Topic: Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion - page 18332. (Read 26519706 times)

Look at your language in the above sentences.  It says, I want to be correct no matter what.  Nothing wrong with that, but you have a tendency to attempt to divert into non issues and to just strive for combat for the mere sake of it.

When you assert that raising the blocksize limit would have been much simplier, so therefore it is logical that the blocksize limit should have been raised, you are continuing to attempt to argue about an issue that was rejected. XT and classic were rejected, or better put, they failed to achieve adequate support in order to be implemented... in other words, they are ded, at the moment.  Surely, they may come up again or some variation of raising the blocksize limit may be entertained, but at this point, there is no meaningful evidence that either a blocksize limit is necessary or that logic is convincing.  You are the one that is stubborn and want to keep on beating a ded horse... yes yes yes.. let's see how seg wit plays out first, and maybe revisit the blocksize limit matter later, if the blocksize limit is an issue at such a later point, oooooo kay?  okey dokey?  can you go along with what is currently happening or work on contributing to what is currently happening rather than just arguing about spilled milk and what you believe should have happened (you, BJA and your friends at reddit rbtc)?



Yes, the argument persists in some circles, but does not make the argument material and important, especially if neither facts nor logic is adding any additional reason to reopen the already mostly closed and ded topic.  The argument persists also regarding aliens landing in roswell, too, but we are not continuing to pursue such arguments because roswell alien arguments are largely being made by marginalized groups and not part of mainstream policy and thinking and discussing, even though a small number of folks continue to vocalize that subject matter.

I am not making anything up. The SegWit Omnibus Changeset is a far larger change to Bitcoin protocol than is a simple maxblocksize bump. Period. To assert otherwise is insanity. Or stupidity. Or obstinance. So which is it in your case?


Well, no. The fact that the discussion is still occurring is evidence of controversy. By definition. English much?

Yes, jbreher, we've been over some variation of this topic, and we disagree mostly because you are making shit up and not really attempting to have any kind of civilized conversation.

In fact, Seg wit is largely a non-controversial and upcoming implementation and supplementation of bitcoin protocol features, and accordingly. largely, seg wit is an agreed to change (by all of the powers that be in bitcoin, and even naysayers such as Gavin Andresen and Jeff Garzik).  It was proposed in late 2015, and the code was written and put on testnet in about May 2016, and it is continuing to be tested and is nearing time for implementation in a more active form into the protocol and live, yet as many of us actively researching bitcoiners realize (even if we do not have a technical background regarding specifics), seg wit has not been completely implemented yet or gone live (and some of us may not even know the exact process or the timeline for when seg wit is going live), but in any event if there are some objections along the way of seg wit's going live and if there are controversial aspects about seg wit, then it seems quite likely that any of these kinds of problems or controversies can continue to be discussed, because seg wit seems to be a kind of work in progress in terms of everything that it achieves and how it is implemented into the existing protocol and how consensus and adoption is achieved by miners, as well.  

Anyhow, surely there is going to continue to be discussion of seg wit at various points during the process of its going live by persons who are more technically involved with testing and identifying bug issues to the extent that any bug issues might exist, and we will continue to learn about seg wit, too... to the extent that we may need to learn more about technical aspects or other aspects that are relevant to it's success or failure.

So I don't understand why you are attempting to confuse matters by attempting to suggest that there is some kind of controversy in respect to the implementation path for seg wit when you have little to no evidence of such controversy (except perhaps to the extent that you may start citing either yourself, folks at reddit r/btc, or maybe BJA, all of whom seem to be caught up on desires to have XT or Classic, which have both been rejected and are largely DED, at the moment)

"There you go again"
- Ronnie Raygun

We've been over this. The status quo is completely violated by The SegWit Omnibus Changeset.

Ignorance or obstinance on your part?

It was beginning to seem as if we were approaching a truce, and then you come out with this blowtorch, hand grenade chaos launcher of a statement.   


The above statement comes off as very judgmental, and also seems to assume some facts that are not in evidence.

I would not characterize my position as trapped, exactly, because even though I invested quite a lot into bitcoin, I really did not invest beyond my ability to easily lose such investment.  I did not leverage, I did not take anything from my living expenses, and I also maintained quite a few other of my mainstream investments.
 
I'm not sure what else I can say without reiterating my whole investment history, but in essence, I did not materially increase my investment or continue to double down.  In fact, I allocated a certain amount that I was going to invest in the first 6 months, between late November 2013 to early June 2013, and I pretty much stuck to my allocation and then when I used those funds, and then I would reassess the situation.

By about mid-June 2014, my average cost per BTCV was around $630.

I will grant you that I did invest quite a lot around upper $300s in late 2014, and I was pretty much "all in" with my reassessment and my allocation of what I had intended to invest into BTC, yet my average cost per BTC in late 2014 was in the mid $500s.

I don't really call any of this trapped because I just continued to dollar cost average invest from late 2014 to early 2015; however in early 2015, I had run into some cash flow issues, so I could not buy BTC for a few months, until about April/May 2015, but I did not sell any of the BTC that I held, and April/May 2015, I resumed dollar cost averaging.   

By October 2015, when I set up a plan to begin to trade BTC, my average cost per BTC was about $502, and so I began to trade, and today my average cost per BTC is about $440.  Furthermore, I have dollars and BTC stacked on both ends, so I hardly feel trapped.  I keep saying this, but stubbornly, you continue with your own seemingly judgmental narrative.

I have given you quite a few details, but still even this level of detail does not describe my whole financial situation, and how I do not feel trapped in spite of your ongoing suggestions in that direction.




I still think that you have this wrong.  I don't believe that I was coerced, and I never really claimed to be doing anything other than I was doing.  My first phase was to accumulate and to buy on dips, and that is what I did.  I never sold BTC, and I just continued to buy whenever I had money, and sometimes I would strategically attempt to time some of the purchases in order to continue to accumulate, largely this strategy through late 2014, but continued through most of 2015 too, and to this day, I still continue to buy BTC with some of my extra cash flow, to the extent that I have any.

I did not claim to start trading or even try to trade BTC until October 2015, and that is when I began to post about trading.  In fact, through 2014 and most of 2015, I kind of continued to assert that I was not a trader, because I never sold any BTC, which was true (up until October 2015, whenever I sold BTC, I always replaced within days).



I appreciate that you have a right to have your own views and to argue that your views are applicable to your own actions; however, I do not appreciate that you would think that I should subscribe to such views or expect that other readers of this thread would necessarily agree with such thinking, at least not necessarily in the way that you frame it.



That's a bit too fatalistic for my thinking, but I have no problem with you coming from that point of view or even believing that the world is such.  Surely, I believe that individuals have some limited abilities to control things in society, but we also have levels of control and  our choices have ramifications, as well (on us and sometimes on other people).


Agreed.. too much farting around on the forum could interfere with possibilities of getting laid.

FIXED IT.   

 JayJuanGee, seeing how you got trapped by in this market when you starting buying at the top and all the way down. Seemingly without your consent you bought more and more as we went lower and lower, and now you are being "forced" to take profits because of the choice you made a year ago to subscribe to a cool and calculated trading strategy...

you of all people should appreciate the idea i put forth.

the only hope humans have of actually having "free will" is understanding the inevitability of the future, using that knowledge to try and see into the future and then fucking do somthing to change the foreseen future.

I foresee that if i dont GTFO of this from i will not have sex tonight 
it might be to late tho... 

Let me introduce you to the 1% malcontent you have now deemed god-king.

The free world isn’t waiting for a bump, but they do see that new sign at the door. We gracefully rose from peanuts to 1MB over 6 years, no reason for the miners to let it get bloated with free tx immediately to the new max.

yeah, and those that showed up, saw the sign and turned heel.

1 huge Muddled Mint leaf, crushed superintelligence, 1/2 oz mint-infused simpleton syrup, 2 oz of power, 2-4-8 dashes of bitters… we call it… “The IPO”.

Yeah... the temporal divergence would grow from 0.001% to 88.3% for example. And in one Universe can be war and total chaos and in the other one peace and total Fibonacci order! 

even if you accept the idea that we could time travel within our same universe and then change its future, this does not produce an anomaly, it would simply be part of the unbreakable chain of events which can not be avoided or altered.

I don't object to your making a prediction or the substance of that prediction, yet I just hope that I don't have to sell some of my BTC merely because of the possible kicking in of the reverse adam indicator (RAI) that seems to happen whenever you emphasize certainty in your BTC predictions (especially in respect to the future).    



Oh yeah, thanks.  That helps. 

Jay ... think in perspective of "String Theory". And think of the wave length of the gravitational fields from the infinite possibilities of parallel Universes.

Meaning that if you where to time travel you would basically jump from a predestined Universe to another since the wave length of the gravitational fields that you use to jump from one to another is always moving, always in a pattern and always different from the perspective of the constant of Time.

Meaning that what Adam said, means that all history is already written and even if you manage to change it by managing to jump from one Universe to the same Universe in a time travel scenario, the temporal divergence even if it would be 0.00000000(1)% between them... That would mean that the someone who time traveled has created a new scenario, meaning he/she created a New Universe with a mathematical predestined physical state!

Contentious things some guy I know thinks:
-Anything less than 99% is a social consensus attack on the protocol;
-No amount of megabytes will satisfy the demands of people convinced the free world is waiting for a bump to beat a path to our door;
--the world isn't waitng to beat a path to our door;
-Something about superintelligence.

future is not malleable, just because it hasn't been written yet doesn't mean it is not predictable.


i am a deterministic existentialist

existentialism says that  we exist before our purpose, and no "god" has a "divine plan" for us, we make that "plan" up for ourselves.
- existence precedes essence

determinism says that, that the past, present, and future is identifiable as an unbreakable chain of circumstances of which no single link in such a chain could possibly be avoided or altered. so if there was a entity that knew everything about everything he could predict the future, because for any one moment there is only ONE possible physical further moment.
- The Truth

and so i say:


Existence precedes essence, but the the truth precedes all.


i am am no god, But i've seen enough, we will be moving UP there is simply no way around this.

It is a gift. We get to analyze something we haven't really seen before in a coin with a relatively high value. I bet the non-DAO bailout side will live on, in some form. Just like a losing 1MB4EVA with keccak side would live on, in some form.

Not a question of should, but "can" it? If it can and people want it to, then it should.

It's for much more than a megabyte. It's for the literal destiny of the project... and more succinctly: money.


....