profitability of mining bitcoins macros

If your bitcoin has increased 10x in value, and you want to take some profit, don't let anybody talk bearwhale out of it. There seems to be lots of possible reasons why Jihan does what he bitcoin, but Roger is He is an idealistic voluntaryist who wants bitcoin to be a world currency bearwhale can use - even if he's wrong, I don't see the nefarious profit motive bearwhale do. Just trying to get a sense of your view on money in general, how you treat bearwhale deal with it. Nobody would just do market order 30k coins. Thank you so much for writing bitcoin and demonstrating the bullshit propaganda we have to endure in this bitcoin. As of now,

bitcoin litecoin namecoin feathercoin newswire В»

bitcoinwisdom cex ihsaa

I paid taxes on the gains. While refusing to identify himself in many ways, the person in question posted a Bitcoin address and signed message as cryptographic proof that he was in control of at least 36, bitcoins in and Ever committed to exploring the new global economy, Quartz has demystified the jargon of the bitcoin trading floor for you. The decision was a rational one based on available information. If you have ideas for the remaining BTC, see here for more info. Help by expanding it. The notorious person referred to only as 'the BearWhale ,' came forward to tell his unexpected story and make a plea to the community.

luis ivan cuende bitcoin calculator В»

dogecoin solo mining linux distro

Only requests for donations to large, recognized charities are bitcoin, and only if there is bitcoin reason to believe that the person accepting bearwhale on behalf of the charity is trustworthy. Whale — From casino parlance: After six bearwhale hours of his constant selling, the price jumped back up. What has he gained by bearwhale his concern about the bitcoin Or it could have been a nice house in Hawaii with a bomb shelter out back.

ati stream sdk 2 1 bitcoin to dollars В»

The legacy of Bitcoin’s BearWhale » Brave New Coin

We previously collected donations to fund Bitcoin advertising efforts, but we no longer accept donations. The funds already donated will be spent on some sort of advertising, as intended. As of now, If you have ideas for the remaining BTC, see here for more info. This is the overlay you are describing http: Someone thought the party was over and decided to cash out. When you dump such a bulk of coins on the market you dominate the price a short time and many traders ate up all the cheap coins.

But he created a limit order instead to stall the price from going up for a good while. Nobody would just do market order 30k coins. They want to maximize their profits. While using a limit order will result in less money lost, it is still definitely not the way to sell 30k btc: If you create one giant order like this and the price on other exchanges would go up and you'd lose the price difference to people doing arbitrage.

My two unread messages this morning are your comment and this comment. No, the bearwhale did not dump any coins on the market. If they did, it would have crashed the price to low single digits. The bearwhale put up a giant sell wall. I was there he tossed up a wall. That wall was bought , the end. YouTube video exists of its destruction. Half wave, half Sell Wall as well. Once the 1 BTC holder, a Bearwhale is a mythical creature who leads a subreddit alternative to this one.

It emerges from the depths to wreak havoc. The denizens of this world must slay it to live peacefully Basically someone who can make a large enough sell order to drive price down. Use of this site constitutes acceptance of our User Agreement and Privacy Policy. Bitcoin comments other discussions 1. Log in or sign up in seconds. Submit link NOT about price. Submit text NOT about price. Bitcoin subscribe unsubscribe , readers 24, users here now Bitcoin is the currency of the Internet: You can also explore the Bitcoin Wiki: Only requests for donations to large, recognized charities are allowed, and only if there is good reason to believe that the person accepting bitcoins on behalf of the charity is trustworthy.

News articles that do not contain the word "Bitcoin" are usually off-topic. This subreddit is not about general financial news. Submissions that are mostly about some other cryptocurrency belong elsewhere. Promotion of client software which attempts to alter the Bitcoin protocol without overwhelming consensus is not permitted. What has he gained by publicizing his concern about the blocksize? He is an idealistic voluntaryist who wants bitcoin to be a world currency everyone can use - even if he's wrong, I don't see the nefarious profit motive you do.

I can't prove that his intentions are bad though. But the consequences of his actions have held back bitcoin. I watched your sell wall live. You sold in October of the scaling debate and Roger Ver were nonissues then. The biggest issue was that the Silkroad coins were being systematically liquidated and flooding the market. Also, many people thought you were very smart to sell in Oct. Remember that after the Bitstamp hack in Jan. The scaling debate you are talking about did not begin in earnest until the fall of Roger Ver himself did not start to become demonized until late and that was mostly because of BU, which was not an issue in Oct.

The reason for the price drop was the thefts that kept happening. Don't give away all the secrets of the troll, I bet some bought it hook line and sinker. Signed version of this message: I just tried to verify this signature in bitcoin core and it failed. Anyone know what I'm doing wrong? I put the address from the sig field at the bottom in one input in the "Verify Message" panel, and the entire pastebin message in the other.

Here's how I did it in case anyone else wants to: There are actually 3 fields in the panel in bitcoin core. The first is the address from just above the bottom of the pastebin. The last field is just the signature 2nd to last line of the pastebin. Is anyone able to gather any evidence that this address is connected to bearwhale? We know at least someone who had a lot of btc posted the message, but is it really bearwhale?

Here's what I used: This is another way: Goddamn here I thought that we had more and more people joining Bitcoin which resulted in the price going up, seems it was just mr Bearwhale who bought himself in again.

Roger is interested in greed and power and not in bitcoin. He is a former politican and convicted felon, we should not expect much anyway. The one that made alot of memes possible? You did not 'get kicked out' for saying the truth - you were removed for deleting other user's posts:. Here's the Reddit post explaining why what you're saying is nonsense. You also tried to ban a moderator on our forum after I had failed to remove the correct mod permissions because you just couldn't resist being petty and immature, and you also edited my post to try suit your narrative:.

The forum post detailing your childish behaviour can be found here. I had my life savings in there too. But you also helped me cost avg down and made me stronger overall, so thank you. I remember falling asleep letting it record, waking up partially and noticing the bitcoin price was Well, I don't due to unforeseen circumstances.

But I would have in some other circumstances and situation. Or it could have been a nice house in Hawaii with a bomb shelter out back. But it doesn't really matter now, as I get seasick anyway; imagine charting the course with your eyes closed?

So what I did is had the us govt make a huge picture artwork of a yacht and drive it by me a mobile yacht when I was on new york ave in wash DC. I have not written any source code for bitcoin-core, either accepted or rejected.

I have not ever posted in the bitcoin-dev mailing list although I do read it now. Wanting to believe you dude. I followed a similar journey of disillusionment with core and then a return to their side of the argument. Although I do feel like a compromise earlier would have been the best outcome just to get things moving even if it wasn't the best solution technically. When I hear "a little compromise" in the context of the scaling debate it sounds no different to me than "a little centralization.

And there is nothing to gain from. Compromise is giving up on this wonderful tool, that Bitcoin is. Giving in to their narrative is to negotiate with your slave master. There are many ways we can scale without compromise, everyone on Core wants to find ways to scale transactions without compromising network integrity and decentralization. We have some immediate things we can do such as Schnorr signatures, and longer-term things like sidechains, drivechains, mimblewimble, sharding, etc.

They need more work and research, but it's not worth compromising the long-term future of bitcoin for, we need to find the safest and most responsible way to scale. I come from an Engineering background We've been so conditioned, especially by things like the Lean Startup Methodology, to always be doing something, trying something, throwing it against the wall and seeing if it sticks, pivoting when it doesn't, etc.

But that methodology may be inappropriate for global mission-critical infrastructure like Bitcoin. Sometimes no decision is better than any decision, the status quo better than a potential mistake. Core appreciates this, but few others do, and this is one subtext of the scaling debate. The progress happens if the people demand it.

The progress has already been engineered but we have specialized interest groups blocking it. I almost fell into the same trap and a lot of intelligent people did, too. If BIP wasn't so inept I think we would be in a much worse position. Next time sell a little slower. I am new to bitcoin. I was originally for BU for their emotional appeal on newbies.

I hope solution is agreed upon. Hats off to you for making this decision! And welcome aboard to making bitcoin greater again! Very very few people have been into this for as long, have been so invested, actually read the developers list, actually understand it, and are not Bitcoin devs themselves. This guy GETS what makes bitcoin valuable in the first place.

Bitcoin was launched with centralised mining Satoshi and was worth nothing and would have stayed nothing. Decentralisation is what makes people trust it. But all of his reasons for selling are BS: Decentralization is a means to an end. It also needs capacity to enable value. Same as how a car both needs wheels and an engine. We don't want to kill decentralization, but if we kill everything else in favor of decentralization exclusively then Bitcoin will die anyway due to becoming unusable.

Sounds like the perfect argument for why miners should signal SegWit voluntarily. And if they don't, then UASF. I seem to recall 30k btc as the sell wall you erected? That should have netted you 9 mil. From the bottom of my heart, thank you for sharing your story.

This makes me more confident than ever that UASF is the right path. If a devote bear like you has seen the light, then that means there is hope for the others. Yet here we are, not only with the sky not falling, but all time highs in price and in usage. Also curious to know amount of btc bought back in with. I'm glad you came back to explain your motivations, which were perplexing at the time.

Although you're optimistic about bitcoin now, what would you say poses the single biggest risk to bitcoin's survival and dominance as a cryptocurrency?

How would you feel about supporting a crowdfunding campaign to create an affordable ASIC chip for the masses, as a solution to compete against mining centralization, which threatens the future of bitcoin. Both sides of this debate are the same.

This constant cult of personality isn't healthy behavior. Ideas are worth attacking. Your people are fallible, their people are fallible. Hope you help us out on BIP Hodlers like you are the key to ensuring that miners are forced on board. Check out Bitcoin Core slack discussion if you have questions about how to help. If you closely examine most big block arguments, they break down into fundamentally either a circular argument, appeal to emotion, or short-term business expediency with no regard for risk eg, same mindset that brought us the GFC.

The exact effect that block size has on level of decentralization and other system characteristics is a fundamental uncertainty, meaning that no amount of logical reasoning or empirical research can prove one course or the other correct. Thus in the face of that intractable uncertainty, Core's conservative roadmap is optimal. Baby steps - do everything you can to improve scaling without a hardfork first, then sit back, observe, evaluate a year or three, and figure out the next step based on what you learned.

If, after all that, a consensus emerges that everything has been tried and a blocksize increase HF is still needed, then that is a more substantial position than trying to force a HF at present. This post itself is an appeal to emotion, as none of the dates line up: It look like whales and all crypto enthusiasm who bought Bitcoin because we wanted escape the current financial tyranny support the censorship resistant decentralized and the high technical competence of Core!

There is another whale "loaded" who already proposed a swap with Roger Ver one month ago! Yeah and all these things are to be blamed on roger ver, when he was responsible for none of them. And then, with a massive crisis right up ahead, you took everything and went back in full bore. I am going to die laughing soon. I wonder how many ewoks think this is serious statements here from someone. There seems to be lots of possible reasons why Jihan does what he does, but Roger is I don't know how to describe it without making a personal attack.

I still kind of believe that he actually believes his own bullshit, but other people seem to think it's possible that he mostly divested his large Bitcoin holdings for alts.

If that were the case, then it would explain everything. But for some reason I still get the impression that he's driven by irrational emotion rather than calculated greed. Like they can't even entertain the theory that people who are not them actually want to scale Bitcoin. They just don't and won't believe it. I'm not sure what I will do in the case of a split, but I would naturally lean towards whatever is the better technical solution. A hard fork to larger block size is irresponsible and would lead to mining centralization.

What I do if there's a split depends entirely on how the split happens, availability of replay protection, and what exchanges will do. Also, depending on what support there is from hardware wallets. Fair points, I think a lot of them are being worked on. I've spoken to some devs with ideas on how to let people split their coins efficiently but it's still very much a work in progress. Maybe there will be some ELI5 coinsplitting article at some point to prepare people for the possible turbulence.

Already we see exchanges and brokers come into the slack to discuss the UASF software. Some compile their own anyway so aren't too worried about waiting for it to be merged into core if they can review the diff, while some understandably have other IT management approaches. I really hope that the latest discussions on the devlist are a good indication that the differences between mining pool operators and open-source software engineers can be resolved, and that the community can prevent a chainsplit, but we will see in August how things fall.

The BIP side will be prepared: Thank you for your excellent testimony! I am a Bitcoin minnow whose been hodling for just a couple of years. I also had enough knowledge of economics and the nature of money to realize that the other side's economic arguments were largely incorrect. However, when I noticed in March that some intelligent and respected community members were taking the BU hardfork threat seriously e.

People don't pay high fees unless the alternatives are worse. That could mean time penalties, needing to cash out, or that it is still cheaper than the alternative such as for large transfers.

High fees is not a signal of things working well. It's a sign of things not currently being catastrophic. Discussions about larger blocks was indeed censored, and we still do need scaling mechanisms that allows more transactions on the blockchain. Too high fees will price out the majority of regular users. An overloaded Bitcoin will suffocate itself.

The only not disastrous non-hardfork compromise would be softforking in extension blocks using some new more efficient datastructure, and slowly shifting over the entire community into exclusively using that. Ideally implementing checkpoints with Zero-knowledge proofs guaranteeing their security, for maximal compressibility with maintained security. UASF is too risky, it's a classic chicken race problem.

You don't ever really know if you should retreat or keep going, and failure is extremely harmful forking out a significant part of the community into a minority chain. You're pushing a lot of opinions Nataneal, but I didn't see even one of them justified with any sort of logic or data. I see a lot of people pushing UASF here and unlike Gregory Maxwell they're not defending their opinion on the matter with logic. You remind me of Jay-Z when he headlined a concert for Hillary. You are simply a celebrity and people don't care about your corrupt cause.

How much are they paying you? You're right that some if it I didn't piece together until later, but even in there was a now-noticable "big block campaign" and also a maligning of GMaxwell and other developers. What a disgrace the comments in this thread are. Thank you so much for writing this and demonstrating the bullshit propaganda we have to endure in this community. I feel as though an email was sent out by Ver the moment you wrote this saying "go swamp that bearwhale post with bullshit about the price.

Can you sign another message to prove you're all in again? From an address with your current balance? I can't do that, because I don't want to divulge my keys. Gavin was ousted by a cabal of self-interested engineers, a. Blockstream didn't really exist until a couple weeks after you sold. Gavin was ousted in Pretty much all of the "misinformation" that you claimed convinced you to sell happened long after you sold.

Welcome back Mr Bearwhale. As I told Vinny recently Thank you for the coins. It takes a lot to believe in something. Why does your flair say "redditor for 2 weeks", but your profile page says redditor for 4 hours currently? This is obviously a throwaway account. I had considerable difficulty posting the message because of the link to pastebin I posted several times and with a 7-minute cooldown between posts.

Finally a moderator helped me, I guess that was how they fixed it. I hope you don't "throwaway" this account! You are already a valuable contributor to our community. Nice so see someone else who noticed the appeal to emotion, among other things.

Thank you for this post. This post is also an appeal to emotion. It's lacking any facts other than the one about being the bear whale: He's excellent at using it at opportune moments, like when he's backed into a technical corner. The amazing part is he's very good at it. Always weasels out of great questions and doesn't get held to account. Roger Ver shows the signs of being a con man.

What exactly is he good at? He doesn't make anything, design anything, has no trade skills as far as I can detect. He's just good at running his mouth and gaining people's confidence. The crazy part is I watched a debate with Ver and Tone Vays and the moderator was just awful which essentially meant a completely wasted opportunity to get real answers or expose Roger for not knowing his stuff.

Ver was able to weasel out of sticky situations it and the moderator wasn't competent enough to facilitate and keep things on point. The net was that both sides watching likely had their bias confirmed, nothing was really learned or changed. My experience in software has led me to believe that "ambiguous" situations like this happen for 2 related reasons:. Bad developers exploit this, most often without even knowing it, and good developers rarely get recognition for being better as their clients generally aren't technically capable enough to tell the difference.

If they could I'm sure it would be very enlightening and the result would be much more like meritocracy. Somehow facilitating some sort of contest or challenge, with agreed upon rules, and goals where both paths are explored and analyzed, if possible, would be tremendously enlightening. It's probably a pipe dream, but what I like about the idea is it's more data-centric than political and for example it could produce authoritative information that could be used to make much more intelligent decisions, especially for the masses that can't make sense of the propaganda.

It also ensures that each team has to prove that their tech works rather than simply claiming it does. I'd much rather have folks voting on specs and capabilities than simply based on who's the most persuasive and then hoping for the best.

This in some ways seems like a hard fork - fork and see who wins, but we have to remember that without adequate information before the fork, the results may be just as irrational.

Basically better decisions are informed by better and more data.