Yea that's pretty darn bullish for mainstream media news article
Also been on BBC news recently
http://imgur.com/aUY3SlB
Topic: Two Bullish Bitcoin stories on CNBC front page. (Read 2057 times)
Also been on BBC news recently
http://imgur.com/aUY3SlB
You know the last time CNBC posted a bullish dumb hype article?
Right at the top of the november $475 pump that ended with a crash soon after.
CNBC: "Forget currency, bitcoin's tech is the revolution"
Google it.
/thread
Right at the top of the november $475 pump that ended with a crash soon after.
CNBC: "Forget currency, bitcoin's tech is the revolution"
Google it.
/thread
People needs to start looking at bitcoin as long term commitment. As we interpret all the news coverage, it should be noted that all these points to people having more trust in the system, else the hype would just die down. I hope more of these will continue to support bitcoin price.
I think the comment section on those articles clearly show there is no going up for the value of bitcoin.
exactly complete saturation - every person got the concept
How would a hard fork work at this stage of the game?
Would the new block chain be generated by a handful of dev nodes and then the world would have to resync and let the new 'chain perpetuate throughout the network?
That would cause some serious downtime.
Would the new block chain be generated by a handful of dev nodes and then the world would have to resync and let the new 'chain perpetuate throughout the network?
That would cause some serious downtime.
No, as per Gavin's proposal, the block-increase code in bitcoind wouldn't become active until >80% of miners signaled agreement by updating the version number in the block-headers they create.
Thus, even *after* the code is deployed, no fork *actually* occurs until there's irrefutable supermajority consensus. Thus, significant network disruption is unlikely.
People telling you this planned fork will be some catastrophic crises scenario always seem to leave that part out...
As far as I understand it, this would not be a hard fork and it would be in the best interests of everyone, so I doubt it would be difficult to get the network to agree. Especially the miners.
I think the comment section on those articles clearly show there is no going up for the value of bitcoin.
How would a hard fork work at this stage of the game?
Would the new block chain be generated by a handful of dev nodes and then the world would have to resync and let the new 'chain perpetuate throughout the network?
That would cause some serious downtime.
Would the new block chain be generated by a handful of dev nodes and then the world would have to resync and let the new 'chain perpetuate throughout the network?
That would cause some serious downtime.
No, as per Gavin's proposal, the block-increase code in bitcoind wouldn't become active until >80% of miners signaled agreement by updating the version number in the block-headers they create.
Thus, even *after* the code is deployed, no fork *actually* occurs until there's irrefutable supermajority consensus. Thus, significant network disruption is unlikely.
People telling you this planned fork will be some catastrophic crises scenario always seem to leave that part out...
It is becoming clear that a bull market is ahead of us this year.
"The arrival of institutional investors in digital currencies is a big bang event. If you have doubted the viability of digital currencies, today may be a good day to re-evaluate this emerging asset class."
So true.
Two Bitcoin stories on the CNBC front page, both bullish:
http://www.cnbc.com
Winklevoss twins: Bitcoin plunge a buying opp
Bitcoin is done with its 'tumultuous teen' years
http://www.cnbc.com
Winklevoss twins: Bitcoin plunge a buying opp
Bitcoin is done with its 'tumultuous teen' years
Wow the comments in the articles though ... it really proves that we will get tons of adoption, like millions of users will be buying tomorrow and fighting for a piece of Bitcoin.
Two Bitcoin stories on the CNBC front page, both bullish:
http://www.cnbc.com
Winklevoss twins: Bitcoin plunge a buying opp
Bitcoin is done with its 'tumultuous teen' years
http://www.cnbc.com
Winklevoss twins: Bitcoin plunge a buying opp
Bitcoin is done with its 'tumultuous teen' years
Wow the comments in the articles though ... it really proves that we will get tons of adoption, like millions of users will be buying tomorrow and fighting for a piece of Bitcoin.
I was reading the comments on both news, the level of ignorance and stupidity I saw made me miss our bitcointalk trolls. 
...I can't believe satoshi didn't address this severe limitation.
You're either disingenuous, a fool, or both. Note:
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.
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.
And: http://gavintech.blogspot.com/2015/01/looking-before-scaling-up-leap.html
[done feeding the troll now]
Ah yes let's do a hard fork...
You know what an utter total mess that would cause at this stage right? Could have done that in the early days, but not any more.
I for one won't support a hard fork as it would just be another alt coin. It would no longer be bitcoin.
I'm with you. I've read and heard so many opinions on a hard fork. Seriously, why are people pushing this? There is no technical manual in the world that states "go ahead and fix it, even if it is not broken." Gavin and company are trying to front run (eventual boom of BTC perhaps?) by increasing limits before the # of transactions even supports the need to because mining technology scalability in the future will be difficult, i.e. no more huge profits from coin creation; they are actually going to have to do something (process transactions). Complete BS if you ask me.
I've had people ask to buy from me. I just tell them I'm not selling and point to exchanges. It drives the point home that this isn't something I'm trying to offload on them, but a precious commodity.
I've had a lot of new people buy BTC from me who just recently heard about BTC. Interest is certainly growing.
How would a hard fork work at this stage of the game?
Would the new block chain be generated by a handful of dev nodes and then the world would have to resync and let the new 'chain perpetuate throughout the network?
That would cause some serious downtime.
Would the new block chain be generated by a handful of dev nodes and then the world would have to resync and let the new 'chain perpetuate throughout the network?
That would cause some serious downtime.
the comments below the articles are pure gold.
the most challenging thing will be to explain the very concept to the masses
the most challenging thing will be to explain the very concept to the masses
There's no reason not to support a hard fork for this functionality. Your coins will be duplicated onto the new blockchain. Whichever is more successful will live on. The other will die.
...I can't believe satoshi didn't address this severe limitation.
You're either disingenuous, a fool, or both. Note:
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.
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.
And: http://gavintech.blogspot.com/2015/01/looking-before-scaling-up-leap.html
[done feeding the troll now]
Ah yes let's do a hard fork...
You know what an utter total mess that would cause at this stage right? Could have done that in the early days, but not any more.
I for one won't support a hard fork as it would just be another alt coin. It would no longer be bitcoin.
...I can't believe satoshi didn't address this severe limitation.
You're either disingenuous, a fool, or both. Note:
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.
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.
And: http://gavintech.blogspot.com/2015/01/looking-before-scaling-up-leap.html
[done feeding the troll now]
Jump to: