Topic: Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion - page 20624. (Read 26608412 times)
October 19, 2015, 08:05:24 AM
Looks like this correction after the pump could potentially take us below 260. That'd be disappointing but not a disaster. It will be a shame if the price can't stay in the 250's range though.
October 19, 2015, 08:03:13 AM
Volume on Gemini down to almost nothing again.
i would blame the weekend for that. no fiat->no trade.
as far as i know the other exchanges are a little older than 2 weeks.
October 19, 2015, 08:01:44 AM
October 19, 2015, 07:35:51 AM
21 Inc is working on decentralizing mining in a big way.
When every kid's video game console is mining bitcoins any thoughts of centralization will be out the window.
When every kid's video game console is mining bitcoins any thoughts of centralization will be out the window.
except all those microminers will be connected through 21's micropayments channel and mining in 21's pool. How is that decentralization exactly?
October 19, 2015, 07:26:56 AM
Volume on Gemini down to almost nothing again.
i would blame the weekend for that. no fiat->no trade.
October 19, 2015, 07:20:59 AM
Volume on Gemini down to almost nothing again.
i would blame the weekend for that. no fiat->no trade.
October 19, 2015, 07:19:34 AM
Dash? Monero? (less traceable) Bitshares? (much much larger transaction capacity, built in smart contracts, etc) Should I go on? Network effect didn't save MySpace.
So a pre-mined POS & a ripple rip-off are going to steal Bitcoin's lunch money? Please...
Comparing Bitcoin network effect to Myspace confirms my suspicions: you are beyond retarded.
Ok, so humor a retard, Einstein. what's wrong with the comparison? What make a four billion dollar first mover advantage so insurmountable in a world where WhatsApp gets sold to FB for 19 billion?
Cost, retard.
Moving from Myspace to Facebook entails no cost for the user.
Divesting from Bitcoin to some other cryptocurrency "because it is better" undermines the very trust that holds the concept together and would result in a complete destruction of any value created over the years. If we are to assume that something better will always come along why would I invest myself into the current "implementation"?
Your economics, it's broken
That's a really good question, but I'm glad people are pumping now as it allows me to divest with lower cost. Don't worry though. I'll buy back in probably when a scaling solution is implemented, assuming I haven't found a better altcoin by then.
If you don't want that "complete destruction" you mentioned, you'd be wise to help ensure that there isn't something better by supporting improvements to the protocol.
So NOW you are abandoning ship? That's a little bit crazy.
I doubt that this lack of a clear direction regarding BTC's scalability is going to be as detrimental to either its long-term or short-term success as you seem to be making it out to be.
Yes, you may be able to profit with some of the volatility of various other investments, yet BTC seems to remain a good long-term and fairly secure vehicle to place a decent amount of capital, currently. Also there are decent upside potentials with BTC and even considerable likelihood that we could experience a sudden and unannounced doubling or tripling of value with little to NO notice and thereafter NO return to previous price levels....
So ultimately, for your own good, I hope you are NOT being too rash with your seemingly emotional decision to diversify (and/or as you put it "divest" out of BTC).
It doesn't much matter where the ship is, if it's drifting and you see the officer corps fighting with no clear leadership, you start looking for a place and time to disembark.
October 19, 2015, 07:12:34 AM
Volume on Gemini down to almost nothing again.
Institutional Investors clearly too dumb 2b disruptive/didn't the white paper.
Maybe if we dumb it down for them, pictorially?
still a long way to go. personally i prefer bitcoin to be bottom-up.
October 19, 2015, 07:07:23 AM
Volume on Gemini down to almost nothing again.
Institutional Investors clearly too dumb 2b disruptive/didn't the white paper.
Maybe if we dumb it down for them, pictorially?
http://vignette2.wikia.nocookie.net/simpsons/images/f/f4/His_evil_plan.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20120406182958
October 19, 2015, 07:01:47 AM
October 19, 2015, 06:27:28 AM
Volume on Gemini down to almost nothing again.
October 19, 2015, 06:14:12 AM
ChartBuddy, Fatman3001,
Fatman3001, ChartBuddy, Chartbuddy, Fatman3001...Chartbuddy 5 storey stack, Fartman
What a grotesque spectacle. This thread is a shell of what it used to be
October 19, 2015, 06:12:45 AM
21 Inc is working on decentralizing mining in a big way.
When every kid's video game console is mining bitcoins any thoughts of centralization will be out the window.
When every kid's video game console is mining bitcoins any thoughts of centralization will be out the window.
Depends on who constructs the blocks that are mined by the kids consoles.
Indeed. There will always energy striving for re-centralization. It's the way things work. Neither perfect de/centralization is a reachable goal nor should it be one.
October 19, 2015, 06:05:42 AM
21 Inc is working on decentralizing mining in a big way.
When every kid's video game console is mining bitcoins any thoughts of centralization will be out the window.
When every kid's video game console is mining bitcoins any thoughts of centralization will be out the window.
Depends on who constructs the blocks that are mined by the kids consoles.
October 19, 2015, 06:01:40 AM
October 19, 2015, 05:56:28 AM
Currently, I am underestimating the upside potential of bitcoin. 
October 19, 2015, 05:01:31 AM
October 19, 2015, 04:51:15 AM
What happened to your analogy? Is the rainforest and endangered species of the world going to remain untouched, but we'll see forests bloated with wild game and cattle carcasses?
Negative externalities may be a foreign concept to you?
In the case of rain forests it concerns the destruction of the ecosystem and numerous other consequences that ensue. As for Bitcoin it relates to the externalization of costs to nodes, in other words destruction of the decentralization.
But that doesn't follow from your analogy... ughhh... my point is that you chose a poorly suited analogy to evoke a moral response which isn't relevant for this debate. You're not fighting FOR your stance, you're fighting against the opposite stance while using every dirty trick in the book. This might be effective in some environments, but if you assume that most people who care to read your posts are not idiots and are dying to hear some well thought out arguments that explains YOUR stance, it's quite annoying.
I think my analogy is pretty clear: in the presence of a known scarce value (rain forest & decentralization) it is necessary that controls be put in place so as to limit the potential damages cause by misaligned incentives from the various participants in the system.
Except decentralization is only a scarce resource if we make it such. The node problem seems to be more reliant on the popularity of Bitcoin than the technical demands for running a full node. People need to believe in the project and get excited for it to bother with maintaining a node. The reason we've had a decline is because a lot of people lost faith in Bitcoin in the recent downturn. The technical demands are secondary.
That is absolutely not true as evidenced by the numerous accounts of interested individuals who have had no choice but to stop running their full nodes because of technical constraints.
As the blockchain continues to grow the resources required to fully validate one's own transactions will necessarily continue to increase.
You'll find anecdotal evidence for everything, and there's no denying that people have different points where they find they cannot/will not continue running a node, but the fact that those people are not being replaced at a higher rate has much to do, in my opinion, with the stagnation in price since the last bubble and the lack of attractive use cases. Hopefully there will be more attractive use cases for ordinary people after the next peak. Use cases that will make Bitcoin more relevant to people and help the number of nodes to grow. Nodes run on enthusiasm and nerd-cred.
Here's another anecdotal evidence: the number of nodes did not increase with the latest price rise.
There is nothing in what I wrote that should lead you to think that it should have.
October 19, 2015, 04:38:23 AM
Mining is not decentralized at all. If few people control (own) mining facilities in China and the rest of the world - this is not decentralization - even is none of them controls more than 10% of hashpower.
Decentralization is thousands of individuals controlling no more than 1% od hashpower each. If mining is profitable then it will be centralized.
Decentralization is thousands of individuals controlling no more than 1% od hashpower each. If mining is profitable then it will be centralized.
Exactly. The less profitable the mining (over time), but the more useful the network - the better for decentralization. I guess "21" prepares for this.
Mining (in 20 years) will be like nodes. If you have a benefit of operating a node (and or mining chip) you will do it; does not matter if you are rewarded for it!
October 19, 2015, 04:36:51 AM
21 Inc is working on decentralizing mining in a big way.
When every kid's video game console is mining bitcoins any thoughts of centralization will be out the window.
When every kid's video game console is mining bitcoins any thoughts of centralization will be out the window.
Jump to: