7 mins to 2016 (GMT anyway) Champagne at the ready...
Happy new year to all, may 2016 be a prosperous one for you.
Topic: Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion - page 19695. (Read 26608391 times)
December 31, 2015, 06:54:37 PM
December 31, 2015, 06:27:14 PM
Mars is the only known planet (so far) inhabited solely by robots. Why would a robot, an 8-foot-tall robot, want to live on Mars, with a bunch of robots? That does not make sense! But more important, you have to ask yourself: What does this have to do with the blocksize debate? Nothing. Ladies and gentlemen, it has nothing to do with the blocksize debate! It does not make sense! Look at me. I'm a blind mayor defending the rights of a robot, and I'm talkin' about Bitcoin! Does that make sense? Ladies and gentlemen, I am not making any sense! None of this makes sense! And so you have to remember, when you're in that jury room deliberatin' and conjugatin' the proclamation, does it make sense? No! Ladies and gentlemen of this supposed thread, it does not make sense! If robots live on Mars, Happy New Year!!!
December 31, 2015, 06:02:09 PM
December 31, 2015, 05:17:10 PM
Aaaargh , I am all for a rocket to the moon, but not today. Please drop at least $100 before midnight CET. I have to pay tax on the value of my BTC based on what they are worth in my currency at midnight today. I know I am getting audited this spring because of the BTC I own, so please drop.
Jesus, where do you live? That sucks
December 31, 2015, 05:14:18 PM
Shockingly enough, not a troll and I 100% agree with you.
December 31, 2015, 05:12:03 PM
Coke and Pepsi both provide rehydration and a sugar boost in pretty much identical quantities. The only difference between them is a slight flavor difference. IOW, they fulfill exactly the same use cases.
https://youtu.be/dBnniua6-oM?t=790
December 31, 2015, 05:02:13 PM
December 31, 2015, 04:57:53 PM
Aaaargh , I am all for a rocket to the moon, but not today. Please drop at least $100 before midnight CET. I have to pay tax on the value of my BTC based on what they are worth in my currency at midnight today. I know I am getting audited this spring because of the BTC I own, so please drop.
December 31, 2015, 04:30:30 PM
...
TL; DR: You are a fucking idiot if you have concluded that 3 short paragraphs is too long for you to read/comprehend.
TL; DR: You are a fucking idiot if you have concluded that 3 short paragraphs is too long for you to read/comprehend.
See, you're finally learning to condense your thoughts.
You have nothing to say, so 3 short paragraphs is 3 short paragraphs too long
Yes, you still avoided engaging with any substance of my earlier response, and resort to lame attempts at personal attacks, which seems to indicate that you really don't know much of anything in regards to your bitcoin-related commentary (to the extent that any of your previous comments could arguably be categorized as "bitcoin-related")
December 31, 2015, 04:26:14 PM
...
TL; DR: You are a fucking idiot if you have concluded that 3 short paragraphs is too long for you to read/comprehend.
TL; DR: You are a fucking idiot if you have concluded that 3 short paragraphs is too long for you to read/comprehend.
See, you're finally learning to condense your thoughts.
You have nothing to say, so 3 short paragraphs is 3 short paragraphs too long
December 31, 2015, 04:21:44 PM
If we're happy about today's # of uses, users, and transactions... 1.75MB equiv will be plenty.
When all of the world's wealth is stored in bitcoin (sometime in 2017), fewer users = richer users. That's the third law of thermodynamics.
Lambie, in this iteration of your shell, you seem to be such a passive aggressive kind of FUD spreading troller, who still seems to be quite detached from reality in your exaggerated ways to make negative points regarding bitcoin.
Even though bitcoin enthusiasts are expecting grandios networking possibilities with bitcoin, which ultimately causes exponential growth (and price appreciation), there is almost no way that bitcoin could subsume or absorb any majority proportion of the world's wealth, even in the the next 5-10 years, and even in the best case scenarios for bitcoin.
If Bitcoin were to subsume, even 1% to 5% of various wealth storage and/or payment systems in the next 3-5 years, that would result in bitcoins valued over a million dollars per BTC.. so your exaggeration of 2017 seems out of this world in its level of preposterousness and trying to suggest that any bitcoin bull would believe such fantasies.
TL;DR? (What I mean is make it longer, blander, with more words, so I'd feel totally used if tricked into reading.)
ty
@notme: not true re. dehydration. Also not iron, rust (FeO2), and even that shittily.
TL; DR: You are a fucking idiot if you have concluded that 3 short paragraphs is too long for you to read/comprehend.
December 31, 2015, 04:17:14 PM
If we're happy about today's # of uses, users, and transactions... 1.75MB equiv will be plenty.
When all of the world's wealth is stored in bitcoin (sometime in 2017), fewer users = richer users. That's the third law of thermodynamics.
Lambie, in this iteration of your shell, you seem to be such a passive aggressive kind of FUD spreading troller, who still seems to be quite detached from reality in your exaggerated ways to make negative points regarding bitcoin.
Even though bitcoin enthusiasts are expecting grandios networking possibilities with bitcoin, which ultimately causes exponential growth (and price appreciation), there is almost no way that bitcoin could subsume or absorb any majority proportion of the world's wealth, even in the the next 5-10 years, and even in the best case scenarios for bitcoin.
If Bitcoin were to subsume, even 1% to 5% of various wealth storage and/or payment systems in the next 3-5 years, that would result in bitcoins valued over a million dollars per BTC.. so your exaggeration of 2017 seems out of this world in its level of preposterousness and trying to suggest that any bitcoin bull would believe such fantasies.
TL;DR? (What I mean is make it longer, blander, with more words, so I'd feel totally used if tricked into reading.)
ty
@notme: not true re. dehydration. Also not iron, rust (FeO), and even that shittily.
December 31, 2015, 04:16:10 PM
Coke and Pepsi both provide rehydration and a sugar boost in pretty much identical quantities. The only difference between them is a slight flavor difference. IOW, they fulfill exactly the same use cases.
Pepsi has considerably more sugar, coke is far more acidic. Both dehydrate you.
Coke is far more effective if you want to dissolve iron, so they do not similar for some use cases.
wow interesting, I always wondered why im thirsty as fuck when I drink pepsi or coke
December 31, 2015, 04:06:27 PM
Coke and Pepsi both provide rehydration and a sugar boost in pretty much identical quantities. The only difference between them is a slight flavor difference. IOW, they fulfill exactly the same use cases.
Pepsi has considerably more sugar, coke is far more acidic. Both dehydrate you.
Coke is far more effective if you want to dissolve iron, so they do not similar for some use cases.
December 31, 2015, 04:02:09 PM
December 31, 2015, 03:58:13 PM
If we're happy about today's # of uses, users, and transactions... 1.75MB equiv will be plenty.
When all of the world's wealth is stored in bitcoin (sometime in 2017), fewer users = richer users. That's the third law of thermodynamics.
Lambie, in this iteration of your shell, you seem to be such a passive aggressive kind of FUD spreading troller, who still seems to be quite detached from reality in your exaggerated ways to make negative points regarding bitcoin.
Even though bitcoin enthusiasts are expecting grandios networking possibilities with bitcoin, which ultimately causes exponential growth (and price appreciation), there is almost no way that bitcoin could subsume or absorb any majority proportion of the world's wealth, even in the the next 5-10 years, and even in the best case scenarios for bitcoin.
If Bitcoin were to subsume, even 1% to 5% of various wealth storage and/or payment systems in the next 3-5 years, that would result in bitcoins valued over a million dollars per BTC.. so your exaggeration of 2017 seems out of this world in its level of preposterousness and trying to suggest that any bitcoin bull would believe such fantasies.
December 31, 2015, 03:57:51 PM
...even if the blocks are full with bogus transactions.
Please provide a definition of 'bogus transaction'. Without such, I am unable to understand your argument.
A very simple or simplistic explanation:
If I want to buy something, I need to pay. That's a valid reason for making a transaction so that transaction isn't bogus.
Now, if I start sending dust between my wallets, in thousands of transactions, in a meaningless way (as far as real-life transactions go), just to generate spam, clog the network etc => that's plenty of bogus transactions right there.
Definition fail. A definition needs to be precise, such that I may objectively determine whether or not a transaction is bogus by examining it. What are the objective observable characteristics of a bogus transaction?
I provided an explanation, not a definition.
You can't examine people's intentions because, in a sense, that's the core of the issue here. Does the person initiating the transaction actually want to send money, or does he want to spam the blockchain? How the hell can I know that? If he uses non-dust amounts he can camouflage his spamming as seemingly "legit" txs, and they all may be between his own wallets. But if he had to pay a good fee for doing that kind of spamming, which would eventually deplete his BTC after sending them back and forth, well then he might opt out of the scheme.
But even that is not 100% accurate. A big player with deep pockets might have no issue in paying the fees + spamming / congesting the network with bogus txs. It depends on the actors involved really. Normally, a script kiddie would be different than a legitimate user in that the kiddie wouldn't want to pay for each of his 50.000 spam transactions, while the legitimate user might include a small fee to get his 1-2-5 txs included. So, in that sense, the fee could serve to differentiate between one who wants to transact for real and one who doesn't. But an evil corporate entity would be able to afford paying for the 50.000 spam transactions, or double, or tenfold, if, say, network capacity increased. So in that case, the fee would not be able to serve as a differentiating factor between the serious & legit tx and the bogus one.
December 31, 2015, 03:51:54 PM
I think you're point has significant merit but at the same time you can't waive a magic wand and eliminate speed of transaction from the real world equation.
I'm not trying to eliminate it, I am trying to say that in the dichotomy between litecoin and Bitcoin, the 4x blocktime difference is meaningless.
The remaining aspects of transaction time only serve to buttress my point - whatever coin provides true utility to more users will in time subsume the vast majority of the market.
Quote
Transactions seem to be prioritized, in part, based on what, if any fee, is associated with them. If you use BTC and your transaction had a small fee, it might take significantly longer to confirm then if you paid more or used an altcoin. To some people, this has value, look at HFT. In a similar fashion, your later point assumes that sidechains will eliminate the need for other coins which offer differing values of utility (or I thought it was your point, I can't find it anymore lol).
No. Sidechains are a distraction. If the main blockchain of some coin supports all transactional use cases, and the Bitcoin blockchain supports only 'high value' transaction use cases due to some arbitrary maxblocksize limit, over time Bitcoin will become marginalized, and the alt will subsume Bitcoin's market cap.
Quote
Your assumptions also seems to neglect the fact that people like choices. Coke/Pepsi, Visa/Mastercard/Amex/Discover. ...
I guess what i'm trying to say, is, I need help understanding why there should be only one coin. I think you can have too many coins, but just having one doesn't seem to make sense.
I guess what i'm trying to say, is, I need help understanding why there should be only one coin. I think you can have too many coins, but just having one doesn't seem to make sense.
Coke and Pepsi both provide rehydration and a sugar boost in pretty much identical quantities. The only difference between them is a slight flavor difference. IOW, they fulfill exactly the same use cases. Invalid comparison to two coins where one fulfills the universe of use cases and the other only a proper subset.
Likewise, Visa/Mastercard/Amex/Discover have differentiated use cases. Amex doesn't give me 5% back on all purchases. Visa doesn't partially make my car payment. Mastercard doesn't get me free stays at airport lounges. Discover isn't 'everywhere you want to be'. Again, differentiated use cases -- due to an inherent capability of the card. Not one card offers a proper superset of the use cases of the others.
December 31, 2015, 03:44:39 PM
Back to 430. +1,70%
That's cool.
New year is coming soon and Bitcoin is up again.
2016 couldn't start better as with a nice little increase.
That's cool.
New year is coming soon and Bitcoin is up again.
2016 couldn't start better as with a nice little increase.
December 31, 2015, 03:33:47 PM
If we're happy about today's # of uses, users, and transactions... 1.75MB equiv will be plenty.
When all of the world's wealth is stored in bitcoin (sometime in 2017), fewer users = richer users. That's the third law of thermodynamics.
Jump to: