Quote
ZE Jiang(BTC.TOP): Huobi & BTCC stopped margin trading, OKc leverage only 1x, finally no more fake BTC generated by exchange
https://twitter.com/cnLedger/status/819808775032868865
Topic: Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion - page 17876. (Read 26610713 times)
January 13, 2017, 06:32:34 AM
https://twitter.com/cnLedger/status/819808775032868865
January 13, 2017, 05:11:52 AM
Back over $900 by next week?
January 13, 2017, 04:48:17 AM
OK, here's the funny thing. The central bank can bloviate all it wants. In the end the people have the power. (OK, it wasn't exercised in this recent India demonitization, but we should be ready for the next ((hint: it's coming to you)) ).
What do I mean? India was about 80% cash. Why would the people not just reply with 'fuck you - we'll just keep using these notes the same way we have been'. Nothing changes. 80% of all transactions continue being done in cash -- not recognized by the gubmint, but who the fuck gives a shit -- and Modi ( and his wall street financiers) get to stew over in the corner. I mean really -- for the people, what is the downside?
The problem is that you have to trust every other member of society to honour the value of that non-government-backed cash. It's like a massive game of Prisoners' Dilemma. Personally I wouldn't trust other people to maintain the value of my wealth (any more than I'd trust the government). Unless it has some sort of very widely recognised/intrinsic value, you're playing a very dangerous game.
But aren't you already trusting the government to maintain the value of your cash?
January 13, 2017, 04:44:02 AM
OK, here's the funny thing. The central bank can bloviate all it wants. In the end the people have the power. (OK, it wasn't exercised in this recent India demonitization, but we should be ready for the next ((hint: it's coming to you)) ).
What do I mean? India was about 80% cash. Why would the people not just reply with 'fuck you - we'll just keep using these notes the same way we have been'. Nothing changes. 80% of all transactions continue being done in cash -- not recognized by the gubmint, but who the fuck gives a shit -- and Modi ( and his wall street financiers) get to stew over in the corner. I mean really -- for the people, what is the downside?
The problem is that you have to trust every other member of society to honour the value of that non-government-backed cash. It's like a massive game of Prisoners' Dilemma. Personally I wouldn't trust other people to maintain the value of my wealth (any more than I'd trust the government). Unless it has some sort of very widely recognised/intrinsic value, you're playing a very dangerous game.
Usually a physical type/shape/form of money if it has no real application or usability in the real world, it has no value.
*edit: And what the world has experienced in these last 40-50 years, it was just fairy/pixie dust make belief... It is dying soon and quickly! People want their power and wealth control back!
*edit2: Basically what we had till now was a time limited system that was a product of our isolation as nations. But since the internet and global awareness started to spread its roots (and you can't put that cat in to the box once it was out, communication is a basic need), that dream/illusion started to fade away! Because when people became aware that some places had money with more value (like Germany), they started to migrate there. And as a consequence the word is forced to go in to one global single currency, so the migration and all this nonsense will stop. (But they can't use gold, because they don't have enough of it and its too complicated to use it on a large scale and authenticate it without the proper technology.)
January 13, 2017, 04:11:02 AM
OK, here's the funny thing. The central bank can bloviate all it wants. In the end the people have the power. (OK, it wasn't exercised in this recent India demonitization, but we should be ready for the next ((hint: it's coming to you)) ).
What do I mean? India was about 80% cash. Why would the people not just reply with 'fuck you - we'll just keep using these notes the same way we have been'. Nothing changes. 80% of all transactions continue being done in cash -- not recognized by the gubmint, but who the fuck gives a shit -- and Modi ( and his wall street financiers) get to stew over in the corner. I mean really -- for the people, what is the downside?
The problem is that you have to trust every other member of society to honour the value of that non-government-backed cash. It's like a massive game of Prisoners' Dilemma. Personally I wouldn't trust other people to maintain the value of my wealth (any more than I'd trust the government). Unless it has some sort of very widely recognised/intrinsic value, you're playing a very dangerous game.
January 13, 2017, 04:05:24 AM
The Indian government is also confiscating gold taxing holdings of black money, which is making bitcoin more and more popular in India. Any gold that hasn't been taxed gets confiscated taxed if their government can find it.
FTFY
By "black money" do you mean money tainted by contact with our evil banking overlords?
Probably gold that's had no tax paid on it. If they have an inheritance tax in India I doubt anyone admits they inherited a shit load of gold to the government. They probably also use it to buy and sell things and don't bother declaring the transactions for tax.
Can India's currency ban really curb the black economy?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-india-37933231
"Black money is essentially money that has been earned - either through legal activities or through corruption - without any tax being paid on it. There are several estimates of the total amount of black money going around in the Indian economy. A World Bank estimate puts the size of the black economy at 23.2% of India's total economy in 2007.
By making high denomination bank notes worthless overnight, the government hoped that those who had black money in this form would not be able to convert it into physical assets like gold.
Those who have black money will try exchanging it for new notes. But they cannot simply go to a bank and deposit all their old cash, given that it is likely to lead to questions from the income tax department. Any other way of exchanging notes will take some doing, given that the old denomination notes form more than 86% of notes in circulation by value.
As the former central bank governor Raghuram Rajan said: "I think there are ways around demonetisation. It is not that easy to flush out the black money. Of course, a fair amount may be in the form of gold, therefore even harder to catch. Further, the government needs to quickly introduce electoral financing reform in the country. Most elections in India are fought using black money."
OK, here's the funny thing. The central bank can bloviate all it wants. In the end the people have the power. (OK, it wasn't exercised in this recent India demonitization, but we should be ready for the next ((hint: it's coming to you)) ).
What do I mean? India was about 80% cash. Why would the people not just reply with 'fuck you - we'll just keep using these notes the same way we have been'. Nothing changes. 80% of all transactions continue being done in cash -- not recognized by the gubmint, but who the fuck gives a shit -- and Modi ( and his wall street financiers) get to stew over in the corner. I mean really -- for the people, what is the downside?
January 13, 2017, 03:45:13 AM
Do you run a node? Do you ever stream video content? Are you aware that hypothetical 100MB blocks are no more resource intensive than SD video content?
I do. I uploaded over a terabyte of data to other nodes last month.
Obviously if blocks are bigger, the amount of data users need to share to keep the network running will increase.
I have very expensive, top tier internet from a major ISP that I recently purchased specifically for running a Bitcoin node. I had to gimp my maxconnections with more typical home user speeds or my internet was unusable for other tasks like surfing the web.
While I feel for you, I hardly notice the impact that running several full nodes has upon my foreground browsing activities. Granted, I have a better connection than most.
But my point is... If your bandwidth sucks, you are not an asset to the network. Period. Sorry to reveal your inconsequentiality. This remains true whether we are pushing 2MB blocks, 8MB blocks, or 100 MB blocks. It just is. Too bad, so sad.
January 13, 2017, 03:41:14 AM
Today has not been the best day for me. The guy I was gonna trade half a dozen bitcoins with suddenly dropped off the face of the earth, so now I'm stuck with useless fiat instead of cheap coins. Can't get it back on kraken until sometime next week because banks break on weekends (they really need to fix that bug).
[...]I guess he should hurry then! ... But probably he has a week or so before the price goes mental upwards.
Even though I sometimes get inklings about the short-term direction of price, I never feel very confident about my inklings until after I see it happen.
Therefore, I would not sell my bitcoins in the expectation to use that money to buy from someone who is 10% or so likely to flake (sure flakiness varies, but it is NOT a non-existent or even a low probable risk).
To be honest... there is no cataclysmic event happening soon. And from what it looks, the market is being duped.. So... they can't keep this up for much longer. But I guess the exchanges took enough profits from the stupid leverage gamblers.
But eh.. what do I know? .. I'm a simple man, doing plain right simple trades, that takes small percentages of profits.
January 13, 2017, 03:38:38 AM
that same year the state of Judea declared war on Germany
https://archive.org/stream/JewsDeclareWarOnGermany1933/JewsDeclareWarOnGermany1933_djvu.txt
https://archive.org/stream/JewsDeclareWarOnGermany1933/JewsDeclareWarOnGermany1933_djvu.txt
All right... I'm willing to investigate. But first, you must explain to me why this document -- purported to have been written in 1933 -- contains quotes from 1960.
Just exactly what is it you are pushing at us?
January 13, 2017, 03:35:29 AM
The Indian government is also confiscating gold taxing holdings of black money, which is making bitcoin more and more popular in India. Any gold that hasn't been taxed gets confiscated taxed if their government can find it.
FTFY
By "black money" do you mean money tainted by contact with our evil banking overlords?
Probably gold that's had no tax paid on it. If they have an inheritance tax in India I doubt anyone admits they inherited a shit load of gold to the government. They probably also use it to buy and sell things and don't bother declaring the transactions for tax.
Can India's currency ban really curb the black economy?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-india-37933231
"Black money is essentially money that has been earned - either through legal activities or through corruption - without any tax being paid on it. There are several estimates of the total amount of black money going around in the Indian economy. A World Bank estimate puts the size of the black economy at 23.2% of India's total economy in 2007.
By making high denomination bank notes worthless overnight, the government hoped that those who had black money in this form would not be able to convert it into physical assets like gold.
Those who have black money will try exchanging it for new notes. But they cannot simply go to a bank and deposit all their old cash, given that it is likely to lead to questions from the income tax department. Any other way of exchanging notes will take some doing, given that the old denomination notes form more than 86% of notes in circulation by value.
As the former central bank governor Raghuram Rajan said: "I think there are ways around demonetisation. It is not that easy to flush out the black money. Of course, a fair amount may be in the form of gold, therefore even harder to catch. Further, the government needs to quickly introduce electoral financing reform in the country. Most elections in India are fought using black money."
January 13, 2017, 02:55:21 AM
I suspect the PBOC will find evidence of fake humans, trading on huobi.
Or a Huobi exchange doesn't even exist and it was just a price feed originating from Karpeles' laptop.
January 13, 2017, 02:36:39 AM
I suspect the PBOC will find evidence of fake humans, trading on huobi.
January 13, 2017, 02:30:13 AM
chinese went full retarded
This is the explanation for anything that happens in Bitcoin whether it's up, down, or sideways.
January 13, 2017, 02:07:00 AM
I can't believe we're back on about block size again. My new compass is $700. I can't die holding bitcoins.
you'll die not holding bitcoin.
feel better?
January 13, 2017, 01:52:47 AM
I can't believe we're back on about block size again. My new compass is $700. I can't die holding bitcoins.
January 13, 2017, 01:12:53 AM
if we assume a government has "banned bitcoin traffic" ( not sure how feasible that is )
then we should limit blocksize such that we can smuggle blocks in and out of that country?
we need to keep blocksize such that it can be carried on some hypothetical "internet de la resistance"
idk... sounds nutty.
then we should limit blocksize such that we can smuggle blocks in and out of that country?
we need to keep blocksize such that it can be carried on some hypothetical "internet de la resistance"
idk... sounds nutty.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_packet_inspection
i think you have reason to want small blocks, but you have no good reason to not allow the network of nodes to determine what "small" is.
BU effectively limits block size to whatever the vast majority of nodes consider acceptable, and allows for nodes to continue to protest bigger block while staying synced and not forked.
let it go, you can't impose your view of bitcoin onto everyone else even if you believe "its for there own good"
you should however keep running core if you like the idea of segwit and static blocksize.
BU effectively limits block size to whatever the vast majority of nodes consider acceptable, and allows for nodes to continue to protest bigger block while staying synced and not forked.
let it go, you can't impose your view of bitcoin onto everyone else even if you believe "its for there own good"
you should however keep running core if you like the idea of segwit and static blocksize.
I don't know where you get the idea that I want to "impose" anything on anyone since I've been asking big blockers to make a block bigger than 1MB for ages. The two sides of this debate will never see eye to eye. A hard fork is the only solution where both sides end up happy. As soon as BU makes a block bigger than 1MB this debate will end.
the point of the debate is to make that >1MB block with a majority backing, preferably a vast majority.
many poeple are on the fence or just dont care either way.
but i think we're getting close to the day where mostly everyone will have made up there mind either way and bitcoin is forever altered.
Why not just call it as it is??
Think majority can probably agree to a >1MB block...as in a 2MB block. The problem is that's not enough for a BU crowd and really never was. They want their Unlimited block size. Think at the minimum it's misleading to say you just want a >1MB block when in reality you want a whole new system for a "dynamically adjustable blocksize". And that will never happen
what the BU crowd wants is kind of irrelevant to what BU can do for blocksize.
My BU node is set to 1.5MB excessive blocksize
your BU node could be set to 1MB if you like, there a miner that does that.
BU crowd doesn't want Unlimited blocksize, they want Unlimited freedom and choice.
BU provides a way for minner to know what the each node is willing to accept, so that miner can make blocks that the vast majority will accept.
how can you be against this idea?
January 12, 2017, 11:56:33 PM
if we assume a government has "banned bitcoin traffic" ( not sure how feasible that is )
then we should limit blocksize such that we can smuggle blocks in and out of that country?
we need to keep blocksize such that it can be carried on some hypothetical "internet de la resistance"
idk... sounds nutty.
then we should limit blocksize such that we can smuggle blocks in and out of that country?
we need to keep blocksize such that it can be carried on some hypothetical "internet de la resistance"
idk... sounds nutty.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_packet_inspection
i think you have reason to want small blocks, but you have no good reason to not allow the network of nodes to determine what "small" is.
BU effectively limits block size to whatever the vast majority of nodes consider acceptable, and allows for nodes to continue to protest bigger block while staying synced and not forked.
let it go, you can't impose your view of bitcoin onto everyone else even if you believe "its for there own good"
you should however keep running core if you like the idea of segwit and static blocksize.
BU effectively limits block size to whatever the vast majority of nodes consider acceptable, and allows for nodes to continue to protest bigger block while staying synced and not forked.
let it go, you can't impose your view of bitcoin onto everyone else even if you believe "its for there own good"
you should however keep running core if you like the idea of segwit and static blocksize.
I don't know where you get the idea that I want to "impose" anything on anyone since I've been asking big blockers to make a block bigger than 1MB for ages. The two sides of this debate will never see eye to eye. A hard fork is the only solution where both sides end up happy. As soon as BU makes a block bigger than 1MB this debate will end.
the point of the debate is to make that >1MB block with a majority backing, preferably a vast majority.
many poeple are on the fence or just dont care either way.
but i think we're getting close to the day where mostly everyone will have made up there mind either way and bitcoin is forever altered.
Why not just call it as it is??
Think majority can probably agree to a >1MB block...as in a 2MB block. The problem is that's not enough for a BU crowd and really never was. They want their Unlimited block size. Think at the minimum it's misleading to say you just want a >1MB block when in reality you want a whole new system for a "dynamically adjustable blocksize". And that will never happen
January 12, 2017, 11:48:58 PM
if we assume a government has "banned bitcoin traffic" ( not sure how feasible that is )
then we should limit blocksize such that we can smuggle blocks in and out of that country?
we need to keep blocksize such that it can be carried on some hypothetical "internet de la resistance"
idk... sounds nutty.
then we should limit blocksize such that we can smuggle blocks in and out of that country?
we need to keep blocksize such that it can be carried on some hypothetical "internet de la resistance"
idk... sounds nutty.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_packet_inspection
If you wrap the protocol in SSL and run it on port 443 then it is indifferentiable from HTTPS.
i think you have reason to want small blocks, but you have no good reason to not allow the network of nodes to determine what "small" is.
BU effectively limits block size to whatever the vast majority of nodes consider acceptable, and allows for nodes to continue to protest bigger block while staying synced and not forked.
let it go, you can't impose your view of bitcoin onto everyone else even if you believe "its for there own good"
you should however keep running core if you like the idea of segwit and static blocksize.
BU effectively limits block size to whatever the vast majority of nodes consider acceptable, and allows for nodes to continue to protest bigger block while staying synced and not forked.
let it go, you can't impose your view of bitcoin onto everyone else even if you believe "its for there own good"
you should however keep running core if you like the idea of segwit and static blocksize.
I don't know where you get the idea that I want to "impose" anything on anyone since I've been asking big blockers to make a block bigger than 1MB for ages. The two sides of this debate will never see eye to eye. A hard fork is the only solution where both sides end up happy. As soon as BU makes a block bigger than 1MB this debate will end.
A hard fork will end the debate over the technical details, but it will start the debate about who gets to be called Bitcoin. That's where it will get really ugly.
who gets to be called bitcoin is not going to be a hard question to answer...
unless hash rate is spilt like 40/60 ... which is SUPER unlikely since most miners "go with the flow"
IMO most likely it would be like 5-10% hashing power forking off ( at most ), and they will have to hardfork difficulty and a few other minor adjustments to make that minority fork viable, at which point they clearly aren't "bitcoin"...
but in this scenario it becomes unclear if "bitcoin" remains dominant after years of the "digital currency wars"
love your idea of making bitcoin traffic look like any other HTTPS traffic, there you go can't "ban bitcoin traffic" unless you ban https Lol
January 12, 2017, 11:40:18 PM
if we assume a government has "banned bitcoin traffic" ( not sure how feasible that is )
then we should limit blocksize such that we can smuggle blocks in and out of that country?
we need to keep blocksize such that it can be carried on some hypothetical "internet de la resistance"
idk... sounds nutty.
then we should limit blocksize such that we can smuggle blocks in and out of that country?
we need to keep blocksize such that it can be carried on some hypothetical "internet de la resistance"
idk... sounds nutty.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_packet_inspection
i think you have reason to want small blocks, but you have no good reason to not allow the network of nodes to determine what "small" is.
BU effectively limits block size to whatever the vast majority of nodes consider acceptable, and allows for nodes to continue to protest bigger block while staying synced and not forked.
let it go, you can't impose your view of bitcoin onto everyone else even if you believe "its for there own good"
you should however keep running core if you like the idea of segwit and static blocksize.
BU effectively limits block size to whatever the vast majority of nodes consider acceptable, and allows for nodes to continue to protest bigger block while staying synced and not forked.
let it go, you can't impose your view of bitcoin onto everyone else even if you believe "its for there own good"
you should however keep running core if you like the idea of segwit and static blocksize.
I don't know where you get the idea that I want to "impose" anything on anyone since I've been asking big blockers to make a block bigger than 1MB for ages. The two sides of this debate will never see eye to eye. A hard fork is the only solution where both sides end up happy. As soon as BU makes a block bigger than 1MB this debate will end.
the point of the debate is to make that >1MB block with a majority backing, preferably a vast majority.
many poeple are on the fence or just dont care either way.
but i think we're getting close to the day where mostly everyone will have made up there mind either way and bitcoin is forever altered.
January 12, 2017, 11:38:29 PM
if we assume a government has "banned bitcoin traffic" ( not sure how feasible that is )
then we should limit blocksize such that we can smuggle blocks in and out of that country?
we need to keep blocksize such that it can be carried on some hypothetical "internet de la resistance"
idk... sounds nutty.
then we should limit blocksize such that we can smuggle blocks in and out of that country?
we need to keep blocksize such that it can be carried on some hypothetical "internet de la resistance"
idk... sounds nutty.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_packet_inspection
If you wrap the protocol in SSL and run it on port 443 then it is indifferentiable from HTTPS.
i think you have reason to want small blocks, but you have no good reason to not allow the network of nodes to determine what "small" is.
BU effectively limits block size to whatever the vast majority of nodes consider acceptable, and allows for nodes to continue to protest bigger block while staying synced and not forked.
let it go, you can't impose your view of bitcoin onto everyone else even if you believe "its for there own good"
you should however keep running core if you like the idea of segwit and static blocksize.
BU effectively limits block size to whatever the vast majority of nodes consider acceptable, and allows for nodes to continue to protest bigger block while staying synced and not forked.
let it go, you can't impose your view of bitcoin onto everyone else even if you believe "its for there own good"
you should however keep running core if you like the idea of segwit and static blocksize.
I don't know where you get the idea that I want to "impose" anything on anyone since I've been asking big blockers to make a block bigger than 1MB for ages. The two sides of this debate will never see eye to eye. A hard fork is the only solution where both sides end up happy. As soon as BU makes a block bigger than 1MB this debate will end.
A hard fork will end the debate over the technical details, but it will start the debate about who gets to be called Bitcoin. That's where it will get really ugly.
Jump to: