Unignore -> instantly back to ignore...
And you think i care bout those low-life people like you ? ive made milions of dolars in bitcoins, i dont care about fish like you
So, what are you doing on this forum?
blogging
Topic: Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion - page 32867. (Read 26468242 times)
June 24, 2013, 04:08:35 AM
And you think i care bout those low-life people like you ? ive made milions of dolars in bitcoins, i dont care about fish like you
So, what are you doing on this forum?
blogging
June 24, 2013, 04:03:15 AM
Unignore -> instantly back to ignore...
And you think i care bout those low-life people like you ? ive made milions of dolars in bitcoins, i dont care about fish like you
So, what are you doing on this forum?
June 24, 2013, 04:00:48 AM
June 24, 2013, 03:59:48 AM
Unignore -> instantly back to ignore...
And you think i care bout those low-life people like you ? ive made milions of dolars in bitcoins, i dont care about fish like you
June 24, 2013, 03:57:34 AM
Unignore -> instantly back to ignore...
June 24, 2013, 03:52:30 AM
I will not sell on mtgox anymore since i cant cas-out, bye bye for two weeks.
June 24, 2013, 03:49:29 AM
to what ? scrypt ? 
LTC already use that tech
LTC already use that tech If for some reason that's what needed, sure, why not?
That's the point. If the proof of work algorithm were to change, the SHA256 ASICs wouldn't hold any power.
This would be a hard fork, probably with temporarily two competing blockchain version.
But if the Bitcoin's survival depend on it, everyone with a vested interest will just switch to another proof of work algorithm
(Even if some miners don't like it.)
Furthermore, we would have a bunch of Litecoin miners that would gladly use their processing power to mine bitcoins.
Marvellous, isn't it?
If by marvelous you mean blocks that take 100 times longer to complete until difficulty adjusts back to GPU level . . . Which would take maybe 6 years, if we hit 2 Ph/s in in the next few months, which I bet we do. Also, in a competition, how would GPU's ever out compete ASICS?
Do you guys even know how Bitcoin works?
Ok, imagine that everyone is using gold as money.
There is a great overlord who owns most of the gold mines on earth. Most think his power is almost absolute.
Now everyone, for whatever reason, decide to switch to using silver instead of gold.
All the gold currently in the people's hands immediately turns into silver, but not what's still underground.
All those able to mine silver are quite happy to mine for something that is so valuable.
What is the power of the gold overlord? Nothing. He had power only as long as people were using gold.
Back to Bitcoin.
What is the power of SHA256 ASICs if the proof of work changes? Zit, nada, nothing!
They can't prevent a change in the proof of work.
In a hard fork, that's really not a problem to adjust the difficulty level to account for the now missing ASICs.
You seem to think that Bitcoin is now as it will always be.
Bitcoin has changed and will continue to do so in order to improve itself.
If a 2 min per block time is really needed, then Bitcoin can be changed for that.
Most of the alt-coins advocates don't seem to realize that for everyone invested in Bitcoin, it's in their own interest to improve it if needed.
Bitcoin could even end up as an identical copy of Litecoin if that was needed.
What would the advantage versus just moving to Litecoin?
Every bitcoiner could keep his "wealth" already in the blockchain.
Merchants can keep using the same software.
And every blockchain uses are still valid (such as proof of existence).
OK now you don't make any sense, but I have no energy to discuss this any further, we will see how things will turn out .
Here, the basic premise is this:
BTC is not locked in to any cryptographic (or other) standard. It is open source decided upon by the community. If Scrypt is the way to go, then we will use Scrypt. Miners wouldn't like that but if it meant survival then all they lose is the hardware, NOT their bitcoins. (I'm sure they would prefer losing rigs rather than rigs AND coins.) But that is an extreme scenario, doing smaller things like changing confirmation times and such, would be done if it benefits us. We are in the early stages, seeing what is best and as we learn more we will just change the code accordingly.
I think it is good to have LTC around, just in case. But BTC can adapt to be most anything we need it to be.
IAS
How are decisions made in bitcoin community? I mean if most of us want that we should use scrypt and we want it to happen, what should we do? Is it possible that ASIC miners get to make the code like it pleases to them? Like paying coins to main coders or something like this?
June 24, 2013, 03:28:13 AM
to what ? scrypt ? LTC already use that tech
LTC already use that tech If for some reason that's what needed, sure, why not?
That's the point. If the proof of work algorithm were to change, the SHA256 ASICs wouldn't hold any power.
This would be a hard fork, probably with temporarily two competing blockchain version.
But if the Bitcoin's survival depend on it, everyone with a vested interest will just switch to another proof of work algorithm
(Even if some miners don't like it.)
Furthermore, we would have a bunch of Litecoin miners that would gladly use their processing power to mine bitcoins.
Marvellous, isn't it?
If by marvelous you mean blocks that take 100 times longer to complete until difficulty adjusts back to GPU level . . . Which would take maybe 6 years, if we hit 2 Ph/s in in the next few months, which I bet we do. Also, in a competition, how would GPU's ever out compete ASICS?
Do you guys even know how Bitcoin works?
Ok, imagine that everyone is using gold as money.
There is a great overlord who owns most of the gold mines on earth. Most think his power is almost absolute.
Now everyone, for whatever reason, decide to switch to using silver instead of gold.
All the gold currently in the people's hands immediately turns into silver, but not what's still underground.
All those able to mine silver are quite happy to mine for something that is so valuable.
What is the power of the gold overlord? Nothing. He had power only as long as people were using gold.
Back to Bitcoin.
What is the power of SHA256 ASICs if the proof of work changes? Zit, nada, nothing!
They can't prevent a change in the proof of work.
In a hard fork, that's really not a problem to adjust the difficulty level to account for the now missing ASICs.
You seem to think that Bitcoin is now as it will always be.
Bitcoin has changed and will continue to do so in order to improve itself.
If a 2 min per block time is really needed, then Bitcoin can be changed for that.
Most of the alt-coins advocates don't seem to realize that for everyone invested in Bitcoin, it's in their own interest to improve it if needed.
Bitcoin could even end up as an identical copy of Litecoin if that was needed.
What would the advantage versus just moving to Litecoin?
Every bitcoiner could keep his "wealth" already in the blockchain.
Merchants can keep using the same software.
And every blockchain uses are still valid (such as proof of existence).
OK now you don't make any sense, but I have no energy to discuss this any further, we will see how things will turn out .
Here, the basic premise is this:
BTC is not locked in to any cryptographic (or other) standard. It is open source decided upon by the community. If Scrypt is the way to go, then we will use Scrypt. Miners wouldn't like that but if it meant survival then all they lose is the hardware, NOT their bitcoins. (I'm sure they would prefer losing rigs rather than rigs AND coins.) But that is an extreme scenario, doing smaller things like changing confirmation times and such, would be done if it benefits us. We are in the early stages, seeing what is best and as we learn more we will just change the code accordingly.
I think it is good to have LTC around, just in case. But BTC can adapt to be most anything we need it to be.
IAS
June 24, 2013, 03:27:35 AM
C'mon MtGox, double digits, you can do it.
June 24, 2013, 03:25:40 AM
Man low volume is bad bad bad.
June 24, 2013, 03:22:38 AM
Volume plunging to new depths on its journey straight to hell, technically speaking :
: June 24, 2013, 03:00:36 AM
June 24, 2013, 02:34:51 AM
to what ? scrypt ? LTC already use that tech
LTC already use that tech If for some reason that's what needed, sure, why not?
That's the point. If the proof of work algorithm were to change, the SHA256 ASICs wouldn't hold any power.
This would be a hard fork, probably with temporarily two competing blockchain version.
But if the Bitcoin's survival depend on it, everyone with a vested interest will just switch to another proof of work algorithm
(Even if some miners don't like it.)
Furthermore, we would have a bunch of Litecoin miners that would gladly use their processing power to mine bitcoins.
Marvellous, isn't it?
If by marvelous you mean blocks that take 100 times longer to complete until difficulty adjusts back to GPU level . . . Which would take maybe 6 years, if we hit 2 Ph/s in in the next few months, which I bet we do. Also, in a competition, how would GPU's ever out compete ASICS?
Do you guys even know how Bitcoin works?
Ok, imagine that everyone is using gold as money.
There is a great overlord who owns most of the gold mines on earth. Most think his power is almost absolute.
Now everyone, for whatever reason, decide to switch to using silver instead of gold.
All the gold currently in the people's hands immediately turns into silver, but not what's still underground.
All those able to mine silver are quite happy to mine for something that is so valuable.
What is the power of the gold overlord? Nothing. He had power only as long as people were using gold.
Back to Bitcoin.
What is the power of SHA256 ASICs if the proof of work changes? Zit, nada, nothing!
They can't prevent a change in the proof of work.
In a hard fork, that's really not a problem to adjust the difficulty level to account for the now missing ASICs.
You seem to think that Bitcoin is now as it will always be.
Bitcoin has changed and will continue to do so in order to improve itself.
If a 2 min per block time is really needed, then Bitcoin can be changed for that.
Most of the alt-coins advocates don't seem to realize that for everyone invested in Bitcoin, it's in their own interest to improve it if needed.
Bitcoin could even end up as an identical copy of Litecoin if that was needed.
What would the advantage versus just moving to Litecoin?
Every bitcoiner could keep his "wealth" already in the blockchain.
Merchants can keep using the same software.
And every blockchain uses are still valid (such as proof of existence).
OK now you don't make any sense, but I have no energy to discuss this any further, we will see how things will turn out .
June 24, 2013, 02:32:58 AM
...
Most of the alt-coins advocates don't seem to realize that for everyone invested in Bitcoin, it's in their own interest to improve it if needed.
...
Most of the alt-coins advocates don't seem to realize that for everyone invested in Bitcoin, it's in their own interest to improve it if needed.
...
Absolutely.
And the higher the unit value of a bitcoin goes, into the hundreds or even thousands of dollars, then everyone who is holding it and mining it will have such a vested interest in its success that this will force a consensus on important changes. I think we saw this in March when all differences were put aside while the chain-fork was dealt with.
It was different in 2011 when coins were worth little, so messing around with new ideas had little cost. No one will sacrifice their $1000 coins for penny alt-coins.
sr. member
Activity: 448
Merit: 250
It's Money 2.0| It’s gold for nerds | It's Bitcoin
June 24, 2013, 02:31:22 AM
Sunday night dump time?
June 24, 2013, 02:15:24 AM
to what ? scrypt ? LTC already use that tech
LTC already use that tech If for some reason that's what needed, sure, why not?
That's the point. If the proof of work algorithm were to change, the SHA256 ASICs wouldn't hold any power.
This would be a hard fork, probably with temporarily two competing blockchain version.
But if the Bitcoin's survival depend on it, everyone with a vested interest will just switch to another proof of work algorithm
(Even if some miners don't like it.)
Furthermore, we would have a bunch of Litecoin miners that would gladly use their processing power to mine bitcoins.
Marvellous, isn't it?
If by marvelous you mean blocks that take 100 times longer to complete until difficulty adjusts back to GPU level . . . Which would take maybe 6 years, if we hit 2 Ph/s in in the next few months, which I bet we do. Also, in a competition, how would GPU's ever out compete ASICS?
Do you guys even know how Bitcoin works?
Ok, imagine that everyone is using gold as money.
There is a great overlord who owns most of the gold mines on earth. Most think his power is almost absolute.
Now everyone, for whatever reason, decide to switch to using silver instead of gold.
All the gold currently in the people's hands immediately turns into silver, but not what's still underground.
All those able to mine silver are quite happy to mine for something that is so valuable.
What is the power of the gold overlord? Nothing. He had power only as long as people were using gold.
Back to Bitcoin.
What is the power of SHA256 ASICs if the proof of work changes? Zit, nada, nothing!
They can't prevent a change in the proof of work.
In a hard fork, that's really not a problem to adjust the difficulty level to account for the now missing ASICs.
You seem to think that Bitcoin is now as it will always be.
Bitcoin has changed and will continue to do so in order to improve itself.
If a 2 min per block time is really needed, then Bitcoin can be changed for that.
Most of the alt-coins advocates don't seem to realize that for everyone invested in Bitcoin, it's in their own interest to improve it if needed.
Bitcoin could even end up as an identical copy of Litecoin if that was needed.
What would the advantage versus just moving to Litecoin?
Every bitcoiner could keep his "wealth" already in the blockchain.
Merchants can keep using the same software.
And every blockchain uses are still valid (such as proof of existence).
June 24, 2013, 02:00:19 AM
June 24, 2013, 01:53:32 AM
to what ? scrypt ? LTC already use that tech
LTC already use that tech If for some reason that's what needed, sure, why not?
That's the point. If the proof of work algorithm were to change, the SHA256 ASICs wouldn't hold any power.
This would be a hard fork, probably with temporarily two competing blockchain version.
But if the Bitcoin's survival depend on it, everyone with a vested interest will just switch to another proof of work algorithm
(Even if some miners don't like it.)
Furthermore, we would have a bunch of Litecoin miners that would gladly use their processing power to mine bitcoins.
Marvellous, isn't it?
If by marvelous you mean blocks that take 100 times longer to complete until difficulty adjusts back to GPU level . . . Which would take maybe 6 years, if we hit 2 Ph/s in in the next few months, which I bet we do. Also, in a competition, how would GPU's ever out compete ASICS?
June 24, 2013, 01:44:55 AM
Alright, what's the verdict on this declining channel lately?
A bounce off, up and onward from about $102..?
http://bitcoincharts.com/charts/mtgoxUSD#rg10zigHourlyztgSzm1g10zm2g25
A bounce off, up and onward from about $102..?
http://bitcoincharts.com/charts/mtgoxUSD#rg10zigHourlyztgSzm1g10zm2g25
June 24, 2013, 01:34:25 AM
I must say it's a lot more civilised here than it is in the BTC-e trollbox, I can't imagine any of them putting a song like that together.
Trollbox is trollbox
Jump to: