191–200 of 253 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> This is because it is more important what is in the message than who wrote it. not in this instance
> not in this instance not really. why does it matter that this message is authentic? that 2x _really_ isn't going to happen? it can still happen, and it doesn't matter who posts what online.
A few altcoins immediately went +20% up - NEO, IOTA, Omnise, Lisk, Waves, Ark. But not the ones I expected - like Ethereum.
Very funny for a currency with no central control that a few people in central control can just call off a hard fork, and make ridiculous amounts of money in doing so.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You must be new to this. Literally any change shows that bitcoin will win. Something bad for bitcoin? And it still can't stop it! Look at how resilient it is! Something good for bitcoin? TOLD YOU SO to the moon!
All Bitcoin news results in new people saying "I should buy some Bitcoin", so it doesn't matter so much what the news is as long as it reaches new people who will think they're missing out. Not to use the B-word, but bubbles will continue to inflate as long as there are enough new people to put new money in.
So bitcoin went up because they were going to fork, and now it's going up again because they will not? k Edit: Otoh, looks like it's seeing a bit of a drop now, but I doubt it will hit the pre-anticipation levels.
You must be new to this. Literally any change shows that bitcoin will win. Something bad for bitcoin? And it still can't stop it! Look at how resilient it is! Something good for bitcoin? TOLD YOU SO to the moon!
Price going up? PURE SPECULATION, DRUGS, AND MONEY LAUNDERING.
Price going down? I TOLD YOU IT WAS A BUBBLE THAT WOULD CRASH.
Price staying steady? JUST WAIT, IT'S A BUBBLE BEING HELD AT A PRICE ARTIFICIALLY, EVEN THOUGH I'LL NEVER MAKE A FALSIFIABLE PREDICTION ABOUT WHEN IT WILL CRASH.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is why I got out of bitcoin trading. It used to correlate to the general attitude about it. Now the coins and miners are so centralized the real driving force of bitcoins price is the thousand wallets holding 95% of all BTC. Its like trying to predict market movements for a stock where 95% of the shares in a company are owned by one person. It isn't up to anyone else but that person where the price trends, becau…
where are you getting those false numbers from, this is the distribution https://bitinfocharts.com/top-100-richest-bitcoin-addresses.... Trading on attitude is not the best trading analysis strategy, I'm glad you sold before losing more money
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The pure speculators I know invest in smaller cap cryptocurrencies to maximize their gains. The only people I know invested in bitcoin are in because they believe in its long term value. Anyway at this point you're trying to predict the future and I'm sharing anecdotes so we're not getting anywhere, let's tackle your main point: > The lack of arguments against on chain scaling, backed by actual research, is what's la…
So your only focus is on full nodes. So where's the research of how expensive nodes are and how many nodes would be lost if an upgrade to 2MB would happen? How big of a loss would be acceptable? Ideally how many nodes should exist in the network for it to be sufficiently decentralized? How much bandwidth is needed? How long can we expect our storage to last? There is no credible research done , there are no numbers,…
It is overwhelmingly clear that cryptocurrencies in general is in an early phase and that more research is needed on the subject. Especially since it seems like we'll be running these systems on an even larger scale in the future. It does however seem like more energy is spent spreading soundbites on Twitter than anything that has even a vague resemblance to the scientific method.
I still don't really understand why people were so against a block size increase. I get that there are centralisation risks if the block size increases too much, but it doesn't really seem as though increasing to 2mb really make such a big difference? Am I missing something?
There are no real technical arguments against increasing to 2MB, only political. The main actors against a block size increase are Core developers who are also part of a company called Blockstream. Blockstream's business model is about selling side chains. But why use side chains if you can use on chain transactions instead? Well if you limit on chain scaling users would be forced on to your side chains... The moveme…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What is interesting is that the BTC price went up on the email announcement and it started going down an hour later when coindesk released the news. I guess different type of investors/speculators read different news source ...
Do you really think it has anything to do with that?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not that weird. It's like any exchange of goods, both parties can come out with an advantage by getting something they want. In the case of Bitcoin Cash, 2 sides of the community got what they wanted.
The interested parties on either side would have been better off buying pre-fork and selling the one they didn't want, rather than buying after the fork, even though the end result is the same. That is irrational.
Pre fork BTC price + risk premium ~ BTC post fork + BCH
Pretend like the fork actually taking place and working successfully as comparable to a company's earning reports. The second that news comes in, it prices itself in almost immediately.
Sadly, this exact scenario was predicted by multiple people and could have been avoided by making segwit and 2MB activate atomically at the same time. This is a huge embarrassment for big blockers; they have been completely politically out-maneuvered.