Topic: Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion - page 19083. (Read 26608895 times)

bitaddress.org

you need to save this html page,
remove internet wire ( or reboot with a linux live cd or usb )
print out the paper wallet
reboot.
cut the private in half ( use scissors ), hide one half of the key in your ass and the other in a bank vault.

this will give you the most secure / simplest wallet solution i can think of.

sounds like you needed to take out a good % off BTC of the exchange for a while now...
exchanges can implode anytime.
MtGox wasn't the first and it wont be the last.

Coin



Explanation

+1

I have coins on their exchange and coins in the regular wallet and coins in the vault.

As you likely realize, with many things related to bitcoin, I like to brainstorm about my actions and my contemplated actions (especially when I am making fairly significant changes), and that's part of the explanation why I have a 5800+ post count on this forum.

I will probably leave a few coins in coinbase in each of the three locations (wallet, vault and exchange); however, I am in the process of removing some coins from the vault (apparently, it takes 48 hours), and thereafter I will transfer about 90% of my holdings out of there.  I may change the amount later, but 90% is my initial projection.  Upon reflection, this becomes a bit troubling for me, because I had accumulated most of my coins through Coinbase, and until now, they have held the most coins for me than any other location.  I have my coins distributed, but still at this point Coinbase still has about 50% of all my coins.  After this move (probably two transactions on the blockchain), they will have less than 10% of all my coins.

Also, it is a bit ironic that I have been a bitcoin user for more than 2 years, and it surely does take a long time to learn about bitcoin and to create a number of wallets and even now, I am trying to consider other wallet solutions (and some of them just seem too technical and complicated and somewhat filled with one kind of risk or another - whether that be 3rd party risk or the risk of me screwing it up, somehow).

The idea of an forcing / manipulating an increase in the fee market is a complete load of bollocks.

Matching Visa levels of transactions per second with $0.01 fees per transaction would generate more in fees than the current block reward.  

The required size of each block to achieve this could be dealt with with competition for the increased fee income.

Constrain growth to increase fees is something technology nerds would do. Business people would drive growth instead.

Why should economic decisions be in the hands of tech nerds?  That's the key question.

Pray tell why? Bitcoin always had the capacity for 3tps, initially there were a few tx a day, now we hit max capacity, and 'soon as the idiot VC money catches on to the fact that we can't grow, we'll be down to a few tx a day once again.
What don't you get?


Sure, Bitcoin can surpass both Visa & PayPal combined, doing a single transaction per year. The bonus, for you, would be that Bitcoin's market cap would have to be hypreshitloadazillion dollars. Which, according to you, will happen. Because we live in an overaccomodating world, which is just dying to make you filthy rich. Because you're a Visionary, a Seer and Shaper, the One who is Worthy.

can't argue with that!

It is to miners. And speculators. And investors. Who cares what druggies think.

Some optimism for you guys: In the end, everyone gets to say they were right! The big-blockers will get their bigger blocks eventually. The small-blockers will feel content knowing they were right about the sky not being about to fall down immediately. The 1MB4EVA hard core will get to blame any and all subsequent problems Bitcoin experiences on the folly of changing the sacred blocksize.

Too terse and jam-packed with infos; fleshed out the first paragraph 4 u.


Correct. That's why he's telling you that you can't compare not_a_business to a_business, it don't work.

Bitcoin is not a business.

From my perspective, the segwit upgrade is being done ahead of time as >1mb is not really needed right now, nor will it be in 2 months.

If it was getting closer to getting needed, we'd see some serious signs:

- you'd see pools use 1mb soft-limits instead of 250/750 - raising the avg block at something closer to 1, like 0.95mb, instead of 0.6-0.8mb (which have 20-40% more space)
- you'd see fee pressure building up and you would definitely not have 0.04-0.06$ for first block inclusion or 0.003$ to 0.02$ for any-block-inclusion.
- you'd see miners not mining empty blocks leaving money on the table (because there is no money on the table as the fees are too low)
- you'd see serious arguments from the opposition and not lies, propaganda or distorted statistics

lol nice,

my advice to you is JUST DO IT

Western union and paypal base their fees on the amount of money moved. Bitcoin bases its fees on size of actual transactions in data terms. Very different business models. Pretending that you can directly compare them is fraudulent.

Same BS arguments again and again...
Blocks are full because adoption is low?!
This place is not attractive because this place is overcrowded?!
Are you nuts?

Stop blabbering! Fork it!

Let's say I have far more belief in Satoshi and the mechanisms embedded in Bitcoin than those who are trying to "save" it.

Two mechanisms in particular:

a) The fee market
b) Value scaling

If Bitcoin "can't scale", with given network parameters intact since 2010, then perhaps someone can answer me how did it climb from a few dollars per day in transactions in 2010 to doing 150-230 million USD per day? It would seem impossible if we heard all the trolls.

And why is it that it can still scale from 200 million per day to 2 billion USD per day, doing over 600 billion USD per year and getting a volume that exceeds paypal and western union, multiplied by two (!), without even increasing the basic system by 1 transaction per second?

The compensatory mechanisms are extremely strong, even if there is currently a weakness in terms of transaction/sec capacity.

And since we are in an investment-related thread:

You can use the 250k transactions per day for buying coffees at 3$ apiece. You can even double or quadraple the blocksize to 4mb and get 1mn transactions of 3$ on average. Now tell me, do you feel better that you can do 12tx/s and you can buy 12 coffees per second? Do you feel better that you can only do 3mn per day or just 1 billion per year by doing microtransactions? Can you even justify BTC's marketcap of 6+ bn by doing that? The answer is no.

If, on the other hand, you are doing 250k or 1mn txs of 1000$ apiece, you are doing 250mn USD per day* to 1bn USD per day - or 91bn to 365bn per year, beating the likes of Western Union and Paypal, all the while making your marketcap grow astronomically because it's very under-rated at 6bn. You can choose whether you can go after microtransactions -where you will waste your enormous advantage- and harm your marketcap, or moving serious money and being the real deal. And the future is even brighter because we'll be able to do *both* (mass low value and high value transactions). It's technologically assured based on the tech progression curve.

* We are currently doing 150-230mn per day at 600-800$ per tx: https://blockchain.info/charts/estimated-transaction-volume-usd?timespan=30days&showDataPoints=false&daysAverageString=1&show_header=true&scale=0&address=

Currently, I'm considering removing a large majority of my coins from Coinbase, because of their various recent stances in the blocksize limit debate that seem to purposeful attempts at disrupting and dividing the bitcoin community (to the extent that there is such a community). 

Coin



Explanation

Here's one:

I don't know.   You seem to be attempting to attribute a claim to me that I am not making.  Most people, including myself, seem to believe that some kind of increased blocksize limit is going to have to take place down the road (the extent to which the time-line for such capacity increase is foreseeble seems somewhat speculative).

It surely seems that greater transaction capacity is going to be needed at some point, because it is anticipated that bitcoin is going to continue to grow. 

At this point, Seg wit is in the works and it is getting closer and closer to implementation (so it seems), and there are various plans to consider the extent to which additional increases to capacity are going to be needed after seg wit is brought live. 

So, yeah, seems pretty likely that increased users and increased transactions are going to cause for increased needs for larger block size limits. 

At this point, it does not seem to be an emergency as it is made out to be, except for a bunch of loud mouths making the problem out to be greater than it really is.  That is part of the problem.. too much whining about a supposed, alleged and speculative problem that doesn't really exist beyond the attempts at fabricating such and other innocent people seeming to believe such fabrications and the loud mouths rather than actual..

Even though there is some truth that down the road there are likely going to need to be various expansions to capacity, the matter is not as urgent and dire as it is made out to be, and no one is really arguing that expansions will never be needed.  Those are kinds of strawmen arguments to suggest that core advocates do not believe that a blocksize increase will be needed down the road.