Topic: Here it comes - page 2. (Read 6588 times)
6.34 then jump to 6.75 then jump back down to 6.23 and now 6.59. wow wtf?
wtf is going on right now? massive volatility out of nowhere?
BTC MY FRIEND, BTC... 
wtf is going on right now? massive volatility out of nowhere?
We have confirmation... PSAR is bearish for the first time ever since the end of November.
During a bear market, this means a 33-50% plunge. During a bull market, it might mean a break of the major long-term trendline and a "bear rally" down to 5.5.
Since this is still a long-term bull market, this is a blip in the radar, but it is important not to be caught unawares and go 10:1 long on the TV show or something. It's time to cautiously short, folks.
During a bear market, this means a 33-50% plunge. During a bull market, it might mean a break of the major long-term trendline and a "bear rally" down to 5.5.
Since this is still a long-term bull market, this is a blip in the radar, but it is important not to be caught unawares and go 10:1 long on the TV show or something. It's time to cautiously short, folks.
Bet against your gut feeling, but keep in mind so is everyone else. Also keep in mind everyone else knows everyone else is doing this. Good luck.
By the way everyone, I don't recommend selling/shorting just yet. Hold until we break 6.2 or 6.
6.2: is a .2 support
6: long-term uptrend.
We had a strong support up at 6.7 with the medium-term trendline. I wanted to post something but didn't feel confident enough. I should have.
6.2: is a .2 support
6: long-term uptrend.
We had a strong support up at 6.7 with the medium-term trendline. I wanted to post something but didn't feel confident enough. I should have.
For those still listening to me, and I know you are few...
Alternate scenario seems to be active scenario now. Target 5.8.
Get ready
Alternate scenario seems to be active scenario now. Target 5.8.
Get ready
I am going to watch for this very closely. I had my support target at $6.25.
LukeDJr aka "mining führer" does only include transactions with fee with eligius already afaik. correct me, if i am wrong. and for the transaction fees. Either bitcoin is going bananas and widely used (lets say a thousandtimes more transactions -> should be about 50 btc average as i gues average fees are now about 0.05btc? -> therefore no problem, or there will not be a problem to worry about, as no bitcoin no more...
Sorry, you'll have to speak up. I can't hear anything with all this bear fur in my ears.
For those still listening to me, and I know you are few...
Alternate scenario seems to be active scenario now. Target 5.8.
Get ready
Alternate scenario seems to be active scenario now. Target 5.8.
Get ready
There are already people who allow no-fee transactions to be included in their blocks.
It isn't the zero-fee transactions you have to worry about. A miner who refuses to include those isn't losing anything.
It's the one-satoshi-transaction-fee transactions you have to worry about. No rational miner would exclude them (unless the block size limit has been hit, which we can't count on happening).
Miners who reject one-satoshi-fee transactions are effectively donating money to miners that don't. That is not a stable situation. That which is not stable will not endure.
Aren't there already miners who do this? I thought I heard one pool had a minimum fee requirement.
Even if not, I still don't see it being necessarily unstable. Even if one didn't want to set a minimum fee (and in the future, I can really see plenty of miners having a minimum,) one could still sort the pending transactions by fee amount rather than priority; smaller-fee transactions would still tend to take longer to confirm, so there would still be an incentive to pay higher fees to ensure rapid processing.
There are already people who allow no-fee transactions to be included in their blocks.
It isn't the zero-fee transactions you have to worry about. A miner who refuses to include those isn't losing anything.
It's the one-satoshi-transaction-fee transactions you have to worry about. No rational miner would exclude them (unless the block size limit has been hit, which we can't count on happening).
Miners who reject one-satoshi-fee transactions are effectively donating money to miners that don't. That is not a stable situation. That which is not stable will not endure.
If it's 2050, and pretty much the only means of electronic commerce is through bitcoin, you can believe I'm not going to balk that much at, say, a mandatory, capped transaction fee of 1% to ensure immediate processing as opposed to next-week processing through the "charity miners." It's either pay the fee or not do business.
Except that one miner will drop the minimum fees to 0.99% to get them all. Then the next miner will drop them to 0.98% etc.
In a normal market, this downward pressure on prices is countered by the production cost. But for bitcoin there is no minimum cost: the mining difficulty will drop until it is too low to provide any security.
I don't think that'll be the case.
There are already people who allow no-fee transactions to be included in their blocks. It's not beyond the realm of possibility that someone, somewhere in the future, will continue to allow this. But their presence doesn't (and won't) mean fee-required mining won't exist. Fee-less mining will never be universal, so relying on such "charity" will result in slower confirmations.
I think it'll operate more like retail outlets do today. Can't afford high fees, or don't care about wait times? Then you can hit the stores selling used clothes, or at worst, rely on actual charity from a mission. Want the latest, hottest fashion (with no wait times?) Then you need to pay up. These extremes, and everything in-between, exist in the retail world now, because different people have different needs. I don't see why the same wouldn't be true for Bitcoin.
So if widespread adoption occurs wouldn't the transaction fees (and thus bitcoin) basically be energy credits?
If it's 2050, and pretty much the only means of electronic commerce is through bitcoin, you can believe I'm not going to balk that much at, say, a mandatory, capped transaction fee of 1% to ensure immediate processing as opposed to next-week processing through the "charity miners." It's either pay the fee or not do business.
Except that one miner will drop the minimum fees to 0.99% to get them all. Then the next miner will drop them to 0.98% etc.
In a normal market, this downward pressure on prices is countered by the production cost. But for bitcoin there is no minimum cost: the mining difficulty will drop until it is too low to provide any security.
The mining difficulty will drop until it is profitable for more to mine again.
FTFY
If it's 2050, and pretty much the only means of electronic commerce is through bitcoin, you can believe I'm not going to balk that much at, say, a mandatory, capped transaction fee of 1% to ensure immediate processing as opposed to next-week processing through the "charity miners." It's either pay the fee or not do business.
Except that one miner will drop the minimum fees to 0.99% to get them all. Then the next miner will drop them to 0.98% etc.
In a normal market, this downward pressure on prices is countered by the production cost. But for bitcoin there is no minimum cost: the mining difficulty will drop until it is too low to provide any security.
Right.... cause mining is free.
this. is there any good literature on what is supposed to happen once we enter the age of transaction fees?
As I recall, the assumption is that over time Bitcoin will become sufficiently entrenched that parties with interest in keeping the system running will continue to keep hashing blocks even if the fees don't cover the costs, as they stand to lose more if the system becomes insecure.
we must then hope that Bitcoin will become 'sufficiently entrenched' before the age of transaction fees...
If it does become entrenched, then transaction fees would be practically guaranteed to cover costs.
If it's 2050, and pretty much the only means of electronic commerce is through bitcoin, you can believe I'm not going to balk that much at, say, a mandatory, capped transaction fee of 1% to ensure immediate processing as opposed to next-week processing through the "charity miners." It's either pay the fee or not do business.
That's something that's worried me. How large of transaction fees will be required to ensure security? I think double-spends won't be a problem; it's too hard to exploit even against a fairly small network.
On the other hand, I am concerned that someone with a vested interest in killing Bitcoin - government, banks, whatever - will pull a luke-jr and DOS the network. We might have to throw a lot of money to miners to stop it.
On the other hand, I am concerned that someone with a vested interest in killing Bitcoin - government, banks, whatever - will pull a luke-jr and DOS the network. We might have to throw a lot of money to miners to stop it.
this. is there any good literature on what is supposed to happen once we enter the age of transaction fees?
As I recall, the assumption is that over time Bitcoin will become sufficiently entrenched that parties with interest in keeping the system running will continue to keep hashing blocks even if the fees don't cover the costs, as they stand to lose more if the system becomes insecure.
we must then hope that Bitcoin will become 'sufficiently entrenched' before the age of transaction fees...
this. is there any good literature on what is supposed to happen once we enter the age of transaction fees?
As I recall, the assumption is that over time Bitcoin will become sufficiently entrenched that parties with interest in keeping the system running will continue to keep hashing blocks even if the fees don't cover the costs, as they stand to lose more if the system becomes insecure.
Jump to: