They don't like the insinuation that there is any flaw in Bitcoin, or at least any flaw that can't be rectified as need be. Any one who makes such a insinuation will cause the franky1 types who don't really know the technology to come out of the woodwork with illogical guns blazing. The experts will remain quiet when they know they can't win the argument, but will become very cold to that person and ignore them forever after, except when they see an opportunity to try to make a fool of that person on some technical discussion.

This is insecurity. They feel we are diminishing their chances for success, because they think we put incorrect ideas in the minds of other adopters. They are afraid of any negative wave of publicity that might develop.

In their defense I will say they deal with a lot of incorrect bullshit hurled at Bitcoin. Some of the experts are probably just tired of dealing with the same mistakes over and over again ad nausea. So I can kind of understand their feelings. I think this is just the nature of this sort of situation and we can't really blame the people involved.

I don't know coblee well in discussion. I have seen his photo and know he created LTC. Seems he might be a quiet type? That is probably the best policy. I could learn from him. Accomplish more, talk less. Especially don't get into debates with n00bs.

Edit: I think also the developers see they have given a lot of effort, perhaps even largely unpaid and the see altcoin developers mostly trying to get rich quick, so they view them as most likely not sincere, realistic, and also not likely to succeed (they think it is mostly just scams, because they know how much effort it takes to produce Bitcoin).

No the filipinos were never stupid enough to have the delusion to think collectivism was good for them individually. They rather always followed an Ayn Rand self interested (me first) policy. They always cheated the system, instead of letting the system to cheat them. They learned well from hundreds of years of Spanish occupation how to game the system that was oppressing them. Besides they've never entirely let go of their tribalism. I visit communities where every one is a relative. It is only recently with the yuppie ones who've been indoctrinated by the West who have started to believe in this "nation building" (and that corruption is bad) bullshit so now the size of the government is starting to grow as their tax collection efforts are improving. Constituent level corruption is good (i.e. bribing the customs and tax officials to look the other way). It is the only way you keep the government power impotent and render it entirely ineffective. Argentina (and Italians) apparently know this. The Italians are the closest (other than Iceland) to kicking out the banksters and EU. And Catalonia, Spain seems to also realize the truth.

Also I guess you aren't aware that once upon a time Americans were mostly farmers and very self-sufficient types and they were very isolationist and didn't pay any attention to the federal government. The States and local community had most of the power. Just go review the recent Bundy Ranch issue and you can see he is arguing for Clark County taking jurisdictional priority over the federal government as that is the way it was when his parents received the land grant and that is what our Constitution says. But unfortunately after FDR's New Deal (and the Dust Bowl) America became city dwellers who are not self-sufficient and fell into the lie of democracy and a government that takes care of them. Importing many blacks as slaves probably also worsened it, although I am not a racist, certain statistics don't lie.

Wasn't it you upthread who was claiming Americans don't study history. You are the The Pot that calls the Kettle Black.

Are you going to pay me $300 an hour for writing all this shit? I don't have time to be your teacher. You do realize you are forcing me against my will to expend so much effort on this. That is a very disrespectful. I am not doing that to you.

Nonsense. Don't listen this fool.

Of course because all those flaws are inside your head.


Your reading comprehension is so poor you didn't realize I was referring to large government expressed as share of GDP as I mentioned.

Both the Philippines now (or before Aquino administration, which instituted government subsidized national health insurance crap) and the USA before FDR's New Deal, had very low government as a share of GDP.

The citizens had to practice self-responsibility. What an amazing concept. Duh.

My idea on how to do the programmable block chain.

Hope it is not too late to get some feedback on my thoughts.

My take away from the upthread is consistent with my own analysis—centralization of pools is probably positively correlated with required computation (above some threshold).

The Ethereum applications seem important and reasonably decentralized.

https://github.com/ethereum/wiki/wiki/White-Paper#applications

So pray tell me why it isn't superior to have merge-mined chains for new contract types (as we think of them) and optimize those chains rather than a generalized VM on one block chain?

Advantages are:

• Centralization is granular per contract type.
• Mining participation is optional, thus chains can compete instead of the swallowing the universe entropy(state) = O(∞)
• Failure modes are more contained.
• Incremental development and optimization.
• Market-based instead of top-down metrics (e.g. Ethereum's gas fees) as chains compete to reward miners.

Etc.

Maybe we need to make the process of starting and publicizing a merge-mined chain easier? Do we need an app store of merged-mined chains?

P.S. Apologies in advance if one post can evaporate a $36 million market cap.

Edit: even if you did want a generalized VM for those contracts which don't have enough economy-of-scale to be their own merge-mined chain, you could make that chain merged-mined. You could make variants and let the market decide which one is the winner. Perhaps Ethereum should do this, if they are not satisfied with the Bitcoin mining structure.

Every person is entitled to watch their pocketbook rise or decline in relative value. I fully acknowledge you must decide based on your knowledge. I try to impart knowledge (as well learn from others) but I can't force it down anyone's throat.

I don't have frustration with the government. I will win or die. I am frustrated with readers who don't read and study.

As I said, you still haven't studied the Knowledge Age links I provided upthread, so that is why you are still far in left field and making statements about dinosaurs.

The large monoliths are going away. Poof be gone!

Anonymity is how we make it so, by enabling the knowledge workers to take over and not be extorted by the govt+corps.

The only question is do you get crushed while they try to fight their decline. Without anonymity you will be stomped.

It is time to decide which side of the fence you want to be on, with the dinasours (the old world model of State+Corporations+Democracy+Resource Scarcity) or the fledgling Knowledge Age (knowledge is capital, it can't be financed, it can't be sold, it is inherently individual and decentralized). Read the "Economic Devastation" thread. Read the essays I wrote which are linked at the top of that thread. Read the "Dark Enlightment" thread.

I don't have time to explain it all over again. I have written it all several times over on these forums. You have the option to read the links I provided and bring yourself up-to-speed, otherwise we are just talking past each other.


Compliment intended.

I see gmaxwell keeps making my points presciently (the bolded statements are equivalent):

A multi-millionaire paid only 4 cents to transact $80 million when transactions cost of $30 each in mining costs, and you all cheer this like blind fools  

One of the challenges of implementing the improvements referenced in the OP, and also a feature to provide serious competition to Bitcoin, is to offer instant transactions that can't be double-spent. When I say instant, I mean you send the transaction to the other party and what you have sent is already an absolute assurance, no need to verify against the block chain.

Perhaps most people think this can't be done with a decentralized consensus block chain. I think otherwise. Any ideas?

Note I think this idea could be incorporated into Bitcoin, and maybe not even require a hard fork. I would need to study Bitcoin's scripting capabilities in more detail to determine for sure. But Bitcoin (and Monero, Litecoin) will retain a disadvantage in scaling that afaics will not be easy for it (them) to fix.

Several weeks ago I stated (in the Monero BCX fiasco thread) I had solved the selfish mining attack and had written down the math. Recently I decided to share that insight.

You have a category error (i.e. the analogy doesn't apply). Refer to the linked posts in the OP for the detailed explanation. It appears to be a common mistake. Some guy compared BTC to marijuana growing and another guy to piratebay. Upthread franky1 erroneously compared BTC to cash. And now you to bittorrent. When you can identify a centralized (i.e. single instance albeit multiply-referenced) ledger (albeit decentralized consensus) in any of those, let me know.

Computer science requires understanding of very obscure, pendantic details.

jonald_fyookball,

Gmaxwell still talks to me presciently.


Our two young Europeans are now up against more than one man with a respected level of intellect.

Btw, I wasn't searching for that with Google. I was reading about the possibility of using SNARKs for block chain contracts and was surprised to read that from gmaxwell.



Correct you don't, but you didn't prove that nobody needs another alt-coin. I see 25 - 30% say they are at least to some degree interested to see these improvements. And I've confirmed from my supporters, they did not vote in the poll.

jbreher, don't even bother trying to debate with this younger generation of Europeans. They've been fully brained washed by the indoctrination over there. Watch Europe crash and burn. My popcorn is ready (but my anonymous coin not yet).

You are too stupid to understand the model Eric (and myself and anarchists have) explained is that democracy and socialism (and any form of State collectivism) are the same phenomenon.

P.S. Readers this is an example why you never argue with an idiot. They are too stupid to know when they are wrong, and is accompanied by a banal sense of high pride:

• "we Europeans are superior because we are pacifists"
• "we Europeans are more sophisticated and educated"
• "we Europeans have a social model that is more just"
• "Americans are unsophisticated, war hungry gorilla brutes, without a fully developed social, justice, and educational system"

I know damn well their attitude because I have encountered some such banal Europeans here in the Philippines. I have also met a few very intelligent Europeans via this forum, and they are very astute. One of them even informed me how to get instant residency in any country if I want to renounce my USA citizenship on the spot.


Let's not stir up more pointless conflict where we don't need to.

I am quite comfortable with the projects I have to work on and their potential outcomes. I don't need the approval of anyone. I just need to ascertain the market dynamics which is why I created a poll.

Who is the snobby cunt? The Dunning-Kruger idiot who asserts that I have a fundamental error in my thinking.


Most very intelligent people simply don't talk to the Dunning-Kruger idiots and don't try to interface with them, because it is so tiring and frustrating.

Do you see that core developer gmaxell almost never posts in this n00bs sub-forums. He is not going to waste his time talking to people who can't comprehend and require him to explain the same damn thing 100 different ways.

So if I am gone again, you know why.

I am back because I happen to read this from the guy who created libbitcoin, Electrum, etc:

http://bitcoinmagazine.com/17005/bitcoin-technology-worth-nothing-interview-dark-wallet-front-man-amir-taaki/

turvarya,

You still don't comprehend what Eric S Raymond wrote, because you are still trying to assert that certain rent-seekers (e.g. the military industrial complex) are excluded from the model of regulatory capture that Eric S Raymond laid out. He wrote that the costs of the capture accrue on society too slowly for the constituents to recognize and rise up against politically. He also failed to mention that the constituents have many competing political wants and thus are easily divided-and-conquered (gay marriage, social welfare debates, level of military spending, etc) by the politicians in cahoots with the rent-seekers. So the family of military soldiers wants more military spending, community with a military base economy wants more military spending, old person wants more pensions, the younger person more education subsidies, the pregnant person more free maternal subsidies, feminists want more subsidies for women, etc.. You all fighting over finite resources that have been collectivized (ahem stolen a.k.a. expropriated) via tax collection. The only way to make you all happy is promise you all more than exists and borrow via debt. So then you think the regulatory capture of the government by banks is not caused by democracy! Amazing myopia you have. And so what happens when the bubble pops and the promises are broken? WAR. GENOCIDE. MEGADEATH. It is coming.

Read Amir. You are just a slave to the system (a.k.a. "the man").

P.S. you don't have the IQ to find a fault in my thought process. I am thinking on an unifying abstraction level while you are fiddling with what you think are uncorrelated cases or categories. Seriously man, the audacity you have. You don't recognize your intellectual limitations.

I need to take a break from posting in this thread.

I haven't gotten any work done since we started these debates  few days ago.

The poll indicates 25 - 30% of the readers are interested in an anonymity improvement.

Thus I already accomplished what I needed to do in order to hopefully motivate that outcome.

Feel free to post away in this thread. I might come back after some days and provide any summary response I think would be useful. Otherwise take all my prior posts to be a statement of my position on all future rebuttals.

Any reader who can't comprehend the following, thus does not understand how democracy really operates.


http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=984

Some Iron Laws of Political Economics
Posted on 2009-05-27 by Eric Raymond

Mancur Olson, in his book The Logic Of Collective Action, highlighted the central problem of politics in a democracy. The benefits of political market-rigging can be concentrated to benefit particular special interest groups, while the costs (in higher taxes, slower economic growth, and many other second-order effects) are diffused through the entire population.

The result is a scramble in which individual interest groups perpetually seek to corner more and more rent from the system, while the incremental costs of this behavior rise slowly enough that it is difficult to sustain broad political opposition to the overall system of political privilege and rent-seeking.

When you add to Olson’s model the fact that the professional political class is itself a special interest group which collects concentrated benefits from encouraging rent-seeking behavior in others, it becomes clear why, as Olson pointed out, “good government” is a public good subject to exactly the same underproduction problems as other public goods. Furthermore, as democracies evolve, government activity that might produce “good government” tends to be crowded out by coalitions of rent-seekers and their tribunes.

This general model has consequences. Here are some of them:

There is no form of market failure, however egregious, which is not eventually made worse by the political interventions intended to fix it.

Political demand for income transfers, entitlements and subsidies always rises faster than the economy can generate increased wealth to supply them from.

Although some taxes genuinely begin by being levied for the benefit of the taxed, all taxes end up being levied for the benefit of the political class.

The equilibrium state of a regulatory agency is to have been captured by the entities it is supposed to regulate.

The probability that the actual effects of a political agency or program will bear any relationship to the intentions under which it was designed falls exponentially with the amount of time since it was founded.

The only important class distinction in any advanced democracy is between those who are net producers of tax revenues and those who are net consumers of them.

Corruption is not the exceptional condition of politics, it is the normal one.

I will reply one more time. You are really naive and uninformed.

Note Austria may be one of the more conservative and better countries in Europe.


Oh little grasshopper, I can never teach you to understand political economics. You will always rather choose to believe they are unrelated events, because you love social welfare. That link explains that promising the constituents benefits is intimately connected to regulatory capture of the government. Until you understand that, you will remain ignorant of how the world operates. You choose not to view the model of political economics systemically and instead want to cordone off events as uncorrelated, because you are irrational and love social welfare.

Btw, the guy who wrote that is Eric S. Raymond, the progenitor of the term "open source" in his famous The Art of Unix and The Cathedral and the Bazaar books. His IQ is self-reported to be in the 150 - 170 range. Read his blog for a while and you will conclude he is that smart.


Philippines which has been the fastest growing economy in the world. The USA in the 1800s and early 1900s being the fastest growing and most personal freedom economy in the world at that time (before it became laden with government spending on welfare starting with FDR's New Deal).



In fact, government spending as a percent of GDP is roughly inversely correlated with GDP growth rate over long enough timescales.

TADA.