...
Dear AGD,
thank you for your time. I welcome your thoughts.
Maybe we are talking about the same thing but just use different words. "Bitcoin" is one (and the first) application of "Blockchain Technology". I agree with you, that the decentralized nature of the open ledger is important.
Your statement "the industry has no interest to let everybody else know, what is written in "their" blockchain." is correct. And it's an argument why we shouldn't wait to let the "the industry" (e.g.banks, insurances, google) run blockchain and take advantage of a technology that was on purpose build to replace those intermediaries. We all can only assume what Nakamoto's actual intentions were, but there are some clear pieces of evidence, that he(or she;) intended to, not only criticizes, but make those third parties redundant.
I couldn't agree more with your second statement "they can't control Bitcoin"
The financial sector would kill to grab Blockchain and reshape it for their profit.
I'm trying to give you an idea, why I'm writing this paper. I would like to do my share and spread the word about the Blockchain/Bitcoin/Etherum. I really believe that the more people do understand the less fear of change they'll have. The less power banks would have. The more Nakamoto's idea of an economy/currency without central authorities would be realized.
It's not an option for me to accept the status quo of what a regular company would/wouldn't do. Once people do know what Blockchain can do, they will embrace it.
Well, and lastly, I do not know much about mining business. Those people (maybe you are one yourself?) that were running miners on a PC, were they really doing it for money cashout, which wasn't that much back then? I can only speculate on the intentions of miners nowadays and what/why they are doing it (pay off? likelihood to be the creator and earn US-$ 13,000 )
How do you feel about companies adapting Blockchain for their business? You're obviously aware of the reservation of "old" companies for new change possibilities. I'm curious what your future outlook is...
Rosa. Every company uses FIAT banks to administrate their financial stuff. Their taxes are paid in FIAT and almost all of the suppliers/farmers etc for the industry are in need to use FIAT to pay their bills/tax. Now when banks (and their partner governments) are the declared enemy of Bitcoin (written in the Genesis Block) I would not be surprised, when we see a similar prohibition wave, like te one we saw at the almost world wide prohibition of marihuana. If you google ECB and Bitcoin, you will find some interesting articles on how Europe might treat the "danger of Bitcoin": http://www.reuters.com/article/us-ecb-bitcoin-eu-idUSKCN12I1HCECB urges EU to curb virtual money on fear of losing control
The European Central Bank wants EU lawmakers to tighten proposed new rules on digital currencies such as bitcoin, fearing they might one day weaken its own control over money supply in the euro zone.
The European Commission's draft rules, aimed at fighting terrorism, require currency exchange platforms to increase checks on the identities of people exchanging virtual currencies for real ones and report suspicious transactions.
In a legal opinion published on Tuesday, the ECB said EU institutions should not promote the use of digital currencies and should make clear they lack the legal status of currency or money.
"The reliance of economic actors on virtual currency units, if substantially increased in the future, could in principle affect the central banks’ control over the supply of money ... although under current practice this risk is limited," the ECB said in the opinion for the European Parliament and Council.
"Thus (EU legislative bodies) should not seek in this particular context to promote a wider use of virtual currencies."
The ECB argues the Commission's proposal does not go far enough as it does not cover the use of virtual money to buy goods and services.
"Such transactions would not be covered by any of the control measures provided for in the proposal and could provide a means of financing illegal activities."
Interesting how they try to point the attention away from "Bitcoin" to "digital currencies such as bitcoin". They even avoid to write Bitcoin in capital letters hrhrhr Also interesting is, that all the regulations that can be applied, are limited to the point where Bitcoin is exchanged into FIAT (exception would be to shut down the internet to get rid of this evil internet money). If the complete supply chain of the industry would accept Bitcoin, there would be no need for FIAT (and banks) and the governments would have big problems to collect their tax. People could simply hide their wealth from their governments and nobody could force people to pay their tax (besides torturing to extract the private keys, of course). Another interesting fact is, that the descibed dangers of Bitcoin for the government (crime and terror financing, money laundering and tax evasion) can exactly be applied to FIAT, which would be no reason to prohibit FIAT ... of course. So, most banks atm are avoiding customers, who are making their business with Bitcoin and meanwhile bankers are making jibberish about "How the Blockchain concept will revolutionize the financial sector", without any clue about, what "The Blockchain Concept" really is. |
|
|
|
Hello everyone,
thank you for your time. I made notes to everything you said and try to make conclusions for my thesis.
To sum up what my intention is: I want to make a comparison (e.g. supercomputer, bitcoin mining network) to demonstrate the potential of Bitcoin/Blockchain.
I'm happy if anyone gives me information that I can use (and understand;) to make a persuasive analogy.
_______________________
Dear xhomerx10,
I appreciate your input:
1. True. I mixed up the network and the network of miners. Thank you for your feedback.
2. You're correct, Sunway is 93 Pflop/s.
3. Idk. Seems like this was pointless. Probably bc I'm not good in converting.
4. I would love to use this "494,418 x times the power" but as Carlton Banks stated, I can not make this comparison.
4b. Good point, I'll keep in mind the SHA256 hash.
Well, I'm happy if I'll manage to understand the very basic technical background:)
...
Dear AGD,
The title of the thesis is focusing on Blockchain technology instead of bitcoin because I want to show the impact for economy with all the industries and not just finance. Finance is, by now, the most discussed industry which will be impacted by Bitcoin (or already is). I admire Nakamoto for having this outstanding, positive change idea of a public ledger. The idea behind bitcoin is what I'm concentrating on.
Dear Rosa. "Blockchain Technology" is just one fragment of the "Bitcoin Technology", where "Blockchain" is mostly refering to the decentralized open ledger system of Bitcoin. The industry has no interest to let everybody else know, what is written in "their" Blockchain. I.E. a bank would have no interest to establish an open decentralized ledger for obvious reasons. A regular company wouldn't release customer data in an open blockchain for the same obious reasons. Now in the end, when most people (esp. bankers) refer to "Blockchain technology" instead of saying "Bitcoin", they do it because they can't control Bitcoin and they would like to do the same as Bitcoin, but NOT decentralized and NOT open source, which makes no sense. Bitcoin works because it is open source, decentralized, (pseudo-)anonymous and doesn't need a third party, like a bank for a transaction. edit: I forgot the most important factor for the early rise of Bitcoin: Bitcoin in the early days made people earn money just by running a miner on a PC. |
|
|
|
|
OP, why are you calling your thesis " 'The disruptive potential of Blockchain on economy'" instead of " 'The disruptive potential of Bitcoin on economy'?
|
|
|
|
Photographic PROOF that the wizard alien overlords are FULLY CONTROLLING Bitcoin How do you explain this, franky1? Sorry OP, but this pic was definitely photoshopped. A real alien from Aztonica would never use a class 5b gun within the atmosphere of this planet. Every child knows, that he would have to use this one or similar:  |
|
|
|
From the Wired story “Is Amir Taaki still alive?” asked a thread on Reddit’s bitcoin forum a year ago. My OP was posted June 16th 2015. That's why this Bitcoinforum is way better than Reddit. We are always ahead... |
|
|
|
|
Good to have you back, Amir. Keep up your vision!
|
|
|
|
one of my posts was deleted for being off topic. yet numb nuts repeats the same post 7 times and nothing and no one says nothing.
I'm in a zoo, with monkeys. I have no bananas left.
/thread |
|
|
|
What useful role can banks play in Bitcoin at all? OP believes that Bitcoin will force the banking system to invent the "Ideal Money", so it is not important for him if, and how much of a role they will play in Bitcoin. I think banks and governments will try to keep their current system working as is and they will try to destroy Bitcoin as soon as a critical level of some parameters are reached. And they will have a lot of different powers to achieve that. |
|
|
|
Lol, a rando logs in claiming they read through the thread, but also simultaneously calling me out for CITING my argument in accepted economic literature?
Why are you so afraid of science and founded reasoned arguments?
My friend, please listen. I will not comment anymore as this debate is useless imo and I hate putting time and energy in useless things.First, thank you for proofing 50% of my theory about you as a person in just 1 reply. You dont know who I am, howlong Ive been here and what my background is. Just honestly and by all means check ip logs whatever I am not smurfing, i just never posted here. Get an admin to confirm this with logs i am ok with this. I never said your opinion was right or wrong, so saying if i am scared about you copy pasting other people... not by a bit but I just said imo this isnt the time yet for bitcoin to be dealing with this, or maybe put best its totally not as critical as you make it sound like it is. Bitcoin will develop the way it always has. It has brought us to where we are today. If the macro-economics implications of bitcoin seem to be critical at some point in the future, it will certainly be adressed. Please dont challenge me to reply anymore. Stop wasting peoples time. How come you waited years to make your first posting in a "useless debate"? |
|
|
|
When Satoshi left the scene, some people thought it would be a good idea to have a governing body or a central organization that could speak with governments about Bitcoin. They were also supposed to arrange big events where Bitcoin is discussed and promoted, but most of that money went into huge salaries for the people "working" for the BF. { even the secretary got a huge salary}  dont forget the mightyduck child actor turned fund syphoner brock. once he joined.. it was game over for the BF ... meanwhile at a pool party at M&C Estate with his buddies Marc Collins-Rector, Brian Synger and Chad Shackley and some underaged boys ... |
|
|
|
The Bitcoin Foundation is/was a private club that gave themselves a fancy sounding name so that others might be fooled into thinking there was something "official" about them. To become a "member" of their club, you would donate bitcoins to them. Then they would spend those bitcoins on whatever the club leadership wanted to. Sometimes it might be lobbying government representatives, or educating the public, or paying developers to add features to the bitcoin code. Other times it might be a party or gathering for socializing and networking.
If you like, you can create your own club with your friends and others. You can also give your club a fancy name (maybe something like "The Bitcoin Association" or "The Bitcoin Management Committee".
Oh and you can also put "Satoshi Nakamoto" as a founding member if you want. Not too many people are aware of this though. I read some newer articles in the mainstream media, where the Bitcoin Foundation is still presented as kind of a "Bitcoin Headquarter" and it always makes me laugh. |
|
|
|
You fit the profile of a narcissist to a a fucking t.
Go the fuck away.
This how people react when you point out their arguments are just an opinion that isn't at all founded in science. Because before you point it out they are unaware of what science is. It is not science to call people liars without a proof. This is just dumb. You have no socials skills, buddy and you ignore plain proofs of any antithesis that was presented here. You just keep repeating your insults and have nothing to add to your own discussion. You even act like a troll in your own discusion! Remember: Your OP is an open letter to the core devs (only the sincere ones of course, because the rest are also liars like Satoshi, right?) and I don't see many developers discussing this topic here with you. Why do you think is that? They are all idiots? Why you have chosen Bitcoin which is supported by a bunch of liars and idiots instead of finding smart people like you to create a smarter coin? You know why? Because you think Bitcoin is the most important e-coin and you want to be a big player in the Bitcoin community! Why do you think Bitcoin turned into this important coin? Who made it to be the important coin that caught your attraction? Was it Nash? Look. Nash's theory about Ideal Money is NOT APPLICABLE to Bitcoin and my argument is, that Ideal Money is also NOT APPLICABLE to our current society, because the events that would have to occur to make Ideal Money possible are at least centuries far away, if not even permanently unrealistic. "The perfect circle" (Thx @BurtW for that analogue) does NOT exist in reality. |
|
|
|
Satoshi never intended to remove the limit.
Satoshi never intended to get close to the limit. It can be phased in, like:
if (blocknumber > 115000)
maxblocksize = largerlimit
It can start being in versions way ahead, so by the time it reaches that block number and goes into effect, the older versions that don't have it are already obsolete.
When we're near the cutoff block number, I can put an alert to old versions to make sure they know they have to upgrade. In b4 OP says: It can we can I can. Satoshis intention was to never change the blocksize limit. |
|
|
|
First you have to learn about the rules of the forum you are using. They are pretty simple.
Then you have to understand, that Nash's Ideal Money is not related to Bitcoin as much as you are trying to imply. It might have been one of the inspirations for Satoshi Nakamoto when he (or she or them ... whatever) created Bitcoin as an alternative currency. That was the real revolutionary step and not your blocksize theory. Nash didn't invent Bitcoin, but Satoshi Nakamoto did. He created the real thing, which is open source, decentralized and backed by math and cryptography and it works like a store of value and at the same time as a medium for exchange. Bigger Blocks will NOT change that. Bitcoin will NOT lose its gold properties (store of wealth) because of bigger blocks. It will only allow more transactions per block and will lead to a lower fee, because there will be enough space for low fee transactions. Satoshi knew, that it might be necessary to change the blocksize later, if there was a consensus about it. If there wasn't it wouldn't happen.
OP, you already failed to convince Bitcoin core devs about your idea of how Bitcoin SHOULD be, because you present nothing but some constructed connections between Nash's Ideal Money and Bitcoins blocksize. Another point where OP is mistaken, is that he thinks Bitcoin=Bitcoin Core Devs. Why else should you desperately try to convince Bitcoin Core Devs and the Bitcoin community, instead of finding developers, who will support your idea and create a competitor to Bitcoin (= Altcoin) based on that?
If you are intelligent, maybe you should change your conversation tactics from "calling people names" to "beeing nice and constructive" when you want to make a change and present your "revolutionary" ideas.
My presentation will be forgiven. Especially in light of the trolling and ignorance. Satoshi never intended to remove the limit. And there is no way the people would bootstrap a system that was intended for the meta players and big banks etc. It woudl be necessary to let it grow to a certain point, perhaps all the way. There is nothing to be done, no dev to higher, no coin to build. Bitcoin the way it is is set to unfold the way nash describes, and there is no scientific proposal that the markets will accept otherwise. Satoshi never intended to remove the limit. You didn't present a proof of your knowledge of Satoshi Nakamoto intentions. This is just speculation. If there is nothing to be done, like you stated, why this efford to convince the core devs about blocksize? Things will happen in Nash's sense anyway. If you read papers like https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R43339.pdf "Bitcoin: Questions, Answers, and Analysis of Legal Issues" you should understand, that Bitcoin is NOT "a system that was intended for the meta players and big banks etc." Governments worldwide see Bitcoin as a potential thread to the fiat system and when you understand Bitcoin, you will find out how clueless "they" are about what to do against the Bitcoin thread when it grows to a critical limit. They are also mentioning that international cooperation will be necessary to avoid this scenario. Next step would rather be an attempt to criminalize Bitcoin use to stabilize the monetary system, instead of creating a competitor (government issued Altcoin), that would need some basic characteristics, that Bitcoin has, but with banks as intermediary and without mining and a decentralized double spending resistant system backing it. |
|
|
|
 And what the last three of you don't seem to understand is fiat's value in this context IS already controllable, and it has already been admitted in the US congressional research report on bitcoin that if it become more relevant the FED would be forced to react to the increased velocity of the USD. It's basic economics its just ya'll don't understand how the current system works. And to the idiot that keeps asserting Nash Ideal Money would require a one world government, stop it, I have already refuted that ignorance:  First you have to learn about the rules of the forum you are using. They are pretty simple. Then you have to understand, that Nash's Ideal Money is not related to Bitcoin as much as you are trying to imply. It might have been one of the inspirations for Satoshi Nakamoto when he (or she or them ... whatever) created Bitcoin as an alternative currency. That was the real revolutionary step and not your blocksize theory. Nash didn't invent Bitcoin, but Satoshi Nakamoto did. He created the real thing, which is open source, decentralized and backed by math and cryptography and it works like a store of value and at the same time as a medium for exchange. Bigger Blocks will NOT change that. Bitcoin will NOT lose its gold properties (store of wealth) because of bigger blocks. It will only allow more transactions per block and will lead to a lower fee, because there will be enough space for low fee transactions. Satoshi knew, that it might be necessary to change the blocksize later, if there was a consensus about it. If there wasn't it wouldn't happen. OP, you already failed to convince Bitcoin core devs about your idea of how Bitcoin SHOULD be, because you present nothing but some constructed connections between Nash's Ideal Money and Bitcoins blocksize. Another point where OP is mistaken, is that he thinks Bitcoin=Bitcoin Core Devs. Why else should you desperately try to convince Bitcoin Core Devs and the Bitcoin community, instead of finding developers, who will support your idea and create a competitor to Bitcoin (= Altcoin) based on that? If you are intelligent, maybe you should change your conversation tactics from "calling people names" to "beeing nice and constructive" when you want to make a change and present your "revolutionary" ideas. |
|
|
|
...
Ya exactly. I don't think Nash was Satoshi. But you will find quotes of me saying he is. You might say about the same, when people quote your current blocksize discussion. Why you are not coming to the point of impact to the Bitcoin community? If it is all about the blocksize and you think Nash's papers will support you with that, I think you are completely misled. OK. Let's say - which will be the most possible event - that Bitcoin Core Devs will raise the blocksize some day in the future, because a majority wants a higher transaction rate and now (as you stated) Bitcoin will lose its gold properties and will not become Nash's Alternative Currency (the one which will force governments to create Nash's Ideal Money). What will happen? Bitcoin will die? So what??? It was not worth it then. Another ecoin will talke its place and keep the blocksize of 1 MB forever. I say, Bitcoin (with bigger blocks) will still be the number one decentralized currency backed by math and cryptography and most likely will stay on top of all altcoins forever. Side chains will make small transactions faster and cheaper and Bitcoin will act just like gold and money together. Something that even Nash couldn't foresee (or calculate). Also as I stated before I am pretty sure, that no government of the world in the near future will be able to create a currency that can compete against a decentralized currency, like Bitcoin, because it will not be decentralized when a government would create it. Government is about control and decentralization is not good to control. When the code is in the wild there is nothing you can do... |
|
|
|
Same OP thinks that Nash was Satoshi Nakamoto, which doesn't make sense.
Cite this idiot accusation. from https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=626868.msg6975262#msg6975262He proposed that international exchange rates be fixed by pegging the value of each currency to a standardized basket of commodities, called the industrial consumption price index.
No he didn't, you are reading someone interpretation of ideal money that is not correct, and in fact a red herring. Thomas edison did what you are saying and i showed the link that shows it. You didn't read anything i posted did you? I have read all the links many many times, all nash's works, and as many versions of ideal money as I can. There are about 14 of them, each with different wording talking about different past histories of many and different current economic climates around the world. lets stop judging with ignorance from a far, and take a moment to use our eyes and our brains http://sites.stat.psu.edu/~babu/nash/money.pdfREAD IT, don't pre judge.
Loled, I have no clue what the OP post is about..
The man from the movie a beautiful mind. Another "I found Satoshi" post.
let's not be ignorant just because we were raised that way, read the paper http://sites.stat.psu.edu/~babu/nash/money.pdf Its 'another satoshi' post. It is the VERY reason we couldn't find satoshi, and the very man who satoshi is, and who created and implemented this technological hyper-advancement of our civilization.You want to skip all the links and proof and then go straight to ridicule, good for you...man suffers from his (not her) own ignorance...live in it. from https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=626868.msg6967369#msg6967369My assumption is, if he didn't want us to eventually figure it out, then he wouldn't have left all the bread crumbs (obviously some people around here will try to brush this aside). For those of you who don't know anything about this man, or only saw the hollywood movie, I can tell you I have read his works many times (other than the whole szabo blog), and John Nash IS all these men then entire works of them all is the body of the thesis/outline lecture ideal money http://sites.stat.psu.edu/~babu/nash/money.pdf. When this hits the media and the academics bitcoins adoption and use is going to hit its tipping point, IT HAS TOO HE REWROTE OUR SOCIETY! It will be the biggest story known to man. SAtosHi Nakamoto, wei dai, nick szabo same person, same nash. Each name has a key so the probability of it being coincidence is next to nil especially between 3 names. from https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=775174.msg8782774#msg8782774read it again and pretend dai, szabo, and nakamoto are all nash...
And ill give you a little hint about nash's writing that is very provable, he constantly goes on tangents and uses parenthesis in speech like context rather than as grammar.
Just messin with peoples heads, as we messed with his... |
|
|
|
I think David Rabahy's comments illustrate a problem with OP's postulated scenario.
Individuals don't want to hold something that is fixed in value. They would rather hold something that appreciates in value. And markets are merely collections of individuals. As such, market forces will not conspire to make all monies asymptotically approach stable value, as long a there is an alternative available that appreciates in value. If indeed market forces will drive all monies to approach some prototype. The market forces in such a scenario would conspire to make all monies approach that other value-increasing alternative.
1) I am not wrong, and its Nash's postulate. 2) You have contradicted yourself by admitting the truth of this. 3) The reason bitcoin has value as a gold is because our money systems are instable DUCY this is relevant? Nash spoke of Ideal Money, and Nash spoke of some other nearly stable money that would through market forces gradually force other moneys to approach its qualities. The idea that Bitcoin be this other alternative is not Nash's. I think the idea here presented is that Nash never mentioned Bitcoin by name but he did describe it by all its attributes so closely that traincarswreck asserts that he was talking about Bitcoin. Like if it smells like Bitcoin, tastes like Bitcoin, feels like Bitcoin, sounds like Bitcoin, looks like Bitcoin, well it .... Your assertion that he might as well have been talking about any crypto that has all the same "gold like" properties (Litecoin, and many others) is well taken, however the economy has singled out Bitcoin as the one to notice relative to all the other alt coins. Same OP thinks that Nash was Satoshi Nakamoto, which doesn't make sense. Another thing that doesn't make sense is that OP is desperatly trying to convince core devs to keep the "gold like" blocksize, because it is important for humanity. |
|
|
|
You still think that Nash was Satoshi Nakamoto?
You are the dumbest person in this thread, possibly on this forum, and acting dumber isn't going to change that or distract people from being aware of this. Quoting Nash doesn't make you smarter than anybody here and your insults only show a lack of education and your social intelligence. Look, you came here once trying to convince the Bitcoin community, that Nash was Satoshi Nakamoto, didn't you? Now you come back and think you are making the Bitcoin community "aware" of the sensational discovery, that Bitcoin is not Nash's Ideal Money, because Bitcoin is changing in value - but you are consequently missing to present any impact to the Bitcoin community. Nash's Ideal Money will not exist in a world with more than one government and therefore it is not important for the Bitcoin community within the next few hundred years at least. @BurtW I know what the definition of "Ideal Money" is. This is why I am writing it with capital letters. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
