probably more:

  https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.3727919

Would you like to tell the boys and girls how my ass tastes?

People who listened to me (and cypherdoc) in the last half of 2011 were happy for it.  People who listened to me a year ago, same;  Cypherdip not so much.  As I say, he's a broken clock that is right by chance sometimes.  The big difference between me and cypherdoc is that I know full well how much luck is associated with my good calls.  A lot.  Cyph gives his brilliance the credit for all his calls that happened to work out and totally banishes those which didn't to his own personal memory hole.  Unfortunately for him not everyone does so so probably half of the traffic on 'his' thread here are people who get a kick out of seeing his bozo-the-clown act.



Did you think I did not believe you? Did you assume I would not believe you? I sincerely asked for a link, that is all.

Why would I care how your ass tastes like? Thanks for the inappropriate visual.

Your response does show a bit of arrogance and some sort of bad feelings toward cypherdoc.

Perhaps you were right. I have not read your link yet but I will and will give credit where credit is due.

Just because we all do not get price calls right doesn't mean anything other than we are all flawed in our ways.

I've made out pretty good with bit coin and crypto currency in general. So I have no complaints.
legendary
Activity: 1078
Merit: 1006
100 satoshis -> ISO code
January 13, 2015, 07:11:41 PM
Perhaps he should stick with "the real Bitcoin" from before the hard fork that created the 1 MB limit.
Hilarious how many people defend the 1 MB limit without realizing that it wasn't part of the original release.

I would prefer 256k limit.

That was tried and it did not work. Users started to experience significant delays:

By default Bitcoin will not created blocks larger than 250kb even though it could do so without a hard fork. We have now reached this limit. Transactions are stacking up in the memory pool and not getting cleared fast enough.

What this means is, you need to take a decision and do one of these things:

  • Start your node with the -blockmaxsize flag set to something higher than 250kb, for example -blockmaxsize=1023000. This will mean you create larger blocks that confirm more transactions. You can also adjust the size of the area in your blocks that is reserved for free transactions with the -blockprioritysize flag.
  • Change your nodes code to de-prioritize or ignore transactions you don't care about, for example, Luke-Jr excludes SatoshiDice transactions which makes way for other users.
  • Do nothing.

If everyone does nothing, then people will start having to attach higher and higher fees to get into blocks until Bitcoin fees end up being uncompetitive with competing services like PayPal.

If you mine on a pool, ask your pool operator what their policy will be on this, and if you don't like it, switch to a different pool.

Fortunately it was a soft-limit and only a few large mining pools needed to quickly do a change.
legendary
Activity: 1414
Merit: 1000
January 13, 2015, 05:05:49 PM
Perhaps he should stick with "the real Bitcoin" from before the hard fork that created the 1 MB limit.
Hilarious how many people defend the 1 MB limit without realizing that it wasn't part of the original release.

I would prefer 256k limit.
legendary
Activity: 1260
Merit: 1002
January 13, 2015, 05:04:35 PM
Perhaps he should stick with "the real Bitcoin" from before the hard fork that created the 1 MB limit.
Hilarious how many people defend the 1 MB limit without realizing that it wasn't part of the original release.

That would be a great infographic - Satoshi's 1st code - Todays code with adds /deletes

+1 but i guess it would be quite a mess ^^
legendary
Activity: 1400
Merit: 1013
January 13, 2015, 04:43:40 PM
Perhaps he should stick with "the real Bitcoin" from before the hard fork that created the 1 MB limit.
Hilarious how many people defend the 1 MB limit without realizing that it wasn't part of the original release.
sr. member
Activity: 434
Merit: 252
January 13, 2015, 04:22:12 PM
MP will probably have more supporters than Gavin and Co. realize. There will be a schism.
legendary
Activity: 2968
Merit: 1198
January 13, 2015, 04:02:57 PM
I think he means that anyone that allows a hard fork is in effect creating an altcoin.

Perhaps he should stick with "the real Bitcoin" from before the hard fork that created the 1 MB limit.



hero member
Activity: 644
Merit: 504
Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks
January 13, 2015, 03:33:07 PM
Im not sure if you guys already talked about it, neither if it is correct to ask here, but i recently came across the block size debate, where gavin actually favors it and is being declared 'war' from MP's "la sereniblabla" gang, arguing that it could lead to other scamcoins et al. But this is not about the sidechains issue right?

So here is my noob question: how generating 'fake bitcoins' and increasing the block size (as in the number of transactions per block?!) are linked?

Assuming that i did not messed up my understanding of the warmongering articles..
http://www.contravex.com/2015/01/12/bitcoin-doesnt-need-a-hard-fork-it-needs-hard-people/
http://trilema.com/2015/if-you-go-on-a-bitcoin-fork-irrespective-which-scammer-proposes-it-you-will-lose-your-bitcoins/
Don't read to much into his rant. Here's the thing: anything that can be tried, will be tried by someone. Gavin and his peers have taken much into consideration about what and when features are added to Bitcoin. Meanwhile a lot of devs have left Bitcoin because it is not progressing fast enough for all the new ideas. It is a good thing that MP has announced his intention up front so we know where his faction stands. Maybe he will go bother Buterin now.

hum alright, i get it, but it doesnt answer my question as to how increasing the block size has anything to do with releasing 'subcoins'.

plus, who in here 'believes' MP's actually has the "strike force" that he claims?

Quote
my budget to sink this scam exceeds the budget of everyone involved on the supporting side. That is all.
I think he means that anyone that allows a hard fork is in effect creating an altcoin. He is only worth IIRC about 20M. He can't do anything to Bitcoin.

He would tell you that calculating his wealth in USD is a mistake and point to the 100k+ BTC he "controls" through MPex
legendary
Activity: 2044
Merit: 1005
January 13, 2015, 03:03:21 PM
we are on our next leg down.. litecoin to $1.3x then MAYBE $0.7x bitcoin down accordingly.
donator
Activity: 1736
Merit: 1014
Let's talk governance, lipstick, and pigs.
January 13, 2015, 08:36:12 AM
Im not sure if you guys already talked about it, neither if it is correct to ask here, but i recently came across the block size debate, where gavin actually favors it and is being declared 'war' from MP's "la sereniblabla" gang, arguing that it could lead to other scamcoins et al. But this is not about the sidechains issue right?

So here is my noob question: how generating 'fake bitcoins' and increasing the block size (as in the number of transactions per block?!) are linked?

Assuming that i did not messed up my understanding of the warmongering articles..
http://www.contravex.com/2015/01/12/bitcoin-doesnt-need-a-hard-fork-it-needs-hard-people/
http://trilema.com/2015/if-you-go-on-a-bitcoin-fork-irrespective-which-scammer-proposes-it-you-will-lose-your-bitcoins/
Don't read to much into his rant. Here's the thing: anything that can be tried, will be tried by someone. Gavin and his peers have taken much into consideration about what and when features are added to Bitcoin. Meanwhile a lot of devs have left Bitcoin because it is not progressing fast enough for all the new ideas. It is a good thing that MP has announced his intention up front so we know where his faction stands. Maybe he will go bother Buterin now.

hum alright, i get it, but it doesnt answer my question as to how increasing the block size has anything to do with releasing 'subcoins'.

plus, who in here 'believes' MP's actually has the "strike force" that he claims?

Quote
my budget to sink this scam exceeds the budget of everyone involved on the supporting side. That is all.
I think he means that anyone that allows a hard fork is in effect creating an altcoin. He is only worth IIRC about 20M. He can't do anything to Bitcoin.
legendary
Activity: 1260
Merit: 1002
January 13, 2015, 08:33:43 AM
Im not sure if you guys already talked about it, neither if it is correct to ask here, but i recently came across the block size debate, where gavin actually favors it and is being declared 'war' from MP's "la sereniblabla" gang, arguing that it could lead to other scamcoins et al. But this is not about the sidechains issue right?

So here is my noob question: how generating 'fake bitcoins' and increasing the block size (as in the number of transactions per block?!) are linked?

Assuming that i did not messed up my understanding of the warmongering articles..
http://www.contravex.com/2015/01/12/bitcoin-doesnt-need-a-hard-fork-it-needs-hard-people/
http://trilema.com/2015/if-you-go-on-a-bitcoin-fork-irrespective-which-scammer-proposes-it-you-will-lose-your-bitcoins/
Don't read to much into his rant. Here's the thing: anything that can be tried, will be tried by someone. Gavin and his peers have taken much into consideration about what and when features are added to Bitcoin. Meanwhile a lot of devs have left Bitcoin because it is not progressing fast enough for all the new ideas. It is a good thing that MP has announced his intention up front so we know where his faction stands. Maybe he will go bother Buterin now.

hum alright, i get it, but it doesnt answer my question as to how increasing the block size has anything to do with releasing 'altcoins'.

plus, who in here seriously 'believes' MP's actually has the "strike force" that he claims?

Quote
my budget to sink this scam exceeds the budget of everyone involved on the supporting side. That is all.
legendary
Activity: 1260
Merit: 1116
January 13, 2015, 08:25:42 AM
Returning to the origin of this thread... this is probably a good time to sell gold and buy btc, isn't it?
I'm calling bottom. This was a panic. The percentage increases the lower you drop.

Tonight certainly was panicked. And circumstantially, the number of bear threads is growing quickly. Bottom? I dunno, I think there is a concerted push to destroy all confidence and morale.

Read the news today. It will be working like a charm
donator
Activity: 1736
Merit: 1014
Let's talk governance, lipstick, and pigs.
January 13, 2015, 08:24:14 AM
Im not sure if you guys already talked about it, neither if it is correct to ask here, but i recently came across the block size debate, where gavin actually favors it and is being declared 'war' from MP's "la sereniblabla" gang, arguing that it could lead to other scamcoins et al. But this is not about the sidechains issue right?

So here is my noob question: how generating 'fake bitcoins' and increasing the block size (as in the number of transactions per block?!) are linked?

Assuming that i did not messed up my understanding of the warmongering articles..
http://www.contravex.com/2015/01/12/bitcoin-doesnt-need-a-hard-fork-it-needs-hard-people/
http://trilema.com/2015/if-you-go-on-a-bitcoin-fork-irrespective-which-scammer-proposes-it-you-will-lose-your-bitcoins/
Don't read to much into his rant. Here's the thing: anything that can be tried, will be tried by someone. Gavin and his peers have taken much into consideration about what and when features are added to Bitcoin. Meanwhile a lot of devs have left Bitcoin because it is not progressing fast enough for all the new ideas. It is a good thing that MP has announced his intention up front so we know where his faction stands. Maybe he will go bother Buterin now.
legendary
Activity: 1260
Merit: 1002
January 13, 2015, 08:01:23 AM
Im not sure if you guys already talked about it, neither if it is correct to ask here, but i recently came across the block size debate, where gavin actually favors it and is being declared 'war' from MP's "la sereniblabla" gang, arguing that it could lead to other scamcoins et al. But this is not about the sidechains issue right?

So here is my noob question: how generating 'fake bitcoins' and increasing the block size (as in the number of transactions per block?!) are linked?

Assuming that i did not messed up my understanding of the warmongering articles..
http://www.contravex.com/2015/01/12/bitcoin-doesnt-need-a-hard-fork-it-needs-hard-people/
http://trilema.com/2015/if-you-go-on-a-bitcoin-fork-irrespective-which-scammer-proposes-it-you-will-lose-your-bitcoins/
Jump to: