Naw. The price is way too low now. I'm calling it.
even with retracements
Topic: Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion - page 15112. (Read 26712694 times)
January 09, 2018, 10:03:55 AM
even with retracements
January 09, 2018, 09:52:10 AM
Did we just defeat a gigantic head and shoulder?
Or I am being too optimistic?
Or I am being too optimistic?
January 09, 2018, 09:49:46 AM
low? you must have the chart upside down. it's up 1400% in the last year since it broke ath, 10,000% in 2 years. It's still at this ridiculous enormous peak. I don't you know what you mean by low. Are you zoomed into 1 minute?
January 09, 2018, 09:38:45 AM
Naw. The price is way too low now. I'm calling it.
January 09, 2018, 08:50:46 AM
The graphic tries to show how funding a channel is like funding a 'hot wallet'. A more accurate description is that funding a channel is like depositing money with a bank.
Explain why you think that statement is true, and I will explain why you are wrong.
Afbitcoins is a Bcash shill/shit noob.
January 09, 2018, 08:47:18 AM
Regarding that noobs are boasting with alt profits: Looking at the charts of those that are at least 3 years old, you can see that the price is constantly declining with 1 or 2 pumps (mostly in May 2017 and in Dec 2017/Jan 2018). Between the pumps there is a huge drop. In other words, even if one gets lucky to chose one of those alts and waits years with 60-90% loss in terms of fiat, at the end he may earn at most ten fold. On the other hand, if one bought BTC and holded for 3 years... you can do the math. Now, the noobs are too emotional and buy these alts at current prices waiting for the next pump. But my questions are: Do you know when the next pump will be? In May 2018, or Jan 2019, or Jan 2020? Do you be comfortable to wake up each morning and see another 10% drop in price for months/years? In the meantime, BTC will steadily rise to prices that now may seem unimaginable. After all, BTC is still in its early adoption phase with a cap of 21 mln coins, 80% of which are now in circulation.
January 09, 2018, 08:42:31 AM
The graphic tries to show how funding a channel is like funding a 'hot wallet'. A more accurate description is that funding a channel is like depositing money with a bank.
Explain why you think that statement is true, and I will explain why you are wrong.
January 09, 2018, 08:40:49 AM
WTF bitcoin selling off again. Just go up you bastard, it's the future for christs sake.
But what date in the future is bitcoin the future and what price will it be? Lets say in 10-20 years it will be $1M and will be the dominant currency. 15 years is actually a short amount of time for so many public systems to be changed - look how long it took grandma to adopt the internet or use a credit card. Is the current trajectory sustainable? No. At the current rate it would reach that level in only 1-2 years. It is going way too fast and needs to pull back and have retracements. January 09, 2018, 08:24:44 AM
Naw. The price is way too low now. I'm calling it.
January 09, 2018, 08:17:11 AM
I actually would regard using LN as the natural progression of scaling up peer to peer payments. Consider that much of the peer to peer traffic on the internet itself which we used to have has moved more to peer - "cloud" - peer system.
Good parallel.Can't remember the last time I used a torrent program to get data.
... but if some data should get censored everywhere from "cloud peer" systems, it would spread through torrents like wildfire. That is, base blockchain transfers will always be an option, no matter what.Not sure if I understood that correctly but if I did, I could view torrents being replaced by cloud services as a regression from a decentralised system back towards a more centralised one. Cloud services are provided by a small number of large companies. Anyway I still find torrents useful.
But anyway, thanks for a civilised response. I prefer reasoned debate than being told to fuck off.
January 09, 2018, 07:54:48 AM
I actually would regard using LN as the natural progression of scaling up peer to peer payments. Consider that much of the peer to peer traffic on the internet itself which we used to have has moved more to peer - "cloud" - peer system.
Good parallel.Can't remember the last time I used a torrent program to get data.
... but if some data should get censored everywhere from "cloud peer" systems, it would spread through torrents like wildfire. That is, base blockchain transfers will always be an option, no matter what. January 09, 2018, 07:51:58 AM
Well this is a shame.
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/01/08/fund-managers-say-bitcoin-etf-proposals-withdrawn-due-to-sec-concern.html
Translation of SEC concerns: "Futures as implemented now are totally inadequate since they can't manipulate the price."https://www.cnbc.com/2018/01/08/fund-managers-say-bitcoin-etf-proposals-withdrawn-due-to-sec-concern.html
At least the way I understand it.
January 09, 2018, 07:49:48 AM
Segwit. Bech32. MAST. Signature aggregation. Key aggregation. Batch validation. Covenants. CT & bullet proofs. Dandelion. Neutrino. Tx compression. Set reconciliation for tx relay. Block template delta compression. NODE_NETWORK_LIMITED. UTXO commitments. TXO commitments. TXO bitfields. Rolling UTXO set hashes. Client-side validation. Peer encryption & auth. Fraud proofs. Scriptless atomic swaps. Zerolink/tumblebit. [Cut:] layer 2, HF rsrch, bip 8. (@rusty_twit)
and a paaartridge in a pear tree
and a paaartridge in a pear tree
That's exactly what I'm talking about, that just made my brain hurt, without telling me how to use it.
A few observations about the graphic.
The picture of the network is highly distorted, showing only 3 end users! when really theres hundred of thousands or millions potentially. HIghly connected hubs will be numbered in the hundreds (I feel I'm being generous with that number). That is a highly centralised network, nothing like the depiction.
I doubt many people use a hot wallet for everyday spending. The use case in which people have a spending wallet is already defunct. Who spends bitcoin when the fees are more than the cost of the purchase, you don't spend it.
The promise of low fees on LN was also made onchain in the early days. When I first used bitcoin most people didnt even put a fee. I suspect fees will not be low on LN, only lower than onchain fees.
When the internet appeared I was sure it would fail because I could not imaging a scenario where companies would pay to run expensive undersea cables that keep up with the demand (and all the other infrastructure) - and let me use it for 'free'. Somehow it works. This time I'm am keeping an open mind. There is enough money on the table so I'm sure something workable will emerge.
When bitcoin first appeared I imagined a world of peer to peer payments with no central institutions. LN is most definately not that.
The graphic tries to show how funding a channel is like funding a 'hot wallet'. A more accurate description is that funding a channel is like depositing money with a bank.
I always said LN will be supported by big money. No doubt there will be an epic pump, because 'scalability is solved'. I don't like it but I can profit from it. The original dream of bitcoin doesn't exist though.
I actually would regard using LN as the natural progression of scaling up peer to peer payments. Consider that much of the peer to peer traffic on the internet itself which we used to have has moved more to peer - "cloud" - peer system. Can't remember the last time I used a torrent program to get data.
Of course I wouldn't want banks involved in LN but if BTC is really going to replace all digital payments I think LN will have to exist. Vendors already usually only get paid out no more than once per day from payment gateways etc.
Also this would make it possible to accept BTC in a plane or even in space, who the hell knows what will be possible in the future.
January 09, 2018, 07:46:37 AM
When bitcoin first appeared I imagined a world of peer to peer payments with no central institutions. LN is most definately not that.
The graphic tries to show how funding a channel is like funding a 'hot wallet'. A more accurate description is that funding a channel is like depositing money with a bank.
I always said LN will be supported by big money. No doubt there will be an epic pump, because 'scalability is solved'. I don't like it but I can profit from it. The original dream of bitcoin doesn't exist though.
The graphic tries to show how funding a channel is like funding a 'hot wallet'. A more accurate description is that funding a channel is like depositing money with a bank.
I always said LN will be supported by big money. No doubt there will be an epic pump, because 'scalability is solved'. I don't like it but I can profit from it. The original dream of bitcoin doesn't exist though.
Wrong. LN is just a spec, how it is implemented will be up to the service. For example, it could go through a series of TOR nodes (slower), or could be implemented by the likes of expressvpn and such - or vendors will choose a solution for that, hopefully making a choice will be easy. There are tons of options, and if you don't like any of them, you can still stick to segwit
January 09, 2018, 07:40:44 AM
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-01-09/jamie-dimon-i-regret-calling-bitcoin-fraud
Quote
Jamie Dimon: "I Regret Calling Bitcoin A Fraud"
...
Less than four months after Jamie Dimon lashed out at bitcoin, warning that it was would "eventually blow up" because it was "worse than tulip bulbs" and that "any trader trading bitcoin" will be "fired for being stupid", the JPMorgan CEO said he "regrets" his infamous criticism of bitcoin, in which he called the cryptocurrency a "fraud."
In an interview with FOX Business' Maria Bartiromo, Dimon repented, softening the comments he made in a September banking conference, saying "I regret making them."
...
Less than four months after Jamie Dimon lashed out at bitcoin, warning that it was would "eventually blow up" because it was "worse than tulip bulbs" and that "any trader trading bitcoin" will be "fired for being stupid", the JPMorgan CEO said he "regrets" his infamous criticism of bitcoin, in which he called the cryptocurrency a "fraud."
In an interview with FOX Business' Maria Bartiromo, Dimon repented, softening the comments he made in a September banking conference, saying "I regret making them."
January 09, 2018, 07:35:18 AM
Segwit. Bech32. MAST. Signature aggregation. Key aggregation. Batch validation. Covenants. CT & bullet proofs. Dandelion. Neutrino. Tx compression. Set reconciliation for tx relay. Block template delta compression. NODE_NETWORK_LIMITED. UTXO commitments. TXO commitments. TXO bitfields. Rolling UTXO set hashes. Client-side validation. Peer encryption & auth. Fraud proofs. Scriptless atomic swaps. Zerolink/tumblebit. [Cut:] layer 2, HF rsrch, bip 8. (@rusty_twit)
and a paaartridge in a pear tree
and a paaartridge in a pear tree
That's exactly what I'm talking about, that just made my brain hurt, without telling me how to use it.
A few observations about the graphic.
The picture of the network is highly distorted, showing only 3 end users! when really theres hundred of thousands or millions potentially. HIghly connected hubs will be numbered in the hundreds (I feel I'm being generous with that number). That is a highly centralised network, nothing like the depiction.
I doubt many people use a hot wallet for everyday spending. The use case in which people have a spending wallet is already defunct. Who spends bitcoin when the fees are more than the cost of the purchase, you don't spend it.
The promise of low fees on LN was also made onchain in the early days. When I first used bitcoin most people didnt even put a fee. I suspect fees will not be low on LN, only lower than onchain fees.
When the internet appeared I was sure it would fail because I could not imaging a scenario where companies would pay to run expensive undersea cables that keep up with the demand (and all the other infrastructure) - and let me use it for 'free'. Somehow it works. This time I'm am keeping an open mind. There is enough money on the table so I'm sure something workable will emerge.
When bitcoin first appeared I imagined a world of peer to peer payments with no central institutions. LN is most definately not that.
The graphic tries to show how funding a channel is like funding a 'hot wallet'. A more accurate description is that funding a channel is like depositing money with a bank.
I always said LN will be supported by big money. No doubt there will be an epic pump, because 'scalability is solved'. I don't like it but I can profit from it. The original dream of bitcoin doesn't exist though.
January 09, 2018, 07:32:17 AM
January 09, 2018, 07:28:07 AM
I think the FUD on BTC holders is at an all time high right now.
Noobs on all reddits / telegram mock BTC holders and show off their portfolios full of shitcoin gains.
Will this shitshow ever end?
The FUD is starting to get to me...
Are you feeling the same psychological FUD?
Noobs on all reddits / telegram mock BTC holders and show off their portfolios full of shitcoin gains.
Will this shitshow ever end?
The FUD is starting to get to me...
Are you feeling the same psychological FUD?
Crypto has gone kinda mainstream the last few months it seems to me.
Many people jumping into altcoins.
I'm not sure this is sustainable in the long term.
Sure some of them have value and might be useful for something specific or globally and will be there to stay I'm sure but many small ones are now also valued at $10 million+ or even $100+ million when they only have a white paper, a few devs and a website that might not work well and possibly no product yet.
Those simple components never normally make a $10 million company.
It's like a mad rush into penny stocks surely?
But to me all that trading actually strengthens Bitcoin itself regardless. It is almost always the only means by which you can purchase any of these alts. (I admit ETH / LTC / USDT are used a lot too)
Bitcoin is doing what it is supposed to do whilst these alts really will have to prove themselves over the next year or two.
I'm sure many will collapse. But will they all collapse at once is the question I guess.
I think we are at a crossroad now. Either btc is going to pursue this new trendline or is going to tank hard and go back to the pevious one, taking alts and such with it (as it did yesterday).
Alts that do not intentionally attack btc do not concern me too much, as they come and go, eventually they will develop a market on their own as the top 3 cryptos will become less of a speculative investment (hopefully)
January 09, 2018, 07:22:17 AM
I think the FUD on BTC holders is at an all time high right now.
Noobs on all reddits / telegram mock BTC holders and show off their portfolios full of shitcoin gains.
Will this shitshow ever end?
The FUD is starting to get to me...
Are you feeling the same psychological FUD?
Noobs on all reddits / telegram mock BTC holders and show off their portfolios full of shitcoin gains.
Will this shitshow ever end?
The FUD is starting to get to me...
Are you feeling the same psychological FUD?
Crypto has gone kinda mainstream the last few months it seems to me.
Many people jumping into altcoins.
I'm not sure this is sustainable in the long term.
Sure some of them have value and might be useful for something specific or globally and will be there to stay I'm sure but many small ones are now also valued at $10 million+ or even $100+ million when they only have a white paper, a few devs and a website that might not work well and possibly no product yet.
Those simple components never normally make a $10 million company.
It's like a mad rush into penny stocks surely?
But to me all that trading actually strengthens Bitcoin itself regardless. It is almost always the only means by which you can purchase any of these alts. (I admit ETH / LTC / USDT are used a lot too)
Bitcoin is doing what it is supposed to do whilst these alts really will have to prove themselves over the next year or two.
I'm sure many will collapse. But will they all collapse at once is the question I guess.
January 09, 2018, 07:19:23 AM
Pack of ingrates. Make me do my own dirty work.
Jump to: