Alright already.. you've convinced me.. that one of the main Satoshi players is dead that is  . I think you've got the wrong dead guy though buddy  I agree that if Nash could have trusted another person, then it would have been Hal Finney as his collaborator. Finney didn't have sufficient game theory expertise to do it by himself, unless had been following Nash's work. I haven't done much research in Finney. Perhaps I should. You should watch a few minutes into this, it talks about linguistic similarities between Szabo and Nakamoto, how bitgold was the closest thing that existed previously and was suspiciously absent from the reference page on the bitcoin whitepaper. They also talks about how Szabo went dark on social media at the same time Satoshi disappears, very curious content, would love to hear your 2 cents. I am very privy to the idea that bitcoin was made by a group rather than a single person, and I think you might be right about Nash. But what I am thinking is that the person that was actually on the forum, talking to people and answering questions, I think that was most likely Szabo, and that he was working with someone like Nash helping him behind the scenes. Nash was more of a mathematician than anything else, so having a prolific coder like Szabo or Finney working closely with him makes a lot of sense, and having someone else do the forum posting would have made it easier for him to stay out of the limelight. |
|
|
|
|
Whether or not a pump group chooses to invest in a coin says nothing about the developers themselves, this is just the free market at work. David Zimbeck was scammed and cheated and his response was to work tirelessly for the past 2 years basically for free, he was always on slack and his ANN thread answering questions, and being generally one of the most transparent coders I have seen; I have yet to see that level of integrity from any other developer in crypto.
Calling David Zimbeck a scammer is not only factually incorrect, it is downright slander.
|
|
|
|
Without these people BTC and all altcoins would be worthless. They are what brings volume and your idea is pretty damn stupid.
Very akin to removing all altcoins. Would be the death of BTC completely. There are very few major businesses that use BTC, Dell being the biggest I know, and no real reason to buy them for financial usage.
Without that volume it is nothing.
No, without this, bitcoin would have its currency value, given by Fisher's formula. We both agree that this would be ridiculously small as compared to the actual market cap. If a *currency* is used (you know, to buy and sell goods), there is a demand for it, and an average hold time, between the moment where you obtain the money when you sell stuff of value, and the moment where you spend it to obtain stuff of value. This demand gives rise to the normal price of a currency. That should normally be bitcoin's price. All the rest is greater-fool. And, as we can see, this aspect of it is HUGE. All true, and accurate. BUT, as I have said the real world does not work like that and it never will. I have seen this same discussion play out a dozen times and nothing is going to change. Maybe we should stop wasting our time debating idealistic fantasies |
|
|
|
Believe it or not Spoetnik I have been lurking this site since late 2013, and you have been saying the same crap just about the entire time, posting almost every day it looks like, and honestly I think you are going fucking insane. Seek help. For the record I actually agree with most of your posts! It is bullshit that all of these ICO's and cult of personality groups have taken over crypto, and that people chase greater fool prospects rather than looking at actual tech. But your attitude towards all this is a clear sign of an unhealthy obsession, and all you are doing is hurting yourself mentally. The only thing you could really accomplish is warning newbies to how greedy and scammy this place has become. But guess what? They won't listen if you antagonize them as "kidiot investards" My point is you are missing more screws than the ikea desk I ordered over the summer. Get off this forum and go the fuck outside or you are going to end up like this https://imgur.com/gallery/91sn32QOf course you will undoubtedly write me off as just another idiot and continue yelling at clouds. You know what? forget I ever said anything at all, as you were |
|
|
|
if you got your wish you'd have no one left to read your rants
I swear to god you are all trolling me.. playing dumb or something. Of course I'm trolling you, what the fuck do you honestly expect? You can't fight human nature, if there is an opportunity for greed people will take and that is not going change any time soon, so better to just accept it and move on. Do you expect people to leave just because you say so? All you are doing is whining, your constant diatribes really accomplish nothing, and you can do nothing. Just move on before you give yourself an ulcer obsessing over this. |
|
|
|
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Waves Transactions Report
Date Waves TXs Asset TXs Total TXs Total fees New assets # Miners Senders Recipients
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2017-02-01 84 18 102 0.10600000 0 46 43 63
2017-02-02 123 18 141 1.63600000 0 43 66 76
2017-02-03 414 21 435 2.43500000 1 42 68 87
2017-02-04 604 25 629 3.62000000 2 44 68 76
2017-02-05 647 28 675 0.67700000 0 43 63 87
2017-02-06 675 104 779 1.78800000 1 43 127 135
2017-02-07 1558 146 1704 5.70750000 4 43 487 608
2017-02-08 2158 104 2262 2.28600000 0 48 563 615
2017-02-09 2810 4243 7053 18.04700000 11 45 598 4626
2017-02-10 2790 799 3589 19.58250000 16 47 690 775
2017-02-11 2598 389 2987 11.98400000 9 46 657 680
2017-02-12 2783 232 3015 9.01850000 6 45 629 653
2017-02-13 2589 178 2767 12.75700000 9 47 638 650
2017-02-14 2449 2979 5428 13.43150000 8 46 643 3245
2017-02-15 2940 5039 7979 11.96600000 3 46 687 4466
2017-02-16 3603 5079 8682 16.68100000 8 47 685 4923
2017-02-17 3622 217 3839 12.83250000 8 48 631 644
2017-02-18 3197 381 3578 33.56000000 27 47 649 829
2017-02-19 3278 219 3497 11.48800000 5 47 691 837
2017-02-20 4928 214 5142 7.14250000 2 46 630 1065
2017-02-21 5772 285 6057 11.06400000 5 46 824 1380
2017-02-22 4960 386 5346 8.34500000 3 46 738 1061
2017-02-23 4183 243 4426 6.42700000 2 46 739 957
2017-02-24 3331 346 3677 6.67650000 2 45 653 854
2017-02-25 3053 941 3994 9.00100000 5 48 615 1179
2017-02-26 3030 772 3802 6.80000000 3 47 688 807
2017-02-27 3469 679 4148 11.14000000 6 47 632 773
2017-02-28 3923 1064 4987 8.09250000 2 50 700 1044
2017-03-01 3534 953 4487 16.47600000 12 46 685 821
2017-03-02 4503 916 5419 9.41700000 2 46 895 997
2017-03-03 4163 987 5150 11.15450000 6 46 723 917
2017-03-04 3202 472 3674 5.66100000 2 56 693 818
2017-03-05 3401 155 3556 5.56300000 2 55 618 777
2017-03-06 3458 443 3901 4.90400000 1 56 710 842
2017-03-07 6025 437 6462 6.46300000 0 58 651 813
2017-03-08 3972 4869 8841 13.87300000 5 56 646 4987
2017-03-09 4579 788 5367 12.87400003 6 55 680 849
2017-03-10 5925 1183 7108 10.10700000 3 55 772 908
2017-03-11 6232 870 7102 14.09300000 7 54 774 895
2017-03-12 10119 1526 11645 16.67700000 5 52 2649 3118
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
134684 38748 173432 391.55450003 199
Where do you get these stats if you don't mind me asking? |
|
|
|
|
if you got your wish you'd have no one left to read your rants
|
|
|
|
In his defense though it does require proper thought.
And each idea can be a dead end with wasted time.
A currency concept would require investigation and more than likely the obvious hits you later.. it's a bad idea LOL
I have had a bunch of ideas but the more i thought of them the more holes i punched in the idea.
And the standard is VERY HIGH !
Never a truer word spoken IMO. I've spent almost 4 years now solving the same problems Shelby is attempting. I've thrown away more ideas and code than I care to think about. Some of those ideas are doing the rounds now as the "next big thing" and I threw them away years ago as they weren't good enough or would have issues further down the line. I think the problem is that because Bitcoin works, and block chains are "good enough" for most things, the perception is that it must be easy...as someones already done it to a sufficient degree. It's far from easy though and Satoshi most likely took a number of years of R&D, trialing things out, throwing ideas and code away before he got to Bitcoin. However, Shelby does spend TOO much time on this forum (and others) procrastinating and debating rather than doing! Even if he has something fundamental that he can turn into a spectacular product he runs the risk of missing the boat and being the Betamax....or worse someone invents Betamax before him and markets it like VHS. IMO the boat has already sailed...I'm VERY close and I have working code! Save for some final critical testing a release is now imminent....I know others are also making progress and edging in on what he's trying to achieve too. I look forward to seeing what you've been working on. That being said I hope you would be willing consider a name change, because non-phonetic names have less potential to go viral. If I heard someone talking about eMunie on that train I'd have no idea how it was spelled (could be eMoney, Muney, Monie, Monee, etc) and would be less likely to have it come up in a google search, Steem is a bad name for the same reason (the existence of the gaming platform Steam hasn't done them any favors either). Bitcoin is great branding; self descriptive, easy to spell/remember, and unique. |
|
|
|
|
user Iamnotback (formerly TPTB_Need_War and Anonymint) has talked about exactly what you just described, where people get rewarded simply for participating in the ecosystem. How exactly something like this would work is way above my pay grade, hopefully we will hear more details from him soon.
|
|
|
|
$2,500 to $5,000 seems like what I was considering.
Another statistic I like to look at is the 21 BTC holding value. 21 BTC means less than 1 million people club, being on that part must mean big wealth long term for the holders of such amount.
In order to be a millionaire with 21 BTC, we must reach around $47,000
The question is, what are the chances that we see such $47,000 in any of the following bubble cycles? is it possible in 10-20 years?
It seems feasible in 10 years, maybe even less. If it is going to happen, it has to happen within that timeframe. Twenty years from now, the world will have moved on. I don't think $5000 is the final top (but a significant pullback could occur some some where in that order-of-magnitude and above $5000, the upside potential is becoming more balanced to the downside risk). But $1 million per BTC ($21 trillion market cap) is totally implausible IMO (Bitcoin zealots please don't hate me, just expressing my opinion). In that $2500 - $5000 range, I would seriously look to diversifying into an alternative blockchain project with some portion of your holdings. Napster wasn't the final word in file sharing. Bitcoin won't likely be the homerun final word in blockchains. I understand the argument about the world rallying around the system with the most inertia, but the problem is Bitcoin hasn't yet identified the killer app of blockchains. So it is still prone to be upstaged by the WWW (World Wide Web) invention of blockchains whatever that ends up being. I think this is a fairly reasonable prediction, the only real unknown is timeframe. One thing I really wonder though is this, can this kind of price rise happen in the short term without any sort of scaling solution? Right now the bitcoin blockchain seems to be really feeling the weight of massive transaction loads, and solutions have been shut down at implementation level, both for things like a block size increase and segwit. Will people just deal with long confirmation times (I've already had transaction take several hours to confirm in just the last week) and keep sending bitcoin higher? Or will we need to see at the very least a short term scaling solution for that to happen? If the answer is yes we may see action move back to alt market for a time and have bitcoin stagnate (albeit temporarily, it will only be a matter of time for scaling to be improved), but I am not entirely confident about this prediction. |
|
|
|
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13673214 I came across this post on Hacker News. ZCash Devs basically claiming that Poramin Ipsom basically just copy/pasted code from the original bitcoin code, and that lazy code work allowed for a double spend. If true, it's kind of surprising that this kind of bug wasn't caught sooner; along with Poramin being the only dev for ZCoin, and the drama with co-founder Gary Lee, I'd say it might be time to jump ship. I bought in around 30-70k sats range, and I am very thankful that the price hasn't tanked yet and I was able to liquidate 80% of what I purchased, and get out with a solid profit. Provided that no new information comes in from Poramin giving a reasonable explanation/defense for this, I'd have to recommend others do the same.
|
|
|
|
|
Almost nobody deletes your account (Reddit is the only site I can think of that will, but that doesn't need to be tied to a real identity); not Polo, Bitfinex, Facebook, Blizzard will not even delete your World of Warcraft account, they just get deactivated. This is not unusual, nor is it news.
|
|
|
|
Little note, by placing your name in the above contract, If you think you can stay anon, and welch on the wager, I can use the contract to subpoena BTCtalk to get your real name and address. So if you are thinking you can welch when you lose, I will out you name home address everything.  FYI: @INRI666 , is that serious enough for you? It will be taken seriously if you asked for an escrow and called the bet. It will be very exciting following the developments and all the drama this will bring us. Don't get me wrong, I'm not here trying to demean you. I find this forum very lively with everything that's going on in here. What makes you think I trust the escrow agent, I trust a contract that I can sue someone with , notice no one has accepted even a 1 LTC wager, so their faith in segwit activation for LTC is not as great as they made out. If it meant you would stop clogging the forum with your inane garbage, I'd give you 10 ltc right now Ignore him I only wish ignoring made it so I didn't have to see his name at all, plus I still have to see his mentally challenged drivel in all the replies. Am I doing it right? |
|
|
|
Little note, by placing your name in the above contract, If you think you can stay anon, and welch on the wager, I can use the contract to subpoena BTCtalk to get your real name and address. So if you are thinking you can welch when you lose, I will out you name home address everything. FYI: @INRI666 , is that serious enough for you? It will be taken seriously if you asked for an escrow and called the bet. It will be very exciting following the developments and all the drama this will bring us. Don't get me wrong, I'm not here trying to demean you. I find this forum very lively with everything that's going on in here. What makes you think I trust the escrow agent, I trust a contract that I can sue someone with , notice no one has accepted even a 1 LTC wager, so their faith in segwit activation for LTC is not as great as they made out. If it meant you would stop clogging the forum with your inane garbage, I'd give you 10 ltc right now |
|
|
|
|
We should work with them if possible, and fight them only if necessary
|
|
|
|
|
#1 John Titor, would be up for a full 500 ltc bet though, I'd love some free money
|
|
|
|
So I did some searching and I can find absolutely no mention of this from official sources (ie from Santander or JP Morgan). Coindesk sites zero sources in it's article (except for citing itself, because that is credible right?), and the only other articles I've found on this cite Coindesk. I did find earlier articles saying that JP Morgan would be developing on ethereum from some more reputable sources dating from October: http://www.businessinsider.com/jpmorgan-is-developing-a-new-blockchain-project-2016-10But guess who they cite? Yup, Coindesk. They also cite the WSJ, but that is behind a paywall so I can't confirm any of their info And there is nothing to back up this recent article, nor anything to confirm that Santander is now involved, nor even any evidence that JP Morgan is following through with their plans from October, which was poorly sourced as is. This one article is not enough for anyone to take this seriously, and looking through other coindesk articles I can see that they rarely ever cite their sources, this whole thing reeks. Two sources I've found that talk about earlier bank lead blockchain projects http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-seaman/ubs-santander-announce-bl_b_11683838.html - "Mr. Whelan explained that even though the project uses Ethereum technology, it is not exposed to the public Ethereum blockchain. London-based blockchain lab Clearmatics, involved with the settlement coin concept, started with a flavor of Ethereum but this project is likely to end up being rather proprietary in nature." which means that they will likely not use the ethereum blockchain in the end. http://www.reuters.com/article/us-banks-blockchain-ubs-idUSKCN10Z147 The most reliable source I've found writing on this, doesn't even so much as mention ethereum. Until we see official word from either Santander or JP Morgan on this, this should be treated as false information, and even then it likely wouldn't mean they are involved for any reason beyond research purposes Nice try- “Moreover, Enterprise Ethereum will build upon the current Ethereum scaling roadmap and maintain compatibility and interoperability with public Ethereum.” http://www.coinspeaker.com/2017/02/14/microsoft-jp-morgan-santander-others-form-enterprise-ethereum-alliance/http://coinwelt.de/2017/02/jp-morgan-und-santander-mitglieder-bei-enterprise-ethereum/http://www.criptomoedasfacil.com/2017/02/jp-morgan-e-santander-anunciam-criar-nova-corporacao-baseada-no-blockchain-do-ethereum.htmlChoose the language you understand So you post 3 more articles from obscure publishers that don't cite their sources, and that somehow debunks my point? Nothing you just linked holds anymore water than the original Coindesk article. |
|
|
|
So I did some searching and I can find absolutely no mention of this from official sources (ie from Santander or JP Morgan). Coindesk sites zero sources in it's article (except for citing itself, because that is credible right?), and the only other articles I've found on this cite Coindesk. I did find earlier articles saying that JP Morgan would be developing on ethereum from some more reputable sources dating from October: http://www.businessinsider.com/jpmorgan-is-developing-a-new-blockchain-project-2016-10But guess who they cite? Yup, Coindesk. They also cite the WSJ, but that is behind a paywall so I can't confirm any of their info And there is nothing to back up this recent article, nor anything to confirm that Santander is now involved, nor even any evidence that JP Morgan is following through with their plans from October, which was poorly sourced as is. This one article is not enough for anyone to take this seriously, and looking through other coindesk articles I can see that they rarely ever cite their sources, this whole thing reeks. Two sources I've found that talk about earlier bank lead blockchain projects http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-seaman/ubs-santander-announce-bl_b_11683838.html - "Mr. Whelan explained that even though the project uses Ethereum technology, it is not exposed to the public Ethereum blockchain. London-based blockchain lab Clearmatics, involved with the settlement coin concept, started with a flavor of Ethereum but this project is likely to end up being rather proprietary in nature." which means that they will likely not use the ethereum blockchain in the end. http://www.reuters.com/article/us-banks-blockchain-ubs-idUSKCN10Z147 The most reliable source I've found writing on this, doesn't even so much as mention ethereum. Until we see official word from either Santander or JP Morgan on this, this should be treated as false information, and even then it likely wouldn't mean they are involved for any reason beyond research purposes |
|
|
|
|
While many of his posts are needlessly long-winded (understatement of the year), he's honestly right about damn near everything he posts about. I'd like the shit-posting to continue, Spoetnik is one of the good guys.
|
|
|
|
|
BitBay, Nexus, GroestlCoin, ZCoin, Aeon, and Waves; pretty much everything else there that is not on poloniex there is garbage. Of those 6 I'd say BitBay, ZCoin, and GroestlCoin have the most upside potential; Nexus and Aeon have already been pumped in the last 6 months so I'm staying away for now; Waves seems to be a good project but it seems a bit overvalued atm, worth keeping an eye on at least.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
