Topic: Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion - page 19179. (Read 26608321 times)
February 26, 2016, 05:34:35 AM
Looks to me like BTC lift-off around early to mid next week (if not before).
February 26, 2016, 05:19:42 AM
The fact that 90% of bitcoin holders bought bitcoins just to "get more fiat money" means that they all have a sell point and there will be very few huge run-ups.
But that's ok because it creates liquidity and stabilizes the price so bitcoin can actually be used as a currency.
But that's ok because it creates liquidity and stabilizes the price so bitcoin can actually be used as a currency.
February 26, 2016, 05:00:48 AM
February 26, 2016, 04:48:23 AM
Hmm, couldn't all the pools just go with 2MB and tell the devs who think they control everything to stop trying to make themselves feel important?
Bitcoin is by design controlled by the consensus of the miners, not by centralised control.
It would seem that there are all sorts of parties trying to control bitcoin and I guess they all simply fail to understand the design.
Doesn't really matter how important devs think they are, if they want to be a relevant part of the blockchain decisions then they need to be miners.
...
BlockStream/Sidechains/SegWit all sounds a lot like trying pointlessly to control altcoins and make something like a partial SPV ... to me.
Moments of Lucidity are Lucid.
kano's a legend
Dude was elbow deep looong before any of these 2013 bubble joiners read their first article. Before Adam Back realized his "hashcash extended with inflation control" might just be a thing.
As the discussion has been split, and moved, here's the link to his actual comment:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.14005202
February 26, 2016, 04:31:05 AM
Hmm, couldn't all the pools just go with 2MB and tell the devs who think they control everything to stop trying to make themselves feel important?
Bitcoin is by design controlled by the consensus of the miners, not by centralised control.
It would seem that there are all sorts of parties trying to control bitcoin and I guess they all simply fail to understand the design.
Doesn't really matter how important devs think they are, if they want to be a relevant part of the blockchain decisions then they need to be miners.
...
BlockStream/Sidechains/SegWit all sounds a lot like trying pointlessly to control altcoins and make something like a partial SPV ... to me.
Moments of Lucidity are Lucid.
February 26, 2016, 04:05:31 AM
Fees aren't prohibitively expensive today... but that means we have near 0 potential for growth... it's not a coincidence that the exponential uptrend in price has been thoroughly broken. Also, no coincidence that alts are exploding (lucky iCE), taking massive share from BTC.
Massive share in what? The transactions conducted in other blockchains are few. Actually these blockchains SHOULD be used more, especially by applications that are currently spamming the BTC blockchain.
Price movement of altcoins is mostly irrelevant as it doesn't deal with fundamentals. For example Ethereum scales worse than BTC and will definitely not run for free / near-zero-cost, otherwise it is a completely broken system. So what exactly is the market "rewarding" in Ethereum? It's superior scaling or finding solutions that don't exist in bitcoin? No.
The fee structures in general in altcoins, are typically worse than BTC. Ethereum, for example, considers the low fee model of bitcoin as broken in terms of dealing with abuse and bloating/centralization.
Monero has been extensively abused by bloat attacks that almost killed them and had to raise fees.
Litecoin has in place certain anti-spam fees that aren't in Bitcoin.
DASH has various fees in place as abuse disincentives in its subsystems.
Near free txs = Near free abuse. For anonymous coins => near free txs = near free sybil attack vector to unmask mixing parties, plus near free bloat for the lolz by the mixing which multiply hard disk use.
You see the recent past as a reliable indicator of the future, fine.
Quote
It's obvious to everyone after 6 months of debating that Blockstream wants a constrained on-chain environment to artificially incentivize off-chain solutions...
Satoshi put the 1MB in place. Not "Blockstream".
The offchain solutions or sidechains, are just a necessity to deal with the technological problem of scaling. When even at 2MB blocks - if you leave the code as it is, you can get validation times of >10 minutes, that's not blockstream's fault. When even if you "deal" with the quadratic explosion by crippling some stuff, you still hit similar hurdles if you go to higher block size numbers, in terms of propagation times, that's not blockstream's fault.
If the internet had 100TBps lines instead of 100GBps, and CPUs were way faster, and disks were way bigger, we might be laughing at all this right now - as will people of the future reading us. But right now the problem is real - there is nothing artificial about it. And the only people doing work to fix it are core devs (see, for example, validation time improvements to help it scale).
As for ROI, I don't know how many Bitcoins they actually own, but even if a portion of this money has been invested in Bitcoin, and Bitcoin goes way higher in price as a result of proper development work being conducted, then it's not impossible to see very impressive ROIs.
Yes, he did, when the actual traffic was a tiny fraction of the max, previously intended to be an anti DoS limit, not an economic policy tool. Guess what, it didn't immediately peg 1MB and stay there becuz spammerz...
Your >10min validation time threat has already been dealt with in classic, rtfm, the possibility is no greater with classic at 2MB vs core at 1MB. Not even a big problem if it hadn't, because no sane miner would sit there with their thumb up their ass verifying a malicious block, it'd become stale, and be replaced by a longer chain.
This conflict goes deeper than the safety of 1MB vs 2MB... it goes to the very heart of the incentive mechanisms of the network. One side advocates economic central planning with their grubby little fingers on the miner's supply curve. The other side recognizes that miners are incentivized to use soft limits to regulate their block sizes, and set their own fee prices... It's pretty simple really: A battle of the technocratic central planners and the capitalists. History has shown, we can't be sure of who will win. Important to keep in mind... digital competition moves freely... no Berlin Walls here... tick tock.
[You think investors in Blockstream™, led by Reid Hoffman, Khosla Ventures and Real Ventures, with investments from Nicolas Berggruen, Crypto Currency Partners, Future\Perfect Ventures, Danny Hillis, Eric Schmidt’s Innovation Endeavors, Max Levchin, Mosaic Ventures, Ray Ozzie, Ribbit Capital, Jerry Yang’s AME Cloud Ventures and several others gave millions to them just because they might own some bitscoins... lel]
February 26, 2016, 04:00:47 AM
February 26, 2016, 03:58:03 AM
I wouldn't be overly shocked to see $450's in the near future.
Long and strong.
Desperate much
Not so strong i'd say!
Yeah even weak I'd say! ^^
February 26, 2016, 03:22:07 AM
Fees aren't prohibitively expensive today... but that means we have near 0 potential for growth... it's not a coincidence that the exponential uptrend in price has been thoroughly broken. Also, no coincidence that alts are exploding (lucky iCE), taking massive share from BTC.
Massive share in what? The transactions conducted in other blockchains are few. Actually these blockchains SHOULD be used more, especially by applications that are currently spamming the BTC blockchain.
Price movement of altcoins is mostly irrelevant as it doesn't deal with fundamentals. For example Ethereum scales worse than BTC and will definitely not run for free / near-zero-cost, otherwise it is a completely broken system. So what exactly is the market "rewarding" in Ethereum? It's superior scaling or finding solutions that don't exist in bitcoin? No.
The fee structures in general in altcoins, are typically worse than BTC. Ethereum, for example, considers the low fee model of bitcoin as broken in terms of dealing with abuse and bloating/centralization.
Monero has been extensively abused by bloat attacks that almost killed them and had to raise fees.
Litecoin has in place certain anti-spam fees that aren't in Bitcoin.
DASH has various fees in place as abuse disincentives in its subsystems.
Near free txs = Near free abuse. For anonymous coins => near free txs = near free sybil attack vector to unmask mixing parties, plus near free bloat for the lolz by the mixing which multiply hard disk use.
Quote
It's obvious to everyone after 6 months of debating that Blockstream wants a constrained on-chain environment to artificially incentivize off-chain solutions...
Satoshi put the 1MB in place. Not "Blockstream".
The offchain solutions or sidechains, are just a necessity to deal with the technological problem of scaling. When even at 2MB blocks - if you leave the code as it is, you can get validation times of >10 minutes, that's not blockstream's fault. When even if you "deal" with the quadratic explosion by crippling some stuff, you still hit similar hurdles if you go to higher block size numbers, in terms of propagation times, that's not blockstream's fault.
If the internet had 100TBps lines instead of 100GBps, and CPUs were way faster, and disks were way bigger, we might be laughing at all this right now - as will people of the future reading us. But right now the problem is real - there is nothing artificial about it. And the only people doing work to fix it are core devs (see, for example, validation time improvements to help it scale).
As for ROI, I don't know how many Bitcoins they actually own, but even if a portion of this money has been invested in Bitcoin, and Bitcoin goes way higher in price as a result of proper development work being conducted, then it's not impossible to see very impressive ROIs.
February 26, 2016, 03:08:17 AM
Desperate much
Not so strong i'd say!
Not so strong i'd say!
If I was desperate I'd be dressed up in my cheer leading outfit on the side of the road with my pom poms and a Bitcoin sign
.You may need yours here soon!
February 26, 2016, 03:00:55 AM
In a few months 12.5 BTC of subsidy will be cut. Can we have 330mb of extra block space to compensate with 1 cent fee txs? The answer is no. Even if price goes 10x, we still need 33mb blocks - which is also a no-go.
did you segwit that 330mb block ?
Effective 330. Whether it is done in a single 330 block or two separate data structures that add up to 330MB but get advertised for less doesn't really matter because txs ultimately occupy more or less the same space.
Quote
maybe miners will make fees min 5cents, and maybe they can survive on 8BTC
what block size do i need now, does it break the internets?
what block size do i need now, does it break the internets?
It's a slidebar situation, not a binary one.
The more you push the slidebar higher, the more problems you create. And pushing it just to satisfy the need for spam is irrational. It needs well calculated moves by those who understand the technical drawbacks. And most people don't understand them - although they will be the first to curse the devs if their desire is implemented and the system breaks as a result.
Quote
who cares? this is a problem for tomorrow...
People who actually want bitcoin to succeed care.
February 26, 2016, 03:00:47 AM
February 26, 2016, 02:35:37 AM
I wouldn't be overly shocked to see $450's in the near future.
Long and strong.
Desperate much
Not so strong i'd say!
February 26, 2016, 02:25:58 AM
JayJuanGee, now you are the one that is going bonkers.
Geez, you're slow.
Oh, and congratulations with your stint as ruthless dictator. Gave me a lol.
February 26, 2016, 02:19:03 AM
I wouldn't be overly shocked to see $450's in the near future.
February 26, 2016, 02:15:23 AM
Do you really want me to? Ok here you go: first they ignore you, then ...
I lol'ed btw
. 
February 26, 2016, 02:01:20 AM
Everyone are arguing about the block size of a gimmicky currency. And I'm just sitting here.. making money on the smooth swings of the ETH market. It's currently probably better to keep away from buying ETH for a couple of days, but I will surely buy back. I truly like this market.
The bitcoin community is out of original and innovative ideas for development, so they spend their time quarreling about issues that should be solved much quicker. This is just slow and boring.
The bitcoin community is out of original and innovative ideas for development, so they spend their time quarreling about issues that should be solved much quicker. This is just slow and boring.
ya that project doesn't sound like it hurtling super fast towards a huge bug that kills it... nope.
The world would be a better place if a serious bug would kill bitcoin. Everyone who have been stuck on this dead coin for years already would be freed from their unhealthy addiction. All the wealth that is tied down in this stagnant system could flow into more potential and dynamic endeavours. The development of cryptography based financial solutions would speed up and finally we could see truly practical tools.
Financial services would become cheaper, prices would drop, salaries would rise, outer space would be explored, the lives of countless puppies and kittens would be saved..
Vote for a better future, vote for the death of bitcoin!
February 26, 2016, 02:00:46 AM
February 26, 2016, 01:59:09 AM
i hate bitcoin because its 2:00am again.
Jump to: