Still moon.
buy.
buy.
interesting to wandererfromthenorth turn so bullish, pleasant but interesting ... could this be "THE" one?
Topic: Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion - page 19369. (Read 26610659 times)
February 12, 2016, 08:07:08 PM
interesting to wandererfromthenorth turn so bullish, pleasant but interesting ... could this be "THE" one?
February 12, 2016, 08:05:42 PM
Whoa brother... I was thinking more of deleting their comments and banning them from subreddits... followed by a little gentle DDoSing, no need to go that far.
You were using the term Purge which was an odd attempt to by Fatman3001 to insinuate I advocated for technique used by Stalin and his followers. Take a Look at this deplorable moment in history that he was referring to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Purge
So if I admit I've been mislead by Satoshi's white paper outside trolls and agent provocateurs... will you cipher punks welcome me back into the agreeable hodler fold? I can't imagine how I would cope without JJG's insight and humor... Sure, a big ol' pile of stinkin' filthy fiat might help, but would leave me with a strange acrobat shaped hole in my heart. 
You are always welcome to stay, leave, or advocate for change friend. No need to admit you were wrong either, as it really isn't about arguing over Satoshi's Whitepaper because he left and the direction of Bitcoin is in our hands now. You and Me.... we should work together in solidarity to make it better.
P.S... I believe their are many genuine bitcoin advocates who support Classic(including some prominent anarchists like Ver and Janssens so this isn't about Statists vs Anarchists), and that the trolls and agent provocateurs aren't just representing the classic side but multiple groups for various reasons. One likely reason is to subvert our ecosystem. Here is a good video giving you an overview on how states subvert organizations they oppose - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8fQoGMtE0EY
I do think that it is possible that States are still ignoring and simply watching our ecosystem from the sidelines as they have already admitted towards...who knows? The beauty of subversion is that it is extremely difficult to avoid or identify and those that claim that it is happening are accused of being paranoid. The good thing is that we can avoid its effects by increasing education and trying not to automatically assume ill will , and sticking to the facts as best we can to avoid it if it is happening.
February 12, 2016, 08:01:15 PM
February 12, 2016, 07:47:32 PM
I don't know all about that purge non-sense ... we shouldn't stoop to their level and use violence, torture, kidnapping, and murder to effect change when we can write code and peacefully opt out of funding various crimes against humanity.
-snip-
-snip-
Whoa brother... I was thinking more of deleting their comments and banning them from subreddits... followed by a little gentle DDoSing, no need to go that far.
To be fair ... The reality distortion field was high within their community because outside trolls and agent provocateurs where actively supporting Bitcoin Classic to create division in our community and because adopting that implementation would lead to centralization and dis-empower all the "evil" crypt-anarchists and cipher-punks.
We shouldn't hold any grudges against most Classic supporters and welcome them back in as our temporarily lost brothers in an act of solidarity.
So if I admit I've been mislead by
February 12, 2016, 07:26:50 PM
...peacefully opt out of funding various crimes against humanity.
Like education and healthcare? 
February 12, 2016, 07:22:05 PM
billy, please keep us updated as you double down. Will make things much more enjoyable.
February 12, 2016, 07:17:31 PM
You read the letter as a resounding denunciation of Classic and a firm endorsement of Core, interesting.
Upon reading point 3...
This is obviously asking Core to do what they have refused to do for a year now, and it gives a deadline.
Let's see if miners will grab the bone they might be thrown. My guess is that it will be a pinky promise for a HF sometime in 2017.
Now, because Core is immune to politics, and will only base decisions on theirenabling of future profitability technical superiority... they simply cannot do this. To change Gregory's roadmap is to succumb to political pressure where a mouth breathing majority tramples the sacred rights of the enlightened minority, compromising at all would mean they have been lying all along about that point. Bit of a pickle there. Cheers Friend. 
Let the purge begin! Bitcoin is a settlement tool for central banking, excelsior!
Any tips on how I can run a payment channel hub to siphon fees from miners?
The sooner we purge these CIA/GCHQ banksters, the better! Zionists... ur next!
Upon reading point 3...
Quote
In the next 3 weeks, we need the Bitcoin Core developers to work with us and clarify the roadmap with respect to a future hard-fork which includes an increase of the block size.
This is obviously asking Core to do what they have refused to do for a year now, and it gives a deadline.
Let's see if miners will grab the bone they might be thrown. My guess is that it will be a pinky promise for a HF sometime in 2017.
Now, because Core is immune to politics, and will only base decisions on their
Let the purge begin! Bitcoin is a settlement tool for central banking, excelsior!
Any tips on how I can run a payment channel hub to siphon fees from miners?
The sooner we purge these CIA/GCHQ banksters, the better! Zionists... ur next!
I don't know all about that purge non-sense ... we shouldn't stoop to their level and use violence, torture, kidnapping, and murder to effect change when we can write code and peacefully opt out of funding various crimes against humanity.
I think it would be a great for Core developers to set a date for a HF with certain conditions to be met so we have a goal. If not , It would be great if Classic could take some advice from the miners and Garzik who was denied changing the thresh-hold and perhaps deploy a new implementation based off of 0.12.0 that included a 1.5MB bump with segwit HF in, a 90% thresh-hold of the previous 12960 of blocks with a 3 month grace period. This proposal would be far more attractive.
P.S... The Ln will allow nodes to be incentivized and strengthens our ecosystem. This solves our dilemma of node drop off. Additionally, mining is so competitive that the cost of equipment and electricity is close to the total sum of reward+tx fees+extra fees from other services like selling virgin coins. This means that if all tx are handled directly through miners instead of on a caching layer the cost of equipment and electricity will increase likewise instead of it slowing down due nodes sharing tx fees with miners. This may solve the concern of the exponential increase of electricity consumed for PoW....
February 12, 2016, 07:09:47 PM
Looks like you got your purge Bitusher.
I'm getting posts deleted east, west, left and right.
Congratulations!!!
I don't recommend or advocate for censorship.
lel
btw... did you correct your orgasmic announcement of the "Call for Pre-Consensus Consensus Letter" where you were woefully confused about what BitmainWarranty is?
It's true, 3 more weeks of stalemate is exactly what was needed. Time enough to get a lawyer to say some scary words that mean Bitcoin can never hardfork again! Hurray!
They just ain't got no scruples.
brb, gotta go work on my github attributions
lol
February 12, 2016, 07:07:44 PM
Think smart.
2011 : 10 USD
2016 : 400 USD
2021 : ?
?
Oh, and ... you can look this, too ... if you like that : http://bitcoin.sipa.be/
We need just to sit ... and watch this big forteress of "PRICE OF BITCOIN" rise after the halving and the exponential power of mining.
and then ... WE FUCK GOLD, YEAAAAH !
2011 : 10 USD
2016 : 400 USD
2021 : ?
?Oh, and ... you can look this, too ... if you like that : http://bitcoin.sipa.be/
We need just to sit ... and watch this big forteress of "PRICE OF BITCOIN" rise after the halving and the exponential power of mining.
and then ... WE FUCK GOLD, YEAAAAH !
February 12, 2016, 07:07:01 PM
UPDATE: I now have a 80 coin short in. Want to make it 160? 320? keep pumping, cripplecoiners.
Wow... you are braver bear than me... I shorted 2 days ago, when 12h MACD divergence looked ready to cross into red,
and then had to close the short at a small loss, so now I'm waiting, it may crash this weekend or climb to 400$ and then crash.
Anyway IMO support at 300$ must be tested, even in a bullish scenario.
I love that even your bullish scenario includes a price crash of 21%. Nothing changes
February 12, 2016, 07:03:02 PM
https://www.quora.com/What-does-the-White-House-think-of-cryptocurrencies-such-as-bitcoin
Ed Felten, Deputy U.S. Chief Technology Officer of The US gvt has keenly watching the debate as they are interested in the outcome.
Claims there is no participation.
Ed Felten, Deputy U.S. Chief Technology Officer of The US gvt has keenly watching the debate as they are interested in the outcome.
Claims there is no participation.
"But cryptocurrencies also raise concerns with respect to traditional financial and law enforcement policy issues like money laundering and consumer protection. Agencies across the government are working to make sure that the basic rules of the road for financial systems continue to apply in a sensible way to Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies."
TL;DR:
February 12, 2016, 07:01:22 PM
February 12, 2016, 07:01:03 PM
-snip-
...the fact that Classic is DOA with the mining and economic majority opposing them. Cheers friend.
-snip-
...the fact that Classic is DOA with the mining and economic majority opposing them. Cheers friend.
-snip-
You read the letter as a resounding denunciation of Classic and a firm endorsement of Core, interesting.
Upon reading point 3...
https://www.quora.com/What-does-the-White-House-think-of-cryptocurrencies-such-as-bitcoin
Ed Felten, Deputy U.S. Chief Technology Officer of The US gvt has keenly watching the debate as they are interested in the outcome.
Claims there is no participation.
Ed Felten, Deputy U.S. Chief Technology Officer of The US gvt has keenly watching the debate as they are interested in the outcome.
Claims there is no participation.
The sooner we purge these CIA/GCHQ banksters, the better! Zionists... ur next!
February 12, 2016, 06:59:23 PM
Here's an interesting notice posted by the Poloniex owners on their site.
WARNING: There's an impostor Poloniex app in the Google Play Store. Do not use this; it may be malicious. There is no official Poloniex app.
Trading on phones is for weirdos anyway but there's an extra reason not to.
WARNING: There's an impostor Poloniex app in the Google Play Store. Do not use this; it may be malicious. There is no official Poloniex app.
Trading on phones is for weirdos anyway but there's an extra reason not to.
February 12, 2016, 06:56:52 PM
https://www.quora.com/What-does-the-White-House-think-of-cryptocurrencies-such-as-bitcoin
Ed Felten, Deputy U.S. Chief Technology Officer of The US gvt has keenly watching the debate as they are interested in the outcome.
Claims there is no participation.
Ed Felten, Deputy U.S. Chief Technology Officer of The US gvt has keenly watching the debate as they are interested in the outcome.
Claims there is no participation.
meh, no kidding.
Quote
I am also watching with interest the debate within the Bitcoin community about the block size limit. (To be clear, the government is paying attention to that debate but are not participating in it.) This is a challenge to Bitcoin’s governance model, because it requires the community to come to a consensus on an issue where there seem to be high stakes and plausible arguments on each side.
status quo is the winning strategy. let them financial system panic.
February 12, 2016, 06:52:43 PM
.... one than the following would likely be the fallout-
1) Some devs would leave bitcoin altogether abruptly or just stop contributing and slowly selling off their large investments
2) Some devs would join classic and be equally motivated
3) Some devs may attack the HF or create a competing alt
4) Some devs may participate with classic but be less motivated
It would also set a dangerous precedent where a contentious HF's would start to become the norm and we have more to look forward to with regard to politics and arguing every year... ...
...Classic devs even wanted to HF in segwit when a soft fork is available!
1) Some devs would leave bitcoin altogether abruptly or just stop contributing and slowly selling off their large investments
2) Some devs would join classic and be equally motivated
3) Some devs may attack the HF or create a competing alt
4) Some devs may participate with classic but be less motivated
It would also set a dangerous precedent where a contentious HF's would start to become the norm and we have more to look forward to with regard to politics and arguing every year... ...
...Classic devs even wanted to HF in segwit when a soft fork is available!
What a load of fucking shit. You really are a spoon.
If Core devs decide to fuck off because they don't get their way, well they can fuck off now. That sort of mentality is about power grabbing and ego. If you believe in a decentralized currency, who cares how it wins, as long as it wins.
Segwit is a fantastic addition to Bitcoin. But the idea that you can soft fork now and hard fork later is stupid. Hard forking later means more people are on the network and therefore there are more people to piss off. Hard fork now is common sense. Segwit as and when its ready.
Stop being a spoon.
There seems to be absolutely no need for a hardfork, except for the reason to attempt to centralize bitcoin and to screw up its peer to peer nature.
Accordingly, for technical reasons, why hard fork, when a soft fork is sufficiently effective in accomplishing all of the technical needs.
February 12, 2016, 06:51:43 PM
https://www.quora.com/What-does-the-White-House-think-of-cryptocurrencies-such-as-bitcoin
Ed Felten, Deputy U.S. Chief Technology Officer of The US gvt has keenly watching the debate as they are interested in the outcome.
Claims there is no participation.
Ed Felten, Deputy U.S. Chief Technology Officer of The US gvt has keenly watching the debate as they are interested in the outcome.
Claims there is no participation.
February 12, 2016, 06:46:38 PM
UPDATE: I now have a 80 coin short in. Want to make it 160? 320? keep pumping, cripplecoiners.
Just dump all of them? how many you have 600? more than 1000? I doubt that you have more than 1000 with your crazy and historical bluffing talk... you sound too desperate, emotional, wrong and whimsical to be able to manage that many coins over a 4 to 5 year period.
that would be great if you could dump, dump, dump in your little fantasy playing all that you like, and in your FUD spreading attempts.
February 12, 2016, 06:43:09 PM
I'm well aware of the Chinese cultural deference to authority. With so much Bitcoin activity in China now, it make it far less attractive as an investment.
Which is what makes the statements from some Classic supporters so ridiculous, they first want to replace 45 developers from many backgrounds and many different companies with 5 devs from 2-3 companies, than when that fails they threaten to sell their BTC for ETH which is controlled completely by 1 dev ... all because they "distrust authority." Perhaps the reality has nothing to do with decentralization of development (There always has been multiple implementations with different dev teams) , but a fixation of growing fast and ignoring all concerns along the way.
That's not true at all. We want developers who care what their customers want. It's as goddamn simple as that. We want people who are competent enough to respond to the people who buy coins and keep this whole thing going.
If the other hodlers are ok with an intentionally inefficient network, then that's their call. I am tired of arguing.
You, BullyJA, are tired of arguing because you have no more arguments, except to push disinformation and threats and other nonsense.
That was a very nice summary BitUsher...
haahahaha... these goofballs trying to argue that core is too centralized.. what baloney...
YES... I agree that scaling needs to take place and we need to make sure that segwit allows for greater efficiencies and then also there may be a need, down the road to increase the blocksize.. and until then, let's keep going with the core roadmap.. and we should be able to see price appreciation and further adoption while maintaining a considerable degree of decentralized decision making... further development, adoption and consensus (even while sometimes there is some differences of opinion).
Maybe this weekend we will see some further price action in the upward direction? if not by the end of the weekend, we should be in a fairly decent place, no?
I don't even..
"We want developers who care what their customers want"
February 12, 2016, 06:40:24 PM
I'm well aware of the Chinese cultural deference to authority. With so much Bitcoin activity in China now, it make it far less attractive as an investment.
Which is what makes the statements from some Classic supporters so ridiculous, they first want to replace 45 developers from many backgrounds and many different companies with 5 devs from 2-3 companies, than when that fails they threaten to sell their BTC for ETH which is controlled completely by 1 dev ... all because they "distrust authority." Perhaps the reality has nothing to do with decentralization of development (There always has been multiple implementations with different dev teams) , but a fixation of growing fast and ignoring all concerns along the way.
That's not true at all. We want developers who care what their customers want. It's as goddamn simple as that. We want people who are competent enough to respond to the people who buy coins and keep this whole thing going.
If the other hodlers are ok with an intentionally inefficient network, then that's their call. I am tired of arguing.
You, BullyJA, are tired of arguing because you have no more arguments, except to push disinformation and threats and other nonsense.
That was a very nice summary BitUsher...
haahahaha... these goofballs trying to argue that core is too centralized.. what baloney...
YES... I agree that scaling needs to take place and we need to make sure that segwit allows for greater efficiencies and then also there may be a need, down the road to increase the blocksize.. and until then, let's keep going with the core roadmap.. and we should be able to see price appreciation and further adoption while maintaining a considerable degree of decentralized decision making... further development, adoption and consensus (even while sometimes there is some differences of opinion).
Maybe this weekend we will see some further price action in the upward direction? if not by the end of the weekend, we should be in a fairly decent place, no?
Jump to: