Bitcoin can't be owned......
Truest statement here. We can only own the access to the coins.
Topic: Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion - page 20884. (Read 26607558 times)
August 28, 2015, 01:40:52 PM
Bitcoin can't be owned......
Truest statement here. We can only own the access to the coins.
August 28, 2015, 01:38:34 PM
the majority of hashing power is voting BIP100! 65% and growing
its almost over boys.
https://www.blocktrail.com/BTC/pools
its almost over boys.
https://www.blocktrail.com/BTC/pools
Great ! And now let me see the code of BIP100. Ops.
August 28, 2015, 01:32:54 PM
Soon bulls be like
August 28, 2015, 01:25:46 PM
the majority of hashing power is voting BIP100! 65% and growing
its almost over boys.
https://www.blocktrail.com/BTC/pools
its almost over boys.
https://www.blocktrail.com/BTC/pools
August 28, 2015, 01:23:52 PM
You know, there is NO solution on the table from ANYONE that results in a Bitcoin that is both scalable AND decentralized.
To handle the transaction volume of Visa would require every block to be 10-20 GB (Yes, GB, not MB). At that block-size, decentralization, which I consider to be a fundamental requirement of what we call Bitcoin, would be long gone.
I agree that we can increase the block size some as a stop-gap measure - but block-size increases alone will not save Bitcoin.
Hopefully, the upcoming conference will yield some fresh ideas.
Cryptomining, like any other specialized activity, benefits from economies of scale. This is unavoidable. You can minimize it, but you can't eliminate it unless you centralize some other aspect of the network, such as CODE DEVELOPMENT.
The problem isn't technical. it's political. You have these little Napoleons who crowned themselves emperors in the name of protecting the revolution.
A centralized Bitcoin will be just as dead as a slow Bitcoin. It very much IS a technical problem.
My point is that it is already centralized. A big reason why we are still trading in the $200s is because it is centralized. The cost of putting mining decentralization ahead of scaling and capacity is that we have concentrated power in the hands of Core devs who make money routing around the very bottlenecks they created.
If you're right, Bitcoin is already essentially dead.
I think Bitcoin is working as intended at the moment, but we can agree to disagree, if you don't see it that way.
seems risky to buy right now .. all this we are going to fork bitcoin.. and pretending BFX is all good. = bullish.. every time i read these posts about getting a fork all i think of is eating spaghetti with a fork ... BFX said they are the market leaders.. i'm not feeling the bull mood right now.
its always best to do the trade no one else wants to do.
i'm just not biting right now on the exchange. i hear ya.. that what i'm going to do ..i'm on the trade that no one else is on for sure.
August 28, 2015, 01:14:17 PM
August 28, 2015, 01:10:10 PM
Mt Gox Bitcoins Reportedly Moved To BitFinex, The Day Before Black Monday
Posted by Luke Parker on 28 August 2015
However, just before the major downturn, one Reddit user posted interesting evidence that some of the coins bought at, or belonging to, the defunct bitcoin exchange, MtGox, had just been moved to Bitfinex.
Posted by Luke Parker on 28 August 2015
However, just before the major downturn, one Reddit user posted interesting evidence that some of the coins bought at, or belonging to, the defunct bitcoin exchange, MtGox, had just been moved to Bitfinex.
Bitcoin can't be owned, says Japanese court, as Karpeles sweats in cell - http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/08/07/bitcoin_cant_be_owned_says_japanese_court_as_karpeles_cackles_away/
August 28, 2015, 01:07:42 PM
You know, there is NO solution on the table from ANYONE that results in a Bitcoin that is both scalable AND decentralized.
To handle the transaction volume of Visa would require every block to be 10-20 GB (Yes, GB, not MB). At that block-size, decentralization, which I consider to be a fundamental requirement of what we call Bitcoin, would be long gone.
I agree that we can increase the block size some as a stop-gap measure - but block-size increases alone will not save Bitcoin.
Hopefully, the upcoming conference will yield some fresh ideas.
Cryptomining, like any other specialized activity, benefits from economies of scale. This is unavoidable. You can minimize it, but you can't eliminate it unless you centralize some other aspect of the network, such as CODE DEVELOPMENT.
The problem isn't technical. it's political. You have these little Napoleons who crowned themselves emperors in the name of protecting the revolution.
A centralized Bitcoin will be just as dead as a slow Bitcoin. It very much IS a technical problem.
My point is that it is already centralized. A big reason why we are still trading in the $200s is because it is centralized. The cost of putting mining decentralization ahead of scaling and capacity is that we have concentrated power in the hands of Core devs who make money routing around the very bottlenecks they created.
If you're right, Bitcoin is already essentially dead.
I think Bitcoin is working as intended at the moment, but we can agree to disagree, if you don't see it that way.
seems risky to buy right now .. all this we are going to fork bitcoin.. and pretending BFX is all good. = bullish.. every time i read these posts about getting a fork all i think of is eating spaghetti with a fork ... BFX said they are the market leaders.. i'm not feeling the bull mood right now.
its always best to do the trade no one else wants to do.
August 28, 2015, 01:04:40 PM
You know, there is NO solution on the table from ANYONE that results in a Bitcoin that is both scalable AND decentralized.
To handle the transaction volume of Visa would require every block to be 10-20 GB (Yes, GB, not MB). At that block-size, decentralization, which I consider to be a fundamental requirement of what we call Bitcoin, would be long gone.
I agree that we can increase the block size some as a stop-gap measure - but block-size increases alone will not save Bitcoin.
Hopefully, the upcoming conference will yield some fresh ideas.
Cryptomining, like any other specialized activity, benefits from economies of scale. This is unavoidable. You can minimize it, but you can't eliminate it unless you centralize some other aspect of the network, such as CODE DEVELOPMENT.
The problem isn't technical. it's political. You have these little Napoleons who crowned themselves emperors in the name of protecting the revolution.
A centralized Bitcoin will be just as dead as a slow Bitcoin. It very much IS a technical problem.
My point is that it is already centralized. A big reason why we are still trading in the $200s is because it is centralized. The cost of putting mining decentralization ahead of scaling and capacity is that we have concentrated power in the hands of Core devs who make money routing around the very bottlenecks they created.
If you're right, Bitcoin is already essentially dead.
I think Bitcoin is working as intended at the moment, but we can agree to disagree, if you don't see it that way.
seems risky to buy right now .. all this we are going to fork bitcoin.. and pretending BFX is all good. = bullish.. every time i read these posts about getting a fork all i think of is eating spaghetti with a fork ... BFX said they are the market leaders.. i'm not feeling the bull mood right now.
August 28, 2015, 01:03:45 PM
You know, there is NO solution on the table from ANYONE that results in a Bitcoin that is both scalable AND decentralized.
To handle the transaction volume of Visa would require every block to be 10-20 GB (Yes, GB, not MB). At that block-size, decentralization, which I consider to be a fundamental requirement of what we call Bitcoin, would be long gone.
I agree that we can increase the block size some as a stop-gap measure - but block-size increases alone will not save Bitcoin.
Hopefully, the upcoming conference will yield some fresh ideas.
Cryptomining, like any other specialized activity, benefits from economies of scale. This is unavoidable. You can minimize it, but you can't eliminate it unless you centralize some other aspect of the network, such as CODE DEVELOPMENT.
The problem isn't technical. it's political. You have these little Napoleons who crowned themselves emperors in the name of protecting the revolution.
A centralized Bitcoin will be just as dead as a slow Bitcoin. It very much IS a technical problem.
My point is that it is already centralized. A big reason why we are still trading in the $200s is because it is centralized. The cost of putting mining decentralization ahead of scaling and capacity is that we have concentrated power in the hands of Core devs who make money routing around the very bottlenecks they created.
If you're right, Bitcoin is already essentially dead.
I think Bitcoin is working as intended at the moment, but we can agree to disagree, if you don't see it that way.
mining is decentralized
mining CANNOT be centralized, even with 32GB blocks
there is never going to be one single mining company
and there will always be pools which allow small miners to mine without the need to download / validate blocks.
mining will forever be decentralized.
August 28, 2015, 01:02:25 PM
August 28, 2015, 01:01:54 PM
Mt Gox Bitcoins Reportedly Moved To BitFinex, The Day Before Black Monday
Posted by Luke Parker on 28 August 2015
However, just before the major downturn, one Reddit user posted interesting evidence that some of the coins bought at, or belonging to, the defunct bitcoin exchange, MtGox, had just been moved to Bitfinex.
Posted by Luke Parker on 28 August 2015
However, just before the major downturn, one Reddit user posted interesting evidence that some of the coins bought at, or belonging to, the defunct bitcoin exchange, MtGox, had just been moved to Bitfinex.
Why not? Karpeles needed to liquidate them before collapsing. I'm almost sure that Bitfinex was not the only exchange they trade for government currency.
August 28, 2015, 12:46:35 PM
Mt Gox Bitcoins Reportedly Moved To BitFinex, The Day Before Black Monday
Posted by Luke Parker on 28 August 2015
However, just before the major downturn, one Reddit user posted interesting evidence that some of the coins bought at, or belonging to, the defunct bitcoin exchange, MtGox, had just been moved to Bitfinex.
Posted by Luke Parker on 28 August 2015
However, just before the major downturn, one Reddit user posted interesting evidence that some of the coins bought at, or belonging to, the defunct bitcoin exchange, MtGox, had just been moved to Bitfinex.
August 28, 2015, 12:42:04 PM
You know, there is NO solution on the table from ANYONE that results in a Bitcoin that is both scalable AND decentralized.
To handle the transaction volume of Visa would require every block to be 10-20 GB (Yes, GB, not MB). At that block-size, decentralization, which I consider to be a fundamental requirement of what we call Bitcoin, would be long gone.
I agree that we can increase the block size some as a stop-gap measure - but block-size increases alone will not save Bitcoin.
Hopefully, the upcoming conference will yield some fresh ideas.
Cryptomining, like any other specialized activity, benefits from economies of scale. This is unavoidable. You can minimize it, but you can't eliminate it unless you centralize some other aspect of the network, such as CODE DEVELOPMENT.
The problem isn't technical. it's political. You have these little Napoleons who crowned themselves emperors in the name of protecting the revolution.
A centralized Bitcoin will be just as dead as a slow Bitcoin. It very much IS a technical problem.
My point is that it is already centralized. A big reason why we are still trading in the $200s is because it is centralized. The cost of putting mining decentralization ahead of scaling and capacity is that we have concentrated power in the hands of Core devs who make money routing around the very bottlenecks they created.
If you're right, Bitcoin is already essentially dead.
I think Bitcoin is working as intended at the moment, but we can agree to disagree, if you don't see it that way.
August 28, 2015, 12:28:19 PM
You know, there is NO solution on the table from ANYONE that results in a Bitcoin that is both scalable AND decentralized.
To handle the transaction volume of Visa would require every block to be 10-20 GB (Yes, GB, not MB). At that block-size, decentralization, which I consider to be a fundamental requirement of what we call Bitcoin, would be long gone.
I agree that we can increase the block size some as a stop-gap measure - but block-size increases alone will not save Bitcoin.
Hopefully, the upcoming conference will yield some fresh ideas.
Cryptomining, like any other specialized activity, benefits from economies of scale. This is unavoidable. You can minimize it, but you can't eliminate it unless you centralize some other aspect of the network, such as CODE DEVELOPMENT.
The problem isn't technical. it's political. You have these little Napoleons who crowned themselves emperors in the name of protecting the revolution.
A centralized Bitcoin will be just as dead as a slow Bitcoin. It very much IS a technical problem.
My point is that it is already centralized. A big reason why we are still trading in the $200s is because it is centralized. The cost of putting mining decentralization ahead of scaling and capacity is that we have concentrated power in the hands of Core devs who make money routing around the very bottlenecks they created.
August 28, 2015, 12:27:00 PM
August 28, 2015, 12:16:04 PM
You know, there is NO solution on the table from ANYONE that results in a Bitcoin that is both scalable AND decentralized.
To handle the transaction volume of Visa would require every block to be 10-20 GB (Yes, GB, not MB). At that block-size, decentralization, which I consider to be a fundamental requirement of what we call Bitcoin, would be long gone.
I agree that we can increase the block size some as a stop-gap measure - but block-size increases alone will not save Bitcoin.
Hopefully, the upcoming conference will yield some fresh ideas.
Cryptomining, like any other specialized activity, benefits from economies of scale. This is unavoidable. You can minimize it, but you can't eliminate it unless you centralize some other aspect of the network, such as CODE DEVELOPMENT.
The problem isn't technical. it's political. You have these little Napoleons who crowned themselves emperors in the name of protecting the revolution.
A centralized Bitcoin will be just as dead as a slow Bitcoin. It very much IS a technical problem.
August 28, 2015, 12:11:33 PM
they saying more longs opened on BFX.. that true ?? just what we needed! https://www.reddit.com/r/BitcoinMarkets/comments/3iopp5/daily_discussion_friday_august_28_2015/
i know redit.. shoulda never posted that here now i am reading it everyday! I have hard time reading BFX graphs but i can see volume on bitcoinwisdom. i wonder why coinbase exchange shows no volume.
sorry BFX i think margin trading is too risky for me.. i am waaay too paranoid trade on margin. i bail immediately.
i know redit.. shoulda never posted that here now i am reading it everyday! I have hard time reading BFX graphs but i can see volume on bitcoinwisdom. i wonder why coinbase exchange shows no volume.
sorry BFX i think margin trading is too risky for me.. i am waaay too paranoid trade on margin. i bail immediately.
August 28, 2015, 12:10:13 PM
August 28, 2015, 12:04:31 PM
You know, there is NO solution on the table from ANYONE that results in a Bitcoin that is both scalable AND decentralized.
To handle the transaction volume of Visa would require every block to be 10-20 GB (Yes, GB, not MB). At that block-size, decentralization, which I consider to be a fundamental requirement of what we call Bitcoin, would be long gone.
I agree that we can increase the block size some as a stop-gap measure - but block-size increases alone will not save Bitcoin.
Hopefully, the upcoming conference will yield some fresh ideas.
Cryptomining, like any other specialized activity, benefits from economies of scale. This is unavoidable. You can minimize it, but you can't eliminate it unless you centralize some other aspect of the network, such as CODE DEVELOPMENT.
The problem isn't technical. it's political. You have these little Napoleons who crowned themselves emperors in the name of protecting the revolution.
Jump to: