Coin
Explanation
Topic: Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion - page 19471. (Read 26686390 times)
January 31, 2016, 03:01:27 AM
January 31, 2016, 02:01:27 AM
January 31, 2016, 01:01:25 AM
January 31, 2016, 12:59:20 AM
There's really only two outcomes without a higher or removed max block size: stagnation or network congestion failure.
Like you don't need a gun to kill an ant, you don't need bitcoin to buy your damned coffee. Bitcoin is for gentlemen's transactions. Capisc?
Don't tell me what I need. It's that kind of arrogance that is going to make Bitcoin an asterisk in the history of cryptocurrencies. Businesses that dictate to their customers what they should want are gonna have a bad time.
Bitcoin is not a business, it is a protocol.
Is "ZOMG BITCOIN IS GOING TO DIE BECAUSE ARROGANCE" really your position?
What you need is to write less and read more, because you don't understand a thing about Bitcoin ("grok the ethos" as Dr. Back would say).
January 31, 2016, 12:53:14 AM
Innovation is not burning a gigawatt of mining power to process less than 4 transactions per second. Especially when we could increase that capacity by a factor of eight with almost no additional costs.
In economics, sometimes it's helpful to try and calculate the true cost of something by factoring out the subsidies. In this case the subsidy is the block reward and the cost is paid by investors/speculators.
if users actually paid the full cost of their transaction now, it would be several dollars each. That's a horribly inefficient system and not one worth investing in, IMHO. The fact that it could potentially be much more efficient if some minor changes were made is irrelevant if there is no process for making those changes.
The governance model needs to change, so until Bitcoin Classic or something like it achieves a clear majority of support by nodes and miners, we have to assume the rough consensus mechanism of a small minority having effective veto power is going to continue, which means nothing is going to get done. Blocks will fill up. Fees will increase. There's really only two outcomes without a higher or removed max block size: stagnation or network congestion failure.
In economics, sometimes it's helpful to try and calculate the true cost of something by factoring out the subsidies. In this case the subsidy is the block reward and the cost is paid by investors/speculators.
if users actually paid the full cost of their transaction now, it would be several dollars each. That's a horribly inefficient system and not one worth investing in, IMHO. The fact that it could potentially be much more efficient if some minor changes were made is irrelevant if there is no process for making those changes.
The governance model needs to change, so until Bitcoin Classic or something like it achieves a clear majority of support by nodes and miners, we have to assume the rough consensus mechanism of a small minority having effective veto power is going to continue, which means nothing is going to get done. Blocks will fill up. Fees will increase. There's really only two outcomes without a higher or removed max block size: stagnation or network congestion failure.
The $7/tx subsidy only illustrates how ridiculous the coffees-on-the-blockchain idea is, and how critical it is that BTC become high-powered money rather than yet another retail payment rail.
Those four tps are the most precious rare things in existence. The ability to store and/or transfer value quickly, securely, and without permission is unprecedented. A gigawatt is a small price to pay for the provision of such a modern miracle.
It's adorable you think Honey Badger cares about ignorant Gavinista fuckwit ramblings and desires for a contentious hard fork and governance coup.
Please take your Negative Nancy 'zomg Bitcoin is GOING TO DIEEEEE WITHOUT 2MB RIGHT MEOW' bullshit over to BitcoinObituaries.com.
January 31, 2016, 12:33:31 AM
worst trolls on side of big blockers ... easy to see who's losing and attracts the agent provocateurs to keep the division raging, sadly they are welcomed into their ranks by the pretenders. Trolfi and notlambchop now honorary members of fraud cypherdoc's goon squad.
Who are they enlisting next to the Free Shit Army ... the Buttcoiner Brigade?
Who are they enlisting next to the Free Shit Army ... the Buttcoiner Brigade?
So you're like a less eloquent version of iCEBREAKER now. I liked you better before the war. :-
War. What is it good for? Absolutely nothing.
Nations destroyed. Lives ruined. Shoes lost.
Thanks for the compliment. Like any civil war, the Great Schism has turned brother against brother and hardened hearts.
Just look at Frap.doc's "funny" post for example. Isn't it hilarious that the woman lost everything and is wailing in grief and despair?
I guess that's what she deserves for not being a rich doctor hobnobbing among other elites in spendy coastal California enclaves of posh indulgence. LOL, she's holding a (dead son/husband's?) SHOE!!!
January 31, 2016, 12:25:57 AM
There's really only two outcomes without a higher or removed max block size: stagnation or network congestion failure.
Like you don't need a gun to kill an ant, you don't need bitcoin to buy your damned coffee. Bitcoin is for gentlemen's transactions. Capisc?
January 31, 2016, 12:24:02 AM
worst trolls on side of big blockers ... easy to see who's losing and attracts the agent provocateurs to keep the division raging, sadly they are welcomed into their ranks by the pretenders. Trolfi and notlambchop now honorary members of fraud cypherdoc's goon squad.
Who are they enlisting next to the Free Shit Army ... the Buttcoiner Brigade?
Who are they enlisting next to the Free Shit Army ... the Buttcoiner Brigade?
Didn't you notice Frap.doc's schizophrenic decent into madness, as the cognitive dissonance from trying to be both a Bitcoin Maximalist Monopolist Supremacist and a Bitcoin Obituary Writer destroyed the poor fellow?
Buttcoiners already volunteered for and were deployed by the Gavinista insurgency (and vice versa).
They were brought together by their common hatred of Core, Blockstream, theymos, cypherpunks, freedom, etc.
Generalissimo Trolfi is their big fat brain bug. He's paid by Brazil.gov to FUD BTC, because it represents a threat to the cushy jobs of that violent economic basket case of a country's ruling elite.
January 31, 2016, 12:01:36 AM
January 30, 2016, 11:44:48 PM
Innovation is not burning a gigawatt of mining power to process less than 4 transactions per second. Especially when we could increase that capacity by a factor of eight with almost no additional costs.
In economics, sometimes it's helpful to try and calculate the true cost of something by factoring out the subsidies. In this case the subsidy is the block reward and the cost is paid by investors/speculators.
if users actually paid the full cost of their transaction now, it would be several dollars each. That's a horribly inefficient system and not one worth investing in, IMHO. The fact that it could potentially be much more efficient if some minor changes were made is irrelevant if there is no process for making those changes.
The governance model needs to change, so until Bitcoin Classic or something like it achieves a clear majority of support by nodes and miners, we have to assume the rough consensus mechanism of a small minority having effective veto power is going to continue, which means nothing is going to get done. Blocks will fill up. Fees will increase. There's really only two outcomes without a higher or removed max block size: stagnation or network congestion failure.
In economics, sometimes it's helpful to try and calculate the true cost of something by factoring out the subsidies. In this case the subsidy is the block reward and the cost is paid by investors/speculators.
if users actually paid the full cost of their transaction now, it would be several dollars each. That's a horribly inefficient system and not one worth investing in, IMHO. The fact that it could potentially be much more efficient if some minor changes were made is irrelevant if there is no process for making those changes.
The governance model needs to change, so until Bitcoin Classic or something like it achieves a clear majority of support by nodes and miners, we have to assume the rough consensus mechanism of a small minority having effective veto power is going to continue, which means nothing is going to get done. Blocks will fill up. Fees will increase. There's really only two outcomes without a higher or removed max block size: stagnation or network congestion failure.
no worries.. countdown for BitcoinPure is happening.. the fork is day after next tuesday... assuming it has the support.
January 30, 2016, 11:32:34 PM
There's really only two outcomes without a higher or removed max block size: stagnation or network congestion failure.
Like you don't need a gun to kill an ant, you don't need bitcoin to buy your damned coffee. Bitcoin is for gentlemen's transactions. Capisc?
Don't tell me what I need. It's that kind of arrogance that is going to make Bitcoin an asterisk in the history of cryptocurrencies. Businesses that dictate to their customers what they should want are gonna have a bad time.
says the man killing 'ants' with sledgehammers & uzis, day in day out
January 30, 2016, 11:01:34 PM
January 30, 2016, 10:12:34 PM
Computer power by its nature will increase very quickly(Moore's law). I would be surprised only if the hash power increases more than the general computer processing power
To think that people would ever want bitcoin to run out of capacity artificially isn't something satoshi would have ever planned for. One of the first questions anybody ever asked him was if it could scale.
January 30, 2016, 10:01:53 PM
January 30, 2016, 09:40:39 PM
There's really only two outcomes without a higher or removed max block size: stagnation or network congestion failure.
Like you don't need a gun to kill an ant, you don't need bitcoin to buy your damned coffee. Bitcoin is for gentlemen's transactions. Capisc?
Don't tell me what I need. It's that kind of arrogance that is going to make Bitcoin an asterisk in the history of cryptocurrencies. Businesses that dictate to their customers what they should want are gonna have a bad time.
January 30, 2016, 09:21:22 PM
There's really only two outcomes without a higher or removed max block size: stagnation or network congestion failure.
Like you don't need a gun to kill an ant, you don't need bitcoin to buy your damned coffee. Bitcoin is for gentlemen's transactions. Capisc?
January 30, 2016, 09:13:14 PM
Computer power by its nature will increase very quickly(Moore's law). I would be surprised only if the hash power increases more than the general computer processing power
January 30, 2016, 09:05:25 PM
Innovation is not burning a gigawatt of mining power to process less than 4 transactions per second. Especially when we could increase that capacity by a factor of eight with almost no additional costs.
In economics, sometimes it's helpful to try and calculate the true cost of something by factoring out the subsidies. In this case the subsidy is the block reward and the cost is paid by investors/speculators.
if users actually paid the full cost of their transaction now, it would be several dollars each. That's a horribly inefficient system and not one worth investing in, IMHO. The fact that it could potentially be much more efficient if some minor changes were made is irrelevant if there is no process for making those changes.
The governance model needs to change, so until Bitcoin Classic or something like it achieves a clear majority of support by nodes and miners, we have to assume the rough consensus mechanism of a small minority having effective veto power is going to continue, which means nothing is going to get done. Blocks will fill up. Fees will increase. There's really only two outcomes without a higher or removed max block size: stagnation or network congestion failure.
In economics, sometimes it's helpful to try and calculate the true cost of something by factoring out the subsidies. In this case the subsidy is the block reward and the cost is paid by investors/speculators.
if users actually paid the full cost of their transaction now, it would be several dollars each. That's a horribly inefficient system and not one worth investing in, IMHO. The fact that it could potentially be much more efficient if some minor changes were made is irrelevant if there is no process for making those changes.
The governance model needs to change, so until Bitcoin Classic or something like it achieves a clear majority of support by nodes and miners, we have to assume the rough consensus mechanism of a small minority having effective veto power is going to continue, which means nothing is going to get done. Blocks will fill up. Fees will increase. There's really only two outcomes without a higher or removed max block size: stagnation or network congestion failure.
January 30, 2016, 09:01:52 PM
January 30, 2016, 08:26:00 PM
bitcoinwisdom: Hash Rate: 1,001,579,640 GH/s
new ATH?
Looks like it (grey 504 line is at ath)
https://bitcoinwisdom.com/bitcoin/difficulty
now 1,004,549,664 GH/s
Jump to: