Topic: Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion - page 26138. (Read 26710237 times)

*edit I guess I should just stop trolling and leave the forum now 

the count down begins.

5

30 days in and he's calling out the trolls. Amazing. You should google the people you speak about prior to commenting on their intentions. He is in fact a scholar and a skeptic and I actually welcome his comments even though I often disagree. It is important to have people of different opinions offering up thought out, educated, comments. Too often you hear "BItcoin is a pump and dump" "Bitcoin will fail" "This is the last time we will see $500 buy now" and it is based solely on their current trading/holding position, emotion, and just to be an asshole.

Ahhhh you are correct. If rocket ships and trains ever come into one of your visions please let me know so I can immediately........sell.......and buy back lower. K thanks.

LOL. why do I think he is trolling? because that is what he is. He may disguise himself as a scholar and a skeptic, but he doesn't fool me.

P.S. You're almost as trolly as him.

But they could be a licensed master psychic

Explanation

Hope, crystal balls, tea leaves, fortune tellers, moon and stars, pictures of trains, their neighbor told them so, they read it in a blog, someone on twitter, this guy on facebook, they saw a picture of a rocketship and thought it applied, ........ you know the usual reaons

What is wrong with his post ? why do you think he is trolling ?

Yes the block chain is more than 5 years old, and this mean that you missed the point of his post, any attempt to change/add anything to the Bitcoin protocol at this point or in the future will be hard and will get harder when the adoption rate continue to increase, even a simple task to fix a bug or to release a newer version will get harder, but there are working alternatives (chains) that attempts to solve and add new  features that we think will be  crucial in the future... so the question is: is it worth it ?

nice, attaching the year to the blockchain to imply its old. Quite the troll shot.

Looks like a seeerious rocket getting ready to take-off here....

A bounce up would probably signal the last time we see 500

Curious aside:  The Wright Company was a money-losing proposition for the brothers.  Though it kind-a sort-a lived on in part through various mergers, no one ever lost sleep about not investing in the Wright Company when he had a chance.
Take from that what you will

Now you say that you want these days, but wouldn't you be surprised if you would wake up tommorow with -50% variation of value?
I doubt so.

wana buy some ether?

ether is sure to swing wildly when it comes out

i sell you ether at rock bottom prices

After a fake 520 break we are back to the boring sideways, trapped between 500-520.

That is too boring. I want the days where 50% variations were common

Isn't he part of that paid troll squad paid for trolling per post/per hour?
Otherwise it has to be something way more serious 

Does it ever get tiring being a twat?

No, it is YOUNG.  


I am skeptical about both, which means I am skeptical about the future of the network itself.


As a bitcoin fan, you obviously want to stick as many applications as possible into the Satoshi2009 blockchain, in order to get more support for it.  But there are other blockchains in existence, and the bitcoin network's hashing power could be harnessed for other protocols and applications if offered suitable rewards.

The bitcoin network currently costs 1.5 million USD per day.  That cost is now paid invisibly by the bitcoin holders, as you know.  

Yes, the bitcoin network has been working for 5 years now.  Like many other systems out there.  

(But er, wasn't there a hard fork some time ago?)

The maximum number of trasactions per day the bitcoin network has handled so far is a bit  over 100'000.  In Brazilian national elections, more than 100'000'000 votes are cast on a single day.  The US elections must be at least twice as big.  It is yet to be seen whether the bitcoin network and the Satoshi2009 blockchain can scale by x1000 without running into obstacles that have not been noticed yet.

A blockchain voting protocol would require access to the internet from all voting locations.  The current paper-backed e-voting systems do not even require power, and can collect votes autonomously in the middle of the Amazon jungle.  And so on.

(The bitcoin market cap is billions of dollars, but since bitcoins have no intrinsic value, the actual value managed is open to questioning.  If, for some private reason, all owners of Apple stock were forced to put it for sale on the open market, at the same time, all the stock it would probably be bought by  other people for close to its market cap.  If the same thing happened to bitcoin, its market price would probably plummet to single digits.  But this is just a side remark.)

The bitcoin protocol and network are experimental.  The goal of the Wright Bros'  Filer 1 model was to show that heavier-than-air flight was possible, and it was quite successful at that. But it was not meant to be THE transport vehicle of the future, not even a commercial product or the basis for any commercial enterprise.  The Bitcoin Protocol and the Satoshi2009 blockchain were created in the same spirit: as an experiment to prove that a distributed e-payment system without central authority was viable.  And they succesfully achieved that goal.  But the bitcoin protocol still has many limitations that, in my opinion, will ultimately prevent its use as a mainstream e-payment method, and I am almost sure that it will be superseded by some better system before it gets to that point.  Moreover, even if the bitcoin protocol itself thrives, nothing guarantees that it will retain the Satoshi2009 blockchain.

Unfortunately, the unexpected  demand for bitcoins, first by drug dealers and then by Chinese amateur speculators, pushed the bitcoin price 100-fold, in spite of it being just an experiment.  That price increase attracted financial businessmen who are now trying to convince the public that bitcoin (not any other cryptocoin) will be THE e-payment system of the future -- not just a working prototype of it --  and then sell it as a fabulous long-term investment.  I imagine those same people in the 1910's trying to sell Wright Flier 1 planes to the people for 10'000 dollars each, claiming that they (and not any other plane model) would soon be worth millions once the world would recognize their usefulness and exchanged all their horses for them.  Or selling shares of intercontinental airline companies whose fleets consisted of Flyer 1's.


I have looked into some systems that try to use public-key crytography techniques to achieve paperless secure e-voting.  Some of them are meant to let people vote from home over the internet, or depend on voters owning some gizmo that they have to  trust.  I stop reading those proposals right there, because those people obviously have not realized that voter coercion is a real and unsolvable problem in that setting.

Others are meant to prevent fraud in the adding of the votes.  This is a non-problem, because that part can be quite satisfactorily secured by just posting the site totals on the internet.  (In fact, the guy next to my office got crowdfunding to bulld a system that will make it easier to do that after the upcoming Brazilian election.)

The hard problem in paperless e-voting is capturing the vote in such a way that the voter can verify that the vote was correctly captured, but cannot prove to anyone else that he voted in a certain way.

There may be ways of doing that with sophisticated public crypto techniques, but as far as I know there is no solution that is guaranteed to work even with malicious system administrators and malicious hardware.   One of many obstacles is that the system does not know beforehand how many people will vote, so one could discover how each person voted by capturing all incoming data and simulating the end of the election after each vote.  

Even if there is a robust solution, I do not see why a complicated system based on a single shared blockchain, that only a few experts think is safe, would be better than the fully distributed, trustless paper-backed e-voting technology that has been proved secure in many real elections all over the world, and that everybody can understand and trust.
 
It is not a matter of being colosed-minded, rather of not being a naive tech-worshipper.

Explanation