Bitcoin now has a rather nice flag formation after the rise from 200-500 with little media fanfare. The alt's are waking up and the halving is approaching. The only thing keeping bitcoin back is the blocksize debate which will soon resolve either by a HF with majority of miner support, or with Core acquiescing to the demands of the market and miners (3 weeks!) and fixing a 2mb blocksize HF in the roadmap.
The Chinese will stick with Core, they are quite conservative with respect to leadership. I'd be surprised to see Core implement 2MB blocks in addition to segregated witness, but we'll see.
And so long, farewell, auf wiedersehen 300s!
I'm actually pleasantly surprised with the steady price increase recently. Does anyone know the reasoning behind the increase? Does it have anything to do with the
lack of users moving to classic or something, and now that the investors see that, they're buying again?
Or has Classic caused the increase as more users flock to it?
i think thats the reason. miners are hesitant and so a contentious HF is for the moment highly unlikely. 95% HF in 2017 is therefore highly likely.
@ImI: Why do you keep framing the issue as if a hard fork is inevitable? Why is a hardfork needed in the first place? I think that threatening and even engaging in action to employ a hard fork is what causes so much contentious behavior from a large number of persons who become more entrenched in their positions because the solution is framed as being a hardfork.
There seems to be no reason for a hardfork, except one that strives to fundamentally change bitcoin's currently existing consensus based governance mechanism.
ANY blocksize increase will require a hard fork, Numbnuts.
You seem to be creating a false dichotomy.
Let's say for example seg wit gets implemented as planned within the next few months, and then there is continued discussion about whether a blocksize increase is still needed.
At that point, if 90 percent or more agree that a block size increase is needed then maybe could do a hard fork, to coerce the other 10%...
On the other hand, there are ways to design changes in soft forks rather than hard forks. Have you ever heard about a soft fork?
A soft fork achieves all the same things, it is just voluntary, rather than forced... and maybe in the end, achieves all of the same goals without being as coercive nor as sudden and controversial.
The issue at hand is whether or not a contentious hard fork will be necessitated by Core dragging their heels.
Oh that is the issue. yeah, right?
We already know that they are not dragging their heels because seg wit is sufficiently fast and sufficiently adequate for the time being to address immediate concerns. Once seg wit goes into effect then there may be a need to continue to address and maybe go down the blocksize increase road
The consensus-based governance mechanism is broken.
yes, you and others have come to that conclusion, and that is why a hard fork is being proposed. It is not being proposed for technical reasons, but instead to change the consensus-based governance mechanism by attempting to cause turmoil and to create situations to show that such governance is broken.. when, really, it is not... just appears to be at the moment based on the introduction of an unnecessary hardfork.
Maxwell and crew do not know business or economics. The problem with most people who do not know economics is not that they are ignorant, but that they believe in economic models that are incorrect.
O.k. Do they need to know business and economics?
Leave that to others?
Why is it relevant?
Bitcoin is currently not broken.... except for attempts to make it look broken.
It's not like physics. Economics is counterintuitive and people with the least amount of bias and a lack of intellectual rigor almost always get it wrong. Smart people are often the worst offenders because they assume competence in one field automatically translates into the economics field, but it doesn't.
i would think that there are a lot of things people know and don't know, and I was of the belief that bitcoin is not exactly a business that anyone is running.. and it is what it is.. and adjustments are made along the way based on a variety of inputs.
There is no such thing as a free lunch. The closest we can get is improved efficiency, and Core is intentionally making Bitcoin less efficient because reasons. There is a cost associated with this. If you pay higher fees OR you pay by waiting longer, that cost is taken out of price. That's why the 5 year logarithmic uptrend is broken. This matters much more than some lame $30 pump. That is transient.
None of these matters are problems..
You have been calling for downfalls in the price of bitcoin for several years.. but you have your on and off moments depending your book and how much attention that you want to get with your various bitcoin is broken proclamations.
