margin call time.
460 range a lot of ppl will get seriously rekt
Topic: Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion - page 18942. (Read 26609764 times)
April 19, 2016, 06:12:39 PM
April 19, 2016, 06:11:00 PM
The price is, like, moving. What the hell is going on here? I think my computer must be broken.
April 19, 2016, 06:10:23 PM
shorts are going to get triggered soon
are there still shorts left? at least in this thread they are gone since the runup to 500
April 19, 2016, 06:09:09 PM
shorts are going to get triggered soon
April 19, 2016, 06:08:44 PM
RUN!!
April 19, 2016, 06:07:27 PM
April 19, 2016, 05:53:53 PM
Get ready for it bears...
April 19, 2016, 04:59:09 PM
April 19, 2016, 04:51:30 PM
Forked-tongue lying Stolfi is back to spread his particularly toxic brand of divisive misinformation I see ... not enough corruption in Brazil to keep the anti-ponzi buster busy? [ ... ] Someone needs to inform the Brazialian tax-payers how much time an academic on their payroll is spending on internet forums spreading lies for banksters.
Curious that you say that, since the Brazilian bankers are among the biggest corrupters here, and they have been spear-heading the move to get Dilma impeached -- because she dared to try lowering the prime interest rate, that defines how much of taxpayers money will go to them banks. (It was ~60% last time I checked.)
April 19, 2016, 04:44:11 PM
Last July there was a 6-block reorganization of the blockchain, the third largest in bitcoin's history. It was caused by a blocthed soft fork.
Nope, It was caused by SPV mining which is insecure and at minimum ill advised.
Sigh, I have had this discussion before, won't get into it again. "The staircase did not collapse because it was badly designed, but because two fat people walked on it at once."
Hard forks are not more dangerous than soft-forks. One can argue that they in fact safer, because they must be executed openly and be accepted in advance by a large segment of the users.
While we may disagree with the intrinsic dangers one can compare between HF and SF's from a technical perspective, I can also add that it is a fantastic precedent that we are making HF's rare and difficult to accomplish from a "governance" perspective. soft forks which allow upgrading without throwing old users/software/Hardware off the network is a fantastic precedence.
I could point out again that soft forks put the decision in the hands of FEWER people (as few as three miners in China). But it does not matter: whether they are safe or not, the community cannot prevent soft forks from hppening.
[Hard forks] are more dangerous if there is disagreement regarding their implementation, and they are more dangerous if they attempt to change bitcoin's governance in order to make changes (consensus rules) easier to achieve.
Bitcoin cannot have a "governance". If you do not understand that, then you don't understand the only thing that justifies its existence.
"secured by a network with 1.5 PH/s of mining power" .... LOL, really? Have you been asleep for the last 3 years Stolfi?
Sorry, I was half asleep when I typed that. It should have been 1500 PH/s of course.
April 19, 2016, 04:06:10 PM
Forked-tongue lying Stolfi is back to spread his particularly toxic brand of divisive misinformation I see ... not enough corruption in Brazil to keep the anti-ponzi buster busy? His lies about Blockstream's actions and motivations around segwit are very insidious, evil and divisive, believe him at your financial cost.
Someone needs to inform the Brazialian tax-payers how much time an academic on their payroll is spending on internet forums spreading lies for banksters.
Someone needs to inform the Brazialian tax-payers how much time an academic on their payroll is spending on internet forums spreading lies for banksters.
The lady doth protest too much, methinks. Pretending to hate someone you love is a horribly faulty defense mechanism, Marcus, that's what little girls do. It's the 21st century, just tell him! But these shifts from closeted flirtation to protestation? Nauseating to watch.
April 19, 2016, 04:05:40 PM
it needs to go to ~2850 to trigger some short calls.
April 19, 2016, 03:46:37 PM
chinese cartel in action. preventing a price above 2793-2795 to avoid new miners coming into the game. seems the have tons of bitcoins available.
https://snag.gy/4tpVj5
https://snag.gy/4tpVj5
Hmm... I was counting on a Chinese pump to break above 2820 CNY within 2 days. If this won't happen, then the market will have made a lower high,
and then probably a lower low, which means a downtrend will become apparent.
IMO the point is to get the most out of Bitcoin until the halving event. no new miners allowed until then.
Interesting theory.
My guess is that the price will stay flat for a hell of a lot longer. There is still along time to go before the halving and not much news to get people panic buying or selling. Once we get to the halving we should get some big price movement.
April 19, 2016, 03:36:36 PM
Buy. Now.
April 19, 2016, 03:33:10 PM
Forked-tongue lying Stolfi is back to spread his particularly toxic brand of divisive misinformation I see ... not enough corruption in Brazil to keep the anti-ponzi buster busy? His lies about Blockstream's actions and motivations around segwit are very insidious, evil and divisive, believe him at your financial cost.
Someone needs to inform the Brazialian tax-payers how much time an academic on their payroll is spending on internet forums spreading lies for banksters.
Someone needs to inform the Brazialian tax-payers how much time an academic on their payroll is spending on internet forums spreading lies for banksters.
April 19, 2016, 03:14:42 PM
Correction: "Maxwell noted, “At least five companies as well as many individuals are actively developing Lightning, and much of the code and development is open in a similar model to Bitcoin.”
Please list the "5 independent companies developing their own versions of the lightning network" here:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
For your eyes only(The buttcoiner must overt their eyes as because these facts may harm their narrative)-
First four are in the article ...
1) Poon, Dryja, Elizabeth Stark , and Olaoluwa Osuntokun - Dryja’s Lightning Network
2) Rusty Russell - Blockstream's LN implementation
3) AmikaPay LN implementation
4) StrawPay LN implementation
This is the fifth one -
5) http://thunder.network being developed by Mats Jerratsch at Blockchain
1. Not a company.
2. Blockstream counted itself as one of the five independent companies?
3. Can't get a single hit on Google.
4. Lol, already implemented, and not Lightning. "Stroem works with the Bitcoin protocol of today and accepts the caveats whereas Lightning doesn’t."
5. https://matsjj.github.io/ is not a company.
In short, not a single independent company in your list. Did you think no one would check?
Please feel free to try again. It won't cost you nothin'
April 19, 2016, 02:48:02 PM
Segwit pull request in main repository -
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/7910
I expect Segwit to remove from segnet testnet to the bitcoin testnet this month and enter mainnet early may for activation in June/July depending upon the miners hitting 95%
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/7910
April ETA Deadline Met!
I expect Segwit to remove from segnet testnet to the bitcoin testnet this month and enter mainnet early may for activation in June/July depending upon the miners hitting 95%
Yes yes, lets time it to the halfing
Can see the headlines rolling with something like "BTC block limit solved while BTC is about to get more scares as supply halves"
April 19, 2016, 01:52:52 PM
That's a good point newbie.... Surely it would be nice to get more specificity rather than blanket statements.
For your eyes only(The buttcoiner must overt their eyes as because these facts may harm their narrative)-
First four are in the article ...
1) Poon, Dryja, Elizabeth Stark , and Olaoluwa Osuntokun - Dryja’s Lightning Network
2) Rusty Russell - Blockstream's LN implementation
3) AmikaPay LN implementation
4) StrawPay LN implementation
This is the fifth one -
5) http://thunder.network being developed by Mats Jerratsch at Blockchain
April 19, 2016, 01:43:58 PM
There are 5 independent companies developing their own versions of the lightning network. First one( Dryja’s Lightning Network) is expected this summer.
https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/greg-maxwell-lightning-network-better-than-sidechains-for-scaling-bitcoin-1461077424
https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/greg-maxwell-lightning-network-better-than-sidechains-for-scaling-bitcoin-1461077424
Correction: "Maxwell noted, “At least five companies as well as many individuals are actively developing Lightning, and much of the code and development is open in a similar model to Bitcoin.”
Please list the "5 independent companies developing their own versions of the lightning network" here:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
That's a good point newbie.... Surely it would be nice to get more specificity rather than blanket statements.
Quote
... Your history and actions suggest otherwise however and it is pretty easy to verify you get sadistic pleasure off of attacking bitcoin on the buttcoin subreddit.
Isn't this what you Bitcoin cognoscenti call ad hominem? Why do you find it so difficult to stick to the issues without dragging in butthurt & conspiracy theories?
I doubt that anti-Stolfi posters are engaging in unwarranted ad hominem attacks, especially when it comes to Stolfi. He genuinely tends to deserve a large number of attacks because purposefully and even sometimes admittedly, he has been in the business of spreading disinformation regarding bitcoin.... Every once in a while Stolfi makes some decent points (just like a stopped clock is correct twice a day), but really overall, he is purposefully aimed at deceiving and misleading in respect to bitcoin.
April 19, 2016, 01:32:26 PM
Are you talking theory or is there anyone of import (besides you and some members of the bitcoin community who actually bought bitcoins) who is actually opposed to seg wit?
My understanding is that even "developers" Gavin and Jeff Garzik are in favor of seg wit, and Gavin and Jeff Garzik are the only two "developers" who had been proposing a need to hardfork (through XT and Classic).
So, what's the deal, is there someone else who is notable who is opposed to Segwit?
How could a softfork be more dangerous in the deployment of seg wit and in such actual real world circumstances, if there is actually no opposition seg wit?
My understanding is that even "developers" Gavin and Jeff Garzik are in favor of seg wit, and Gavin and Jeff Garzik are the only two "developers" who had been proposing a need to hardfork (through XT and Classic).
So, what's the deal, is there someone else who is notable who is opposed to Segwit?
How could a softfork be more dangerous in the deployment of seg wit and in such actual real world circumstances, if there is actually no opposition seg wit?
There is no known obvious flaw in SegWit, even implemented as soft fork with Luke's script hack (as Blockstream is doing). It does fix those malleability problems. The other alleged benefits are small: it saves a little bandwidth for simple clients (only for them; not for full nodes) and may give a little more block space (depending on how many clients adopt the new format).
Who fucking cares how much value it adds? The main point is that seg wit is not controverted by any significant player. There are people whining about seg wit, but in the end, no one of significance disagrees with its implementation, so therefore, it can be implemented as a softfork.
Regarding value and how much it adds to blockchain capacity, we will see about that, once it is implemented. Currently, there is a lot of speculation about how much it will add and whether it is enough, and in that regard, it seems very reasonable to let it go live (since it is not controverted), and then to determine thereafter whether additional measures will need to be taken in order to accomplish additional objectives (such as further increasing capacity).
SegWit is just a disgusting hack. The same benefits could (should) have been implemented in a cleaner way, with a hard fork, without having to change the format of blocks.
Could have, should have, so what!!!!
no one really disagrees about seg wit.. so why continue to make it an issue, except for the purpose of spreading FUCD. The point is it is already done.. been agreed to and in the process of going live... the only likely way of stopping seg wit from going live is if there is some kind of significant problem that is discovered before it actually goes live.. so why continue to cry over spillt milk?
I have seen complaints from wallet developers about the extent of changes that it will require to their code. Others have complained about the huge risk of having such a pervasive change (more than 500 lines of code, last I read) made to the core of the protocol, with relatively little critical review, and under such pressure. (Testing can reveal accidental flaws; but one will not know about security flaws until it is implemented, and malicious hackers try to break it.)
Others are unhappy that Blockstream is putting so much effort into deploying SegWit, instead of other things like fast block propagation. The reason for the hurry is that SegWit is needed for the LN (or some other thing that Blockstream is planning and did not tell).
Others are unhappy that Blockstream is putting so much effort into deploying SegWit, instead of other things like fast block propagation. The reason for the hurry is that SegWit is needed for the LN (or some other thing that Blockstream is planning and did not tell).
OK??? Besides a bunch of whiners on reddit or some other bitcoin forum, who of significance is actually opposed in any meaningful way to seg wit? Name someone, or cite to their objections. As far as I know, there is no meaningful disagreement to the implementation of seg wit, except for insignificant whiners in various bitcoin forums. There is no one with a meaningful position in bitcoin, either merchants, developers or miners who are voicing any meaningful objection to seg wit. They may be complaining about other things, such as also wanting to get a hard increase in the limit, but those are convoluted arguments, and in the end, there is no meaningful objection to seg wit - if so show who that is.
Hard forks are not more dangerous than soft-forks. One can argue that they in fact safer, because they must be executed openly and be accepted in advance by a large segment of the users.
They are more dangerous if there is disagreement regarding their implementation, and they are more dangerous if they attempt to change bitcoin's governance in order to make changes (consensus rules) easier to achieve.
.......
Besides, there will be some hard fork in the future, for other reasons (such as increasing the min block size). The alternative malleability fix (that does not require the split-block format) could be deployed in the same hard fork.
Yes, likely there will be some hardforks in the future, and probably those hardforks will be regarding non-controverted topics (and likely have a very large consensus, such as much more than 95%).
SegWit makes bitcoin more complicated: the split blocks and transactions, Luke's script hack, the fee formulas, etc.
Increasing the complexity of the protocol makes it harder to explain and master (many docs will have to be edited) and harder to maintain. Increased complexity means that fewer people will qualify to maintain the code, and to write applications that depend on the format.
You keep going back over the point to argue against something that is not controverted, and it does not really matter, at this point how complicated it is, etc. etc.. because it is already in the pipeline to be implemented, and you better come up with some more major flaws in order to cause a reverse of this course of action. So, you can whine and whine and whine, but it is really not very productive because the substance of your whining does not rise to a high enough level to be material enough to change what's already in the works. On the other hand, if you were working on solutions to various problems, rather than just whining about the existence of problems, then that would likely be more productive towards the dialogue - rather than attempting to cause confusion amongst people (but, when by definition you are in the business of spreading FUCD, then I suppose you are not really capable (or you won't get paid) of more meaningful kinds of contributions to the discussion).
Jump to: