Topic: Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion - page 19024. (Read 26610922 times)
March 21, 2016, 09:44:07 AM
>responding to hdbuck as if it was a sentient lifeform
March 21, 2016, 09:40:33 AM
^ frustrated little usefull useless idiot
What ya still doing here? Move along already with your retarded buddies over that motherforkers forum..
What ya still doing here? Move along already with your retarded buddies over that motherforkers forum..
Maybe if a fee was imposed for posting, I would leave, right? Can't have all this spam clogging up the forum...
March 21, 2016, 09:10:18 AM
^ frustrated little usefull useless idiot
What ya still doing here? Move along already with your retarded buddies over that motherforkers forum..
What ya still doing here? Move along already with your retarded buddies over that motherforkers forum..
March 21, 2016, 09:04:07 AM
Imagine bitcoin trades at $1,000,000/BTC next month for some reason. Would not millions, tens of millions of people want to jump in on that? How are millions going to do it with a capacity of a half million xaction/day? They would try. You know how crazy people get in a mania.
Tens of millions, assuming just 1 x "tens" (=10 million), is ~40 times than the current 250k txs/day.
Allowing for 90% fullness, and not all blocks at 100% (if some miners opt to mine less), you'd need ~44.5 mb blocks.
For two tens (=20 million), you need ~89mb blocks.
For some reason people fail to see that. And think raising a block to 4mb will solve all the problems
It's never been about the blocksize.
Forking just to make sure they can dictacte whatever they feel like whining for, because democracy, because mass adoption blablabluh.
Still it ain't happening, bitcoin does not work that way.
Been over a year so by now the shit blocking their sight might dissolve a bit and hopefully they will soon move on.
Right, Dipshit. That's right. Because if we get 2MB and the price jumps up double or more, it will be that much easier to convince the miners to double it again. and again. Because raising the blocksize will increase the value of our bitcoins. Why you can't see that is bewildering. Baffling. There is something wrong with you.
March 21, 2016, 08:59:21 AM
Looks like the price is more stable lately...
March 21, 2016, 08:18:55 AM
And again after few more years, another issue like this will re-surface so we're going to argue about raising the blockchain again to 8MB.
Pretty predictable isn't it. This shit is both annoying on a personal level & damaging to bitcoin. Nobody is ever going to succeed in this game whilst this crap rumbles on.
bitcoin already won.
everything else is noise.
March 21, 2016, 08:06:36 AM
Ain't the crap gonna be here forever? I guess we'll have to wait for that miracle second layer that deals with this stuff once and for all.
March 21, 2016, 07:52:51 AM
And again after few more years, another issue like this will re-surface so we're going to argue about raising the blockchain again to 8MB.
Pretty predictable isn't it. This shit is both annoying on a personal level & damaging to bitcoin. Nobody is ever going to succeed in this game whilst this crap rumbles on.
March 21, 2016, 07:37:43 AM
Give me a sign!!!!!
OH? That's the sign?
Should I sell now in order to be ahead of the game?
Even with that charting of a breaking down in China, I am only slightly bearish for the next 3% break out... maybe 52.75% betting on down...
The mid $420s resistance has been proving a bit more formidable than I had expected, and possibly could be a few more weeks to get passed that point.
I do understand that when we are suffering from overall relative low volume, that leaves quite a bit of control to manipulators.. and it seems that bears tend to push their agenda a bit more in the low volume scenarios... and recently no one seems to getting too excited about possibilities of getting left behind.
Despite the worsening market indicators, price has been more resilient than I expected.
Two months ago, similar indicator crossings resulted in large drops. Now I am trying to figure out how much slower the current market is moving.
March 21, 2016, 05:49:04 AM
We can debate what that limit is, but it's there.
I recently paid more than 50 USD to wire 1000 USD from a US bank to a Singapore account, that is 5%+. And BTC tx are still almost free, notwithstanding their immense advantages on depending on banks.
March 21, 2016, 02:14:53 AM
And again after few more years, another issue like this will re-surface so we're going to argue about raising the blockchain again to 8MB.
March 21, 2016, 02:13:02 AM
Imagine bitcoin trades at $1,000,000/BTC next month for some reason. Would not millions, tens of millions of people want to jump in on that? How are millions going to do it with a capacity of a half million xaction/day? They would try. You know how crazy people get in a mania.
Tens of millions, assuming just 1 x "tens" (=10 million), is ~40 times than the current 250k txs/day.
Allowing for 90% fullness, and not all blocks at 100% (if some miners opt to mine less), you'd need ~44.5 mb blocks.
For two tens (=20 million), you need ~89mb blocks.
For some reason people fail to see that. And think raising a block to 4mb will solve all the problems
It's never been about the blocksize.
Forking just to make sure they can dictacte whatever they feel like whining for, because democracy, because mass adoption blablabluh.
Still it ain't happening, bitcoin does not work that way.
Been over a year so by now the shit blocking their sight might dissolve a bit and hopefully they will soon move on.
March 21, 2016, 01:10:15 AM
Imagine bitcoin trades at $1,000,000/BTC next month for some reason. Would not millions, tens of millions of people want to jump in on that? How are millions going to do it with a capacity of a half million xaction/day? They would try. You know how crazy people get in a mania.
Tens of millions, assuming just 1 x "tens" (=10 million), is ~40 times than the current 250k txs/day.
Allowing for 90% fullness, and not all blocks at 100% (if some miners opt to mine less), you'd need ~44.5 mb blocks.
For two tens (=20 million), you need ~89mb blocks.
For some reason people fail to see that. And think raising a block to 4mb will solve all the problems
March 21, 2016, 12:37:29 AM
Imagine bitcoin trades at $1,000,000/BTC next month for some reason. Would not millions, tens of millions of people want to jump in on that? How are millions going to do it with a capacity of a half million xaction/day? They would try. You know how crazy people get in a mania.
Tens of millions, assuming just 1 x "tens" (=10 million), is ~40 times than the current 250k txs/day.
Allowing for 90% fullness, and not all blocks at 100% (if some miners opt to mine less), you'd need ~44.5 mb blocks.
For two tens (=20 million), you need ~89mb blocks.
March 21, 2016, 12:19:51 AM
Quote
So either we will eventually get a network congestion failure or a complete halt in price appreciation without additional capacity. This is not an opinion. This is a logical certainty.
... this idiotic statement refuses to acknowledge that there are already a great number of bitcoin transactions that do not take place on the bitcoin network, and they can also lead to price appreciation from an increased network effect.
Your argument is simplistically idiotic because it is the equivalent of saying that if you cannot use FedWire then USdollar usage cannot increase.
ok, Moron. Let me use an extreme example to illustrate my point (as you seem to be too stupid to grasp what most high school kids could understand). Imagine bitcoin trades at $1,000,000/BTC next month for some reason. Would not millions, tens of millions of people want to jump in on that? How are millions going to do it with a capacity of a half million xaction/day? They would try. You know how crazy people get in a mania.
Dollars existed before FedWire. Bitcoin derivatives did not exist before Bitcoin. Of course it's theoretically possible for Bitcoin value to increase without transaction volume increasing, but that's not how the real world works. You are trying to make reality fit your model in stead of the other way around.
March 20, 2016, 11:52:37 PM
Quote is from Hearn's rage quit. By growth he's talking about giving free access to something that is limited in supply by design. Think it's obvious that it won't work. Make a block 80MB and if it's free (or almost free) to fill up someone will. Utilization can continue to grow even if it costs few cents extra for a space in a block.
It will never be free to fill up a block. There is always a cost. However, when the block is 1 MB and it is already close to full with normal transactions, the cost to fill it is affordable to some. If the block is much larger, it would be much more expensive to fill it and cause transaction delays. Miners will always set a minimum price/kb to include data in a block.
The argument is not that more space is bad. The argument is that at certain point the cost (in centralization) outweighs the benefit of trying to keep transactions few cents cheaper.
1mb is already filled up (arguably by spam but nevertheless) how long will it take to fill 2mb? Then 4mb if bitcoin will start to take off? Do you think that 8mb is viable? What about 16mb? At what size do you feel the size of the block will centralize the network to the point where you start to get worried and thinking that maybe letting satoshidice pay 2 cents per transaction is not worth it?
March 20, 2016, 10:40:18 PM
Quote is from Hearn's rage quit. By growth he's talking about giving free access to something that is limited in supply by design. Think it's obvious that it won't work. Make a block 80MB and if it's free (or almost free) to fill up someone will. Utilization can continue to grow even if it costs few cents extra for a space in a block.
It will never be free to fill up a block. There is always a cost. However, when the block is 1 MB and it is already close to full with normal transactions, the cost to fill it is affordable to some. If the block is much larger, it would be much more expensive to fill it and cause transaction delays. Miners will always set a minimum price/kb to include data in a block.
March 20, 2016, 07:26:10 PM
...
>couldn't have answered it better than becoin
Because you're no brighter than he is?
>couldn't have answered it better than becoin
Because you're no brighter than he is?
Ah personal attacks. Well, he very well might be, haven't talked to him? much. Think this convo is over thanks for playing. Good bye.
Proof, right there
March 20, 2016, 07:17:13 PM
... No you're not competing with the other 15mil bitcoin market, as most of those bitcoins are NOT for sale. That's basic economics. ...
Nah, that's not basic economics, that's Beanie economics. If Exxon gasoline is in short supply, it doesn't mean it's suddenly more valuable & you can charge more at your Exxon gas station. There are alternatives -- people will simply switch to Shell.
Tacking on "That's basic economics" at the end only shows that you're yet to grasp basic economics.
This thread is about Bitcoin, the shit-tier asset subnormals *spend* money on.
>couldn't have answered it better than becoin
Because you're no brighter than he is?
Ah personal attacks. Well, he very well might be, haven't talked to him? much. Think this convo is over thanks for playing. Good bye.
March 20, 2016, 07:08:56 PM
... No you're not competing with the other 15mil bitcoin market, as most of those bitcoins are NOT for sale. That's basic economics. ...
Nah, that's not basic economics, that's Beanie economics. If Exxon gasoline is in short supply, it doesn't mean it's suddenly more valuable & you can charge more at your Exxon gas station. There are alternatives -- people will simply switch to Shell.
Tacking on "That's basic economics" at the end only shows that you're yet to grasp basic economics.
This thread is about Bitcoin, the shit-tier asset subnormals *spend* money on.
>couldn't have answered it better than becoin
Because you're no brighter than he is?
Jump to: