what does means "CCFM"? i saw guys in BTC-E trollboxchat saying the same.
Choo Choo Mother Fucker.
Topic: Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion - page 21440. (Read 26720837 times)
July 04, 2015, 09:51:18 AM
Choo Choo Mother Fucker.
July 04, 2015, 09:48:50 AM
what does means "CCFM"? i saw guys in BTC-E trollboxchat saying the same.
July 04, 2015, 09:44:23 AM
uptrend seems good, til $262
July 04, 2015, 09:43:23 AM
July 04, 2015, 09:42:18 AM
I think we are shortly about to launch.
July 04, 2015, 09:42:05 AM
I'd like to know what CCMF means too. I Googled for it and still couldn't get a straight answer. The closest I got was "it means choo choo". It's not in the newbie technical terms page either. Is it a secret term that only really "cool" people are allowed to know? WTF does CCMF mean?
July 04, 2015, 09:01:46 AM
July 04, 2015, 08:52:48 AM
Seems more likely we'll have another dip into the 250-252 region before starting our climb back up to and over 270.
July 04, 2015, 08:51:09 AM
CCMF time 
Is it? I can see we've gone up a dollar or two but I'm not sure about CCMF, moon etc
Hope you're right, it'd be nice to get above 260 a stay there. Nice slow, sustainable price increases are good. I prefer it that way over pumps followed by profit taking dumps. Let's see what the weekend brings. July 04, 2015, 08:48:13 AM
July 04, 2015, 08:01:50 AM
July 04, 2015, 07:33:37 AM
Right. If bitcoin can survive the scorn and ridicule of a Brazilian professor, it can survive this little kerfuffle.
I don't know about bitcoin itself, but the bitcoiners' faith in it can survive anything.
Quote
This will just be used as ammo in the argument against larger blocks (rightly so, imo)
Indeed, it has already been used...
However the problem is not the block size per se, but miners skipping the validation of the previous block in order to save a few milliseconds. It is roughly the same reasoning that results in empty blocks being mined while the queues are full. Bigger blocks will make these "optimizations" more tempting, but they are tempting enough even with 1 MB blocks.
Ideally, the protocol should force the miners to validate the previous block(s), and take as many transactions from the queues as possible. Then the block size would not matter, for this issue at least.
July 04, 2015, 07:01:58 AM
July 04, 2015, 06:01:50 AM
July 04, 2015, 05:35:58 AM
Not to ruin the plot... but it's over already. The panic was less than impressive.
Of course. It was just an accident, some core devs were awake watching anxiously the onset of BIP66, the two pools involved cooperated promptly, etc..
That was not an attack: someone just sneezed. See, the building stopped shaking already.
Right. If bitcoin can survive the scorn and ridicule of a Brazilian professor, it can survive this little kerfuffle.
This will just be used as ammo in the argument against larger blocks (rightly so, imo)
July 04, 2015, 05:35:10 AM
That was not an attack: someone just sneezed. See, the building stopped shaking already.
Unlike the fiat system that seems to have contracted Parkinsons.
July 04, 2015, 05:18:27 AM
Not to ruin the plot... but it's over already. The panic was less than impressive.
Of course. It was just an accident, some core devs were awake watching anxiously the onset of BIP66, the two pools involved cooperated promptly, etc..
That was not an attack: someone just sneezed. See, the building stopped shaking already.
July 04, 2015, 05:17:50 AM
Not to ruin the plot... but it's over already. The panic was less than impressive.
We can't be sure until it is confirmed that all the pools have stopped SPV mining and upgraded to the latest version of Bitcoin core. I read that whole thread and nobody knows for certain. Here's one post from it that suggests the problem might be fixed, but clearly says nobody knows for certain.
We don't know until an expert posts some conclusive proof that it's fixed.
...
We just need someone to confirm this. I think that everything is fine now, however I can't be sure.
We just need someone to confirm this. I think that everything is fine now, however I can't be sure.
July 04, 2015, 05:01:47 AM
July 04, 2015, 04:01:49 AM
Jump to: