I didn't buy ETH because I didn't like the name and didn't buy Dash well, because of Dash from the forum thought it would fail.

Is anyone concerned that this whole "Bitcoin Unlimited" thing actually has a large % of the hashrate and apparently more have approved of BU than Segwit?

I know the BU ringleader is rich, so the argument goes that although BU has a lot of hashrate, say maybe 25%, it's distributed among only a few very wealthy owners of huge amounts of mining equipment.

If 95% have to approve Segwit, how can it ever happen? It's a huge amount of approval which seems impossible. At the same time transaction fees are skyrocketing compared to what they used to be, and BU seems to be gaining share while actual BTC core is declining. It's sad that micro payments are now effectively impossible due to tx fees.

How in the hell did these rich guys carry this out? How did it get this far? I know they have a lot of money but we're talking a 15-20 billion market cap here. At first I thought it would blow over, that they couldn't actually pull this off, make any sort of real dent in BTC, but they have, and it seems to be getting worse.

The core devs need to take strong, decisive action otherwise there could be outright disaster. I would say a lot of this is what is keeping the price down and keeping average newbies to BTC like me from buying any.

JJG - some to stuff, some to btc. That's why

(03-17-2017 09:43 AM)el mechanico Wrote:  I didn't buy ETH because I didn't like the name and didn't buy Dash well, because of Dash from the forum thought it would fail.

Dash is ok. EU ruled privacy can't happen tho, so the privacy is crap now.

(03-17-2017 11:20 AM)Skank_Hunt Wrote:  Is anyone concerned that this whole "Bitcoin Unlimited" thing actually has a large % of the hashrate and apparently more have approved of BU than Segwit?

I know the BU ringleader is rich, so the argument goes that although BU has a lot of hashrate, say maybe 25%, it's distributed among only a few very wealthy owners of huge amounts of mining equipment.

If 95% have to approve Segwit, how can it ever happen? It's a huge amount of approval which seems impossible. At the same time transaction fees are skyrocketing compared to what they used to be, and BU seems to be gaining share while actual BTC core is declining. It's sad that micro payments are now effectively impossible due to tx fees.

How in the hell did these rich guys carry this out? How did it get this far? I know they have a lot of money but we're talking a 15-20 billion market cap here. At first I thought it would blow over, that they couldn't actually pull this off, make any sort of real dent in BTC, but they have, and it seems to be getting worse.

The core devs need to take strong, decisive action otherwise there could be outright disaster. I would say a lot of this is what is keeping the price down and keeping average newbies to BTC like me from buying any.

Isn't the BU argument that Bitcoin Core devs are all basically being paid by blockstream so that is the company in control of bitcoin core? What makes rich guys who can't be bought out by that company such a bad thing? They want to increase the block size right, what makes you so sure that Segwit is the best option?

I'm not 100% sure myself. It's hard to get a clear picture. From what I could tell reddit.com/r/bitcoin is kind of like /r/politics with all the censorship. /r/btc is probably pretty biased in favor of BU too, makes it hard to get a clear picture of what's going on.

I'm sure JJG will be in here soon to tell us all how Segwit is going to save bitcoin and BU is evil, but I don't see what's the big problem with increasing the blocksize, storage space is getting cheaper and cheaper, so I don't see it being as bad of an idea that people make it out to be.

Also I found it funny how that article he linked fails to mention at all the other big cryptocurrency fork that was Ethereum and Ethereum Classic. I guess that wouldn't support the premise of the article that not changing from the original name is an unprecedented cyber robbery!

(03-17-2017 11:20 AM)Skank_Hunt Wrote:  Is anyone concerned that this whole "Bitcoin Unlimited" thing actually has a large % of the hashrate and apparently more have approved of BU than Segwit?

I know the BU ringleader is rich, so the argument goes that although BU has a lot of hashrate, say maybe 25%, it's distributed among only a few very wealthy owners of huge amounts of mining equipment.

If 95% have to approve Segwit, how can it ever happen? It's a huge amount of approval which seems impossible. At the same time transaction fees are skyrocketing compared to what they used to be, and BU seems to be gaining share while actual BTC core is declining. It's sad that micro payments are now effectively impossible due to tx fees.

How in the hell did these rich guys carry this out? How did it get this far? I know they have a lot of money but we're talking a 15-20 billion market cap here. At first I thought it would blow over, that they couldn't actually pull this off, make any sort of real dent in BTC, but they have, and it seems to be getting worse.

The core devs need to take strong, decisive action otherwise there could be outright disaster. I would say a lot of this is what is keeping the price down and keeping average newbies to BTC like me from buying any.

@Skank_Hunt:

You seem to summarize the situation fairly well, and surely some of the continued inroads that BU seems to have gotten does seem to bring some instability to bitcoin.

I cannot really be sure, exactly, regarding how much of their threat is real and how much is smoke and mirrors. If you watch the situation, you will see that the support of BU will fluctuate, and sometimes it is not really clear about whether the support is as high as they assert the support to be... and if push comes to shove, how many would follow their actual fork, if they were to pull such a trigger.

The core version does seem to be the more solid version, so even if BU were to achieve a 70% mining majority or something like that, and then fork, it seems that we could have a lot of folks coming back over to the core version.. but who knows, we would just have to see how it plays out, and I really have quite a bit of skepticism that a hardfork trigger pulling is as close as some of the BU supporter folks want you to believe.

The smart people seem to remain with Core and so far the various BU changes seem to have a considerable amount of bugginess. Maybe some of the bugginess would be fixed, but if we were to fork, then current BTC holders would then have two coins, I guess.

(03-17-2017 12:20 PM)Savage Wrote:  

(03-17-2017 11:20 AM)Skank_Hunt Wrote:  Is anyone concerned that this whole "Bitcoin Unlimited" thing actually has a large % of the hashrate and apparently more have approved of BU than Segwit?

I know the BU ringleader is rich, so the argument goes that although BU has a lot of hashrate, say maybe 25%, it's distributed among only a few very wealthy owners of huge amounts of mining equipment.

If 95% have to approve Segwit, how can it ever happen? It's a huge amount of approval which seems impossible. At the same time transaction fees are skyrocketing compared to what they used to be, and BU seems to be gaining share while actual BTC core is declining. It's sad that micro payments are now effectively impossible due to tx fees.

How in the hell did these rich guys carry this out? How did it get this far? I know they have a lot of money but we're talking a 15-20 billion market cap here. At first I thought it would blow over, that they couldn't actually pull this off, make any sort of real dent in BTC, but they have, and it seems to be getting worse.

The core devs need to take strong, decisive action otherwise there could be outright disaster. I would say a lot of this is what is keeping the price down and keeping average newbies to BTC like me from buying any.

Isn't the BU argument that Bitcoin Core devs are all basically being paid by blockstream so that is the company in control of bitcoin core? What makes rich guys who can't be bought out by that company such a bad thing? They want to increase the block size right, what makes you so sure that Segwit is the best option?

I'm not 100% sure myself. It's hard to get a clear picture. From what I could tell reddit.com/r/bitcoin is kind of like /r/politics with all the censorship. /r/btc is probably pretty biased in favor of BU too, makes it hard to get a clear picture of what's going on.

I'm sure JJG will be in here soon to tell us all how Segwit is going to save bitcoin and BU is evil, but I don't see what's the big problem with increasing the blocksize, storage space is getting cheaper and cheaper, so I don't see it being as bad of an idea that people make it out to be.

Also I found it funny how that article he linked fails to mention at all the other big cryptocurrency fork that was Ethereum and Ethereum Classic. I guess that wouldn't support the premise of the article that not changing from the original name is an unprecedented cyber robbery!

These various "scale or die" arguments currently coming from Core have been battled around in pretty strong ways since about the beginning of our current bull run from late 2015 to present, with a price movement from the mid $200s to present $1140-ish.

Bitcoin has a lot of importance beyond merely speed and cost of transactions, as the various scale or die folks have been arguing with intensity for the past couple years with various versions XT, Classic and now BU.

Over that time, some of the market has recognized some of the nonsense in the forking, scaling and governance arguments, but from time to time, over the past couple of years, we seem to have also seen some resonance with those kinds of "scale or die" and associated claims, too.

You get me wrong if you believe that I am any kind of absolutist regarding any of these kinds of claims whether coming from the "scale or die" camp, core or otherwise.

I doubt that it is really necessary for me to repeat various arguments that I have made, here in the past, but just to allude to one of my frequently asserted points, I have frequently asserted that there is a burden of production and a burden of persuasion on anyone who wants to change the status quo of bitcoin (which currently is represented by the current implementation and core).

These various proposals of XT, Classic and BU have not had very good luck within bitcoin's system to provide either facts and/or logic that would persuade to test and or implement their various proposals, and part of their problems seem to be that they don't really identify problems well, they tend to oversimplify their approach as the solution, and they attempt to include all kinds of other governance issues into their schemes in order to muddy the waters.

Accordingly since BU tends to have trouble getting changes achieved within core systems, instead BU folks seem to have chosen to approach the matter in a kind of hostile take over direction.

If BU is successful in forking in through their approach, then current BTC holders would then likely end up with two coins.

Under current implementations, it seems that core would be the better coin, but we could see changes and compromises under each implementation that may cause differing assessments in the future. In the end, but people are going to be free to make their own choices about which coin to buy or sell or to refrain from either. I will do the same.

Maybe if such a fork were to occur, then we would have to fork this thread, too... hahahaha

I am not technically qualified enough to know that Segwit is the absolute best option, but if tx fees are to be made reasonable again so as to enable tx of all sizes with reasonable fees, then unless I am mistaken a block size increase has to take place. I gather that BU is called so because of the ability to set an "unlimited" block size rather than the ~1.75 I heard would happen with Segwit. Over time, would 1.75 again be insufficient, and what would happen then? These are scaling problems which were not necessarily fully anticipated, for who could have predicted how BTC would have taken off?

So I am not sure that any particular way is the best way to do it. All I know is the BTC Core (original BTC, not some altcoin, which is what BU would become in the case of a hard fork) devs, who are much more knowledgeable about this subject than any of us, have to find a solution. Or, they just don't, and BTC simply does not handle micro transactions anymore, and is treated more like digital gold, as a store of value or, when traded, traded in sufficiently large denominations such that tx fees are reasonable compared to the value of the underlying transaction.

What I am fairly certain of is that the guys spearheading BU are doing this in a hostile manner, hoping to seize control of BTC. Some of them may be unable to get laid with cute girls and instead choose to overcompensate for their failures with control of the world's original cryptocurrency, even to the extent of losing huge sums of money for control, for dominance. This whole thing frankly stinks. I don't detect any genuine constructive sentiment or intention, despite some fair technical points being made (e.g. block size should be increased). One danger is that miners of good intentions who believe that BTC needs to increase block size to survive may be suckered into supporting BU for those technical reasons alone, while ignoring the fundamentally malicious intent by the founders of BU, which, if ultimately successful, could destroy BTC.

Yes we all know that DASH went up 10x or whatever it was. Or that ETH came from nowhere and went up 10 or 20x or whatever it was. And that ETH kept on going even after it broke into ETH/ETC. In this case the "original" ETH is actually ETC, and today's ETH is the "rogue". There are literally hundreds of altcoins out there, most of them fail into obscurity. People will argue technical innovations and various better features e.g. anonymity with DASH etc. but to me they are all just altcoins. 99% of them just shitty altcoins with a few more successful in keeping price than others. All altcoins are originally denominated and traded in BTC. Sometimes I say to myself, damn I missed the DASH train, or I missed the ETH train, but it's impossible to predict which one out of the hundreds of shitty altcoins will take off.

What I am saying is that a huge part of the value of BTC is in being the first, being the biggest, being the most stable over time. It needs to remain whole to maintain this great trust and credibility. What if I buy a BTC, and a few months down the line I have two coins, one called BTC Classic and another called BU? BTC has been successfully broken in two. A lot of the miners giving hashpower to BU need to think carefully what their support will do in the long run for whatever it is they are mining, because the breaking up of BTC into BTC and BU sounds like some shitty altcoin drama, something as well established as BTC should be way above. Once there is a chink in the armor of BTC, it is broken and sucked into altcoin style drama, the sum of the two parts may actually be far, far less than the original single BTC, thus making their mining unprofitable very quickly. Right now a lot of them are being suckered in by promises of bigger payouts by the rich BU ringleaders, but they have to think long term. In exchange for short term greed, they could be destroying their means of income.

And this kind of shit is just another nail in the coffin for things like ETFs. How do you explain this kind of bullshit nerd cock measuring competition to your average retail investor who just wants to make low single digit % gains most years until retirement?

(03-17-2017 06:02 PM)Skank_Hunt Wrote:  .................. I don't detect any genuine constructive sentiment or intention, despite some fair technical points being made (e.g. block size should be increased). One danger is that miners of good intentions who believe that BTC needs to increase block size to survive may be suckered into supporting BU for those technical reasons alone, while ignoring the fundamentally malicious intent by the founders of BU, which, if ultimately successful, could destroy BTC.................]

Skank_Hunt:

I agree with everything that you are saying in your entire post, except I think that you are giving a bit too much credit to supposed necessity for a blocksize limit increase based on technical arguments.

Logically, the argument sounds correct, that you need to have a large blocksize in order to achieve more transactions, but BU proponents tend to argue this as a given. Furthermore they tend to argue as if BTC should compete with credit cards at this point in its development, which is another big assumption and a big attempt to prescribe their own personal feelings onto the platform.

What's your take JJG on what's going on?

(03-18-2017 10:26 AM)Armogan Wrote:  

What's your take JJG on what's going on?

I have not been able to read up too much about this situation. But I noticed that we were above $1,132 for 22 days in a row, so that was a pretty long streak for kind of sustaining all time high daily waited averages.

Accordingly some kind of correction may have been in the calling, and once momentum switches, bears are going to attempt to push it for all it is worth.

I could see $800 at the most extreme, but not sustainable, so I think there are decent buying opportunities anywhere in the lower $900s (because it is so difficult to time the bottom, with any kind of meaningful precision).

What about some of you other guys? Are you thinking that BU or Core is causing this? ETF dynamics? some of the alt coin pumping that is going on, or some other explanation?

I just bought in at $964. I figured that's a decent price considering it's down from the all-time high.

If it dips under $900 then I will buy more. So basically I plan on buying the dips.

(03-17-2017 09:36 AM)JayJuanGee Wrote:  First, many of us know that this is not a thread about Alt coins; however, there may be ways to frame the issue in terms of bitcoin, maybe?

Seems good to have sold a decent amount of ETH at $53. Maybe selling even more, would have been better, but what do I know about these pump and dump alts?

First, you are the only one who says that other coins are not allowed to be discussed in this thread. Did Roosh or anyone else running the forum ever say so, or is it just something you have made up yourself trying to play a moderator or admin in here?

Second, calling eth a pump and dump is just stupid and proves that you do not understand the technical parts of crypto currencies.

(03-18-2017 11:11 AM)zoom Wrote:  I just bought in at $964. I figured that's a decent price considering it's down from the all-time high.

If it dips under $900 then I will buy more. So basically I plan on buying the dips.

That's a decent plan.

Even though I attempt to make some kind of rough estimation of BTC price direction, either up or down, frequently I have quite difficult times accomplishing such, so I just continue to buy small amounts on the way down and sell small amounts on the way up.

We did get about 11k coins dumped on Stamp in about 90 minutes that brought the price down to $949, and sometimes when the volume of the dumps are so high, that can be a sign that the dump is over (because at some point the bears are no longer able to sustain any further dumping and to break through support - and largely, they run out of coins)...

(03-18-2017 11:36 AM)Satoshi Wrote:  

(03-17-2017 09:36 AM)JayJuanGee Wrote:  First, many of us know that this is not a thread about Alt coins; however, there may be ways to frame the issue in terms of bitcoin, maybe?

Seems good to have sold a decent amount of ETH at $53. Maybe selling even more, would have been better, but what do I know about these pump and dump alts?

First, you are the only one who says that other coins are not allowed to be discussed in this thread. Did Roosh or anyone else running the forum ever say so, or is it just something you have made up yourself trying to play a moderator or admin in here?

I am not trying to be an admin or a mod.

Most RVF guys know that RVF threads have topics, and as a courtesy to other RVF members, and even RVF rules, largely attempt to stick to the topics of the threads.

Contrary to your assertion, sticking to thread topics is neither an amorphous concept or some kind of concept that I am making up in order to attempt to impose on others.

(03-18-2017 11:36 AM)Satoshi Wrote:  Second, calling eth a pump and dump is just stupid and proves that you do not understand the technical parts of crypto currencies.

We've made these kinds of assertions several times before about whether or not ETH is a pump and dump or not, or a scam or not, even in this thread, and it does not matter too much how I characterize ETH in my summary way in this thread, because ETH is not a part of this thread.

If we want to get into detail about the value or lack thereof of ETH, then we can go to another thread to make such discussion. We can either create a thread about ETH or use an existing alt coin thread.... such as this one:

Alternatives to bitcoin

(03-18-2017 11:56 AM)JayJuanGee Wrote:  

(03-18-2017 11:36 AM)Satoshi Wrote:  

(03-17-2017 09:36 AM)JayJuanGee Wrote:  First, many of us know that this is not a thread about Alt coins; however, there may be ways to frame the issue in terms of bitcoin, maybe?

Seems good to have sold a decent amount of ETH at $53. Maybe selling even more, would have been better, but what do I know about these pump and dump alts?

First, you are the only one who says that other coins are not allowed to be discussed in this thread. Did Roosh or anyone else running the forum ever say so, or is it just something you have made up yourself trying to play a moderator or admin in here?

I am not trying to be an admin or a mod.

Most RVF guys know that RVF threads have topics, and as a courtesy to other RVF members, and even RVF rules, largely attempt to stick to the topics of the threads.

Contrary to your assertion, sticking to thread topics is neither an amorphous concept or some kind of concept that I am making up in order to attempt to impose on others.

(03-18-2017 11:36 AM)Satoshi Wrote:  Second, calling eth a pump and dump is just stupid and proves that you do not understand the technical parts of crypto currencies.

We've made these kinds of assertions several times before about whether or not ETH is a pump and dump or not, or a scam or not, even in this thread, and it does not matter too much how I characterize ETH in my summary way in this thread, because ETH is not a part of this thread.

If we want to get into detail about the value or lack thereof of ETH, then we can go to another thread to make such discussion. We can either create a thread about ETH or use an existing alt coin thread.... such as this one:

Alternatives to bitcoin

You're being too stringent, if someone mentions another coin in relation to BTC's price I'd say its relevant to this thread. Talking about other coins in that context isn't really derailing this thread as you are implying.

Especially with what's happened in recent times, and what's ahead its more convenient to talk about things in one thread.

If there is a night game thread, but someone posts a discussion about the merits of daygame over nightgame, is that derailing the thread drastically? I'd say it's not, but you'd probably say it is.

(03-18-2017 12:08 PM)Armogan Wrote:  

(03-18-2017 11:56 AM)JayJuanGee Wrote:  

(03-18-2017 11:36 AM)Satoshi Wrote:  

(03-17-2017 09:36 AM)JayJuanGee Wrote:  First, many of us know that this is not a thread about Alt coins; however, there may be ways to frame the issue in terms of bitcoin, maybe?

Seems good to have sold a decent amount of ETH at $53. Maybe selling even more, would have been better, but what do I know about these pump and dump alts?

First, you are the only one who says that other coins are not allowed to be discussed in this thread. Did Roosh or anyone else running the forum ever say so, or is it just something you have made up yourself trying to play a moderator or admin in here?

I am not trying to be an admin or a mod.

Most RVF guys know that RVF threads have topics, and as a courtesy to other RVF members, and even RVF rules, largely attempt to stick to the topics of the threads.

Contrary to your assertion, sticking to thread topics is neither an amorphous concept or some kind of concept that I am making up in order to attempt to impose on others.

(03-18-2017 11:36 AM)Satoshi Wrote:  Second, calling eth a pump and dump is just stupid and proves that you do not understand the technical parts of crypto currencies.

We've made these kinds of assertions several times before about whether or not ETH is a pump and dump or not, or a scam or not, even in this thread, and it does not matter too much how I characterize ETH in my summary way in this thread, because ETH is not a part of this thread.

If we want to get into detail about the value or lack thereof of ETH, then we can go to another thread to make such discussion. We can either create a thread about ETH or use an existing alt coin thread.... such as this one:

Alternatives to bitcoin

You're being too stringent, if someone mentions another coin in relation to BTC's price I'd say its relevant to this thread. Talking about other coins in that context isn't really derailing this thread as you are implying.

Especially with what's happened in recent times, and what's ahead its more convenient to talk about things in one thread.

If there is a night game thread, but someone posts a discussion about the merits of daygame over nightgame, is that derailing the thread drastically? I'd say it's not, but you'd probably say it is.

I think that you are reading too much into what I am saying. We already tend to have a lot of discussion of various alts in this thread as to how they relate to bitcoin.. yet sometimes, guys start to just talk about the alt and seem to make no relation to bitcoin - and at that point, the topic of the alt seems like it would be more appropriate for another thread.

I am just giving my opinion, and guys can do what they like. I don't have any control over what RVF guys do except maybe to give my opinion and they can give their opinions and in the end we may differ about whether a guy is deviating too much from topic.

Woah, huge drop today, 3 massive red candles on the daily chart. My gut is that it is to do with uncertainty about this whole BU situation. There might be a retrace of the entire movement from the low of 150 to 1350:

Approximate Fib Support Levels:

1060
890
750
610
410

I would be looking to get my first 5 BTC at around $750, it could never reach that level in which case I guess I missed out, but with all this BU stuff going on who knows.

JJG, an occasional summary of any new developments in the BU situation would be well appreciated. I'm keeping an eye on it, but as you pointed out (and I also pointed out in my original post) I did not say I am 100% sure about the need to increase block size or that I am the best person on this forum to comment on specific technical aspects of BTC or the unfolding BU situation.

To put it simply, I am about money. I don't claim to be a blockchain guru. I like money because it enables me to travel and live in a central location in a city where the girls are pretty and pleasant and abundant. BTC is not a get rich quick scheme, I know that; but I see some of its potential and would like to put at least a portion of my funds into it, in order to make more money, travel more, and bang more girls. I would guess a lot of members of this forum are of the same disposition.

What is working contrary to my investing my money, and the lifestyle it enables us to have, is this whole nerdy internet soap opera like dispute, where basement dwellers get on reddit and make massively complex, passionate posts about obscure technical facets of BTC. I am forced to sit on the sidelines waiting for a result before buying in.

I can't imagine many of these guys ever getting laid by pretty women. I want to buy BTC, not some half coin or deformed hybrid or whatever the fuck is going to happen. And I know the following will never occur, but I wish the BU losers would cut the shit, stop wasting time and cut the shit right now. For fuck's sake, I don't have long money and I am not ashamed to admit it. I am a work in progress. These dudes are minted but use their funds in completely pointless and stupid endeavors which will not improve their lives or the lives of those around them. I have a suggestion for the BU leaders: cut the shit right now, use a tiny fraction of your money to travel to Thailand and get your frustrations out in far more satisfying and productive ways.

(03-18-2017 02:43 PM)Skank_Hunt Wrote:  Woah, huge drop today, 3 massive red candles on the daily chart. My gut is that it is to do with uncertainty about this whole BU situation. There might be a retrace of the entire movement from the low of 150 to 1350:

Approximate Fib Support Levels:

1060
890
750
610
410

I would be looking to get my first 5 BTC at around $750, it could never reach that level in which case I guess I missed out, but with all this BU stuff going on who knows.

We are each entitled to our opinions, but it really seems to me that you are giving quite a bit more credit to the calamity of this BU debate - and putting into question the whole movement from $150 to $1350.

I think that a more realistic range might either be the movement from mid $400s to $1350 or lower $600s to $1350, and to perform your FIB support retracement from that perspective.

Also, if you really willing to buy up to 5 BTC at $750, then I would suggest a bit more incrementalism in your potential buying plan that spreads your buying out every approximately $50 down to achieve the 5BTC (if that is your goal) by the time the price gets to $650. If the price did actually go to $650, then your average buy price would be a little over $750 but you would also be able to get some additional stake in the game in the even that the price does not go down nearly as far as you expected, for example you may still achieve 2 BTC at $850 or something like that... but if you have a certain high level of confidence, then it could be better to wait like you are saying (but I personally get a bit nervous with that much gambling)

(03-18-2017 02:43 PM)Skank_Hunt Wrote:  JJG, an occasional summary of any new developments in the BU situation would be well appreciated.

I post when I see things, but sometimes I get really busy, too, and in nearly the past month, I had not been getting opportunities to review some of my regular threads. Here is a good one that is somewhat sporadic, but sometimes I will cross post from that thread.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1166428.5060

(03-18-2017 02:43 PM)Skank_Hunt Wrote:  I'm keeping an eye on it, but as you pointed out (and I also pointed out in my original post) I did not say I am 100% sure about the need to increase block size or that I am the best person on this forum to comment on specific technical aspects of BTC or the unfolding BU situation.

You seem to have some decent ability to spot the bullshit, but yeah, a lot of RVF guys and other people are having to sort through a sea of misinformation - and to figure out if sources are credible, etcetera and what kind of grain of salt to give some sources as compared with others.

(03-18-2017 02:43 PM)Skank_Hunt Wrote:  To put it simply, I am about money. I don't claim to be a blockchain guru. I like money because it enables me to travel and live in a central location in a city where the girls are pretty and pleasant and abundant. BTC is not a get rich quick scheme, I know that; but I see some of its potential and would like to put at least a portion of my funds into it, in order to make more money, travel more, and bang more girls. I would guess a lot of members of this forum are of the same disposition.

there can be a lot of various approaches to achieve the same goal. Some guys are willing to take more risks than others in terms of their investments and in terms of how much time they might spend monitoring a variety of alts. Some of that can pay off, too, but I am of the camp that even bitcoin is a handful and a lot to follow, without necessarily getting into too many of the various alts (even though they can be related and relevant to what is going on in terms of BTC price and/or price movement considerations)

(03-18-2017 02:43 PM)Skank_Hunt Wrote:  What is working contrary to my investing my money, and the lifestyle it enables us to have, is this whole nerdy internet soap opera like dispute, where basement dwellers get on reddit and make massively complex, passionate posts about obscure technical facets of BTC. I am forced to sit on the sidelines waiting for a result before buying in.

I can't imagine many of these guys ever getting laid by pretty women. I want to buy BTC, not some half coin or deformed hybrid or whatever the fuck is going to happen. And I know the following will never occur, but I wish the BU losers would cut the shit, stop wasting time and cut the shit right now. For fuck's sake, I don't have long money and I am not ashamed to admit it. I am a work in progress. These dudes are minted but use their funds in completely pointless and stupid endeavors which will not improve their lives or the lives of those around them. I have a suggestion for the BU leaders: cut the shit right now, use a tiny fraction of your money to travel to Thailand and get your frustrations out in far more satisfying and productive ways.

I kind of agree with you that a lot of the BU supporters seem to either be misguided goofballs or possibly even paid shills - yet in any event, we cannot really get rid of the dynamic or their influence - except maybe to attempt to shed some light on it from time to time. A lot of these big blocker folks are the same ones who had been spreading the crap regarding XT, then Classic, then some of the Craig Wright bullshit, and now BU. Some of this just has to play out over time, and as individuals, we just have to try our best to figure out a way to prepare ourselves for market movements that may be associated with some of these politics and/or FUD spreading attempts.

I will concede that this current market situation could (still) be too soon to call, but it is starting to feel to me as if the bottom of the most recent price correction was $944 ( by the way, as I type BTC prices are currently bouncing between about $1025 and $1045).

Where we go from here, could be another question... whether the price rebound is slow or fast, and of course an alternative theory would be that currently we are in a bull trap, which doesn't seem to be as convincing of a description for me

(one more edit before my hour expires... hahahaha... I just noticed that some folks are calling our current scenario a possible dead cat bounce, rather than a bulltrap, which is another variation on the same theme).

Some guys still waiting for $700 coins? El mech, what's your status? You sold your whole stash for consumer goods?

Raiden network (ETH) will be releaasd this week 1,000,000 transactions/second. Bitcoin can only do 7 transactions/second. What will be the point in say, 6 months? You can't even buy drugs with Bitcoin anymore.

(03-19-2017 12:59 PM)Armogan Wrote:  Raiden network (ETH) will be releaasd this week 1,000,000 transactions/second. Bitcoin can only do 7 transactions/second. What will be the point in say, 6 months? You can't even buy drugs with Bitcoin anymore.

I did not know that ETH had either liquidity or security. Hm?

Are folks trading directly in ETH, now? besides a few pie in the sky 14 year olds? That is news to me.

Edit: by the way, how is the point of your post even related to bitcoin, except your stretch of an attempt to try to make a relationship between ETH and BTC while the thrust of your posts seems merely to strive to pump ETH (rather than even to denigrate BTC), no? shouldn't this post be in the Alts thread?

BTC had 24-hour transaction volume of ~458m, while ETH had 24-hour transaction volume of ~220m. Not exactly a bunch of 14 year-olds playing in the arcade, is it?

Who knows what this figure will be when Raiden comes on, I'll bet up. 1,000,000 tx/sec vs. 7 tx/sec. That's a lot of drugs in one second!

(03-19-2017 01:10 PM)JayJuanGee Wrote:  Edit: by the way, how is the point of your post even related to bitcoin, except your stretch of an attempt to try to make a relationship between ETH and BTC while the thrust of your posts seems merely to strive to pump ETH (rather than even to denigrate BTC), no? shouldn't this post be in the Alts thread?

I just commented on this behavior of yours in the previous page. Did Roosh or anyone else running this forum ever say that it is not allowed to discuss bitcoin in this thread? If not then you should stop acting like you are an authority in this discussion.

Thanks for the link JJG, though I notice it's all very, very bullish articles

I didn't know Antpool had switched to BU, wow. I can't see why they would do that. A lump sum cash bribe comes to mind, since the mining margins mustn't be that good, even for such huge operations.

On the chart what doesn't look good is the "failure" to make it back up to 1300 before the 3 big candles back down, that would have made a flat correction. What it looks like now could actually be a 1-2-3 of a 5 wave down impulse wave, the current green candle starting wave 4 before the final wave 5 down. This 5 wave pattern could, as always in EW, be the start of a genuine overall EW higher degree impulse wave down, so a kind of major trend reversal, or it could be a wave 1 of A-B-C zig-zag corrective pattern where the A-B-C is 5-3-5 impulsive-corrective-impulsive again, before in the higher degree continuing the long term upwards trend. This scenario would be that the price would go lower than 950 after the current brief recovery, but then recover slightly again in the 3 wave correction before going even lower in the final 5 wave ©. Assuming the wave lengths are normal, that would imply a downside of around $700. I did say before the next move up would be around $1400, before the next correction, I was $50 off but not bad.

The above paragraph assumes a complex zig zag ABC correction. The alternative is that the ABC correction has *Already* been completed as a "flat", allowing for the slight failure of the B wave to hit the previous $1300 high, so that would mean we would be starting another impulse wave back up past the previous high. The argument against this is that the 3 candle down wave is 5 waves so should be impulsive, if it were corrective it would be 3 waves. But something I've been finding quite a lot is that while BTC does "obey" EW (never to the precise dollar but the wave patterns can at the very least keep you out of trouble), the waves that "should" be 3 wave are often 5 wave, which is odd. Perhaps EW purists have counts that I am not aware of so that it fits their model, but to me it seems an indication of an asset that is up and coming rather than fully established. And once this BU and blocksize etc. shit fucks off, there's probably a lot of upside.

(03-19-2017 01:16 PM)Armogan Wrote:  BTC had 24-hour transaction volume of ~458m, while ETH had 24-hour transaction volume of ~220m. Not exactly a bunch of 14 year-olds playing in the arcade, is it?

Who knows what this figure will be when Raiden comes on, I'll bet up. 1,000,000 tx/sec vs. 7 tx/sec. That's a lot of drugs in one second!

Fair enough. if there are actually becoming more places in which ETH is accepted and being transacted, then that will be an interesting new development.

I have no problem with any of that, including if ETH were to win out over bitcoin. I adjust my behavior to whatever system seems to be working, but I think ETH is a hell of a long way from having a variety of network effects that are currently enjoyed by bitcoin - including liquidation, security, development, trading..

but let's see how some of it plays out.