Zcash does not understand this thread about funding and distribution models and I also point out how the recent Ethereum shrilling has thus made Ethereum illegal: The most important fact is that an "Initial Coin Offering" could potentially be treated as selling a security by SEC or other securities regulators. See the new report “Is Bitcoin A Security?” by the excellent Coin Center crew to understand what that means and when it might apply: https://coincenter.org/2016/01/is-bitcoin-a-security/So this is the number one fact that determined my decision: doing an ICO would risk legal consequences that could prevent the technology from ever being built. (The Coin Center report actually cites us as an example of how to avoid this legal issue.) I had studied that Coin Center report in the past and their conceptualization of the Howey test (pg. 41 of the report) is incorrect! The test is not some explicit set of 4 attributes as the Coin Center claims but rather the Supreme Court explicitly stated it will overlook all obfuscations and distill to the economic reality of who is creating the expectations of investors (implied by any means, not just those 4 attributes so enumerated)! For example, the points on pg. 30 (32 of the PDF) and pp. 38 - 40 are linking profit by developers to the Howey test, but rather I argue the Howey test looks not primarily at profits by developers (although that is also a necessary ingredient) but rather whether the developers promoted expectations for gains amongst the investors. The term 'security' means another entity is securing (i.e. responsible for in the eye of the investor for) the outcome. Note IANAL though. Pleeeeaaaaaassssseeee don't insinuate to us that your company is basing its decision on a report from the Coin Center and has not consulted its own legal counsel. You need your own legal counsel to indemnify you from this risk. That Coin Center report has technical errors as well, such as they claim on pg. 15 (17 of the PDF) that a 51% attack can't create coins out of the thin air nor otherwise alter the consensus protocol, but what they fail to realize is that the minority mining can't fork away from the 51% attack because the 51% attack can always create the longest chain on any new fork as well. So the minority mining is powerless and thus the users of the coin have no choice but to the use the 51% attacked protocol, so their cois are not locked up (jammed). Also that Coin Center report claims it is very expensive to sustain a 51% attack, but this fails to mention the case where the cost is charged to the collective by the corrupt State, such as may be the case in China (which controls 65% of Bitcoin's hashrate) where perhaps a wink and a handshake gets you free electricity from the Three Gorges Dam. The Coin Center repeats that technical error on pg. 19 (21 of the PDF) wherein they formulate a thus erroneous distinction between proof-of-work (PoW) and permissioned block chains. On pg. 20 (22 of the PDF), the report makes an erroneous claim about proof-of-stake (PoS) coins being more expensive to acquire as the coin's price rises, because as we explained, PoS has lack of Nash equilibrium failure modes of which includes the fact that externalities can be employed to pay for attacking the coin, most especially because the attack cost is paid only once and not ongoing as for PoW. On pg. 53 (55 of the PDF), the statement that investors in ETH (Ethereum's tokens) do so primarily for use-value is entirely disproven by the recent domination of the Altcoin Discussion thread at Bitcointalk.org with numerous of Ethereum threads shrilling[1] for the recent price rise from $2 to $15 despite my numerous attempts to explain that Ethereum has no use-case because they never solved the centralization of verification issue. On pg. 23 (25 of the PDF) the point is made that proof-of-burn is probably the most unarguably fair. > There's actually a good reason for securities regulators to look critically at such deals —
> because they are an opportunity for the seller to take advantage of the buyers, and to find
> buyers who are naive or vulnerable. An ICO is an acute opportunity for a "pump-and-dump"
> scam. I didn't want even the appearance of the possibility of such a thing to be associated
> with Zcash. I also didn't feel comfortable taking money from people who may be ill-informed
> and who may be unable to afford the loss if the project were to fail.
>
> It's ironic: there is a certain segment of the cryptocurrency world who considers an open ICO
> to be good because it exposes a bunch of self-selected people to the upside, but this is the exact
> same reason that securities regulators such as SEC regard such things as potentially bad: because
> they expose a bunch of self-selected people to the downside! (And insidiously, the cost to the
> buyers is potentially to the benefit of the seller.)
But you have steadfastly ignored the numerous times I (shelby3 on the Zcash forum and Zooko's AMA) have asked you to comment on the FinCEN regulations which seem to require that all Zcash miners will have to apply as Money Service Businesses (and note even the Coin Center report mentions FinCEN at the top of page 3), if you require miners to transfer 11% of the coinbase block rewards to your corporation. Even if you build in the protocol the requirement that 11% of the coinbase is to be transfered to your foundation, the miner still is the one who creates the block and decides on his own free will whether to honor the protocol or fork the protocol. This is very dubious and I don't think miners will risk it! You may think that FinCEN regulations do not apply globally, but the G20 has announced plans to cooperate against money laundering (and the recent false flag operation in France is being used as another excuse just as that false flag 9/11 got the BigT Lie rolling with the resultant "Patriot" Act). You think you are clever, but you are digging your grave by monkeying around trying to skirt USA regulations, which you've now admitted in public above. Not good. You are starting to demonstrate that you are not competent to run this operation. Please stop being obstinate and wake up to the realities. That will kill your coin because it means that FinCEN controls your coin. |
|
|
|
Zcash does not understand this thread about funding and distribution models and I also point out how the recent Ethereum shrilling has thus made Ethereum illegal: The most important fact is that an "Initial Coin Offering" could potentially be treated as selling a security by SEC or other securities regulators. See the new report “Is Bitcoin A Security?” by the excellent Coin Center crew to understand what that means and when it might apply: https://coincenter.org/2016/01/is-bitcoin-a-security/So this is the number one fact that determined my decision: doing an ICO would risk legal consequences that could prevent the technology from ever being built. (The Coin Center report actually cites us as an example of how to avoid this legal issue.) I had studied that Coin Center report in the past and their conceptualization of the Howey test (pg. 41 of the report) is incorrect! The test is not some explicit set of 4 attributes as the Coin Center claims but rather the Supreme Court explicitly stated it will overlook all obfuscations and distill to the economic reality of who is creating the expectations of investors (implied by any means, not just those 4 attributes so enumerated)! For example, the points on pg. 30 (32 of the PDF) and pp. 38 - 40 are linking profit by developers to the Howey test, but rather I argue the Howey test looks not primarily at profits by developers (although that is also a necessary ingredient) but rather whether the developers promoted expectations for gains amongst the investors. The term 'security' means another entity is securing (i.e. responsible for in the eye of the investor for) the outcome. Note IANAL though. Pleeeeaaaaaassssseeee don't insinuate to us that your company is basing its decision on a report from the Coin Center and has not consulted its own legal counsel. You need your own legal counsel to indemnify you from this risk. That Coin Center report has technical errors as well, such as they claim on pg. 15 (17 of the PDF) that a 51% attack can't create coins out of the thin air nor otherwise alter the consensus protocol, but what they fail to realize is that the minority mining can't fork away from the 51% attack because the 51% attack can always create the longest chain on any new fork as well. So the minority mining is powerless and thus the users of the coin have no choice but to the use the 51% attacked protocol, so their cois are not locked up (jammed). Also that Coin Center report claims it is very expensive to sustain a 51% attack, but this fails to mention the case where the cost is charged to the collective by the corrupt State, such as may be the case in China (which controls 65% of Bitcoin's hashrate) where perhaps a wink and a handshake gets you free electricity from the Three Gorges Dam. The Coin Center repeats that technical error on pg. 19 (21 of the PDF) wherein they formulate a thus erroneous distinction between proof-of-work (PoW) and permissioned block chains. On pg. 20 (22 of the PDF), the report makes an erroneous claim about proof-of-stake (PoS) coins being more expensive to acquire as the coin's price rises, because as we explained, PoS has lack of Nash equilibrium failure modes of which includes the fact that externalities can be employed to pay for attacking the coin, most especially because the attack cost is paid only once and not ongoing as for PoW. On pg. 53 (55 of the PDF), the statement that investors in ETH (Ethereum's tokens) do so primarily for use-value is entirely disproven by the recent domination of the Altcoin Discussion thread at Bitcointalk.org with numerous of Ethereum threads shrilling[1] for the recent price rise from $2 to $15 despite my numerous attempts to explain that Ethereum has no use-case because they never solved the centralization of verification issue. On pg. 23 (25 of the PDF) the point is made that proof-of-burn is probably the most unarguably fair. > There's actually a good reason for securities regulators to look critically at such deals —
> because they are an opportunity for the seller to take advantage of the buyers, and to find
> buyers who are naive or vulnerable. An ICO is an acute opportunity for a "pump-and-dump"
> scam. I didn't want even the appearance of the possibility of such a thing to be associated
> with Zcash. I also didn't feel comfortable taking money from people who may be ill-informed
> and who may be unable to afford the loss if the project were to fail.
>
> It's ironic: there is a certain segment of the cryptocurrency world who considers an open ICO
> to be good because it exposes a bunch of self-selected people to the upside, but this is the exact
> same reason that securities regulators such as SEC regard such things as potentially bad: because
> they expose a bunch of self-selected people to the downside! (And insidiously, the cost to the
> buyers is potentially to the benefit of the seller.)
But you have steadfastly ignored the numerous times I (shelby3 on the Zcash forum and Zooko's AMA) have asked you to comment on the FinCEN regulations which seem to require that all Zcash miners will have to apply as Money Service Businesses (and note even the Coin Center report mentions FinCEN at the top of page 3), if you require miners to transfer 11% of the coinbase block rewards to your corporation. Even if you build in the protocol the requirement that 11% of the coinbase is to be transfered to your foundation, the miner still is the one who creates the block and decides on his own free will whether to honor the protocol or fork the protocol. This is very dubious and I don't think miners will risk it! You may think that FinCEN regulations do not apply globally, but the G20 has announced plans to cooperate against money laundering (and the recent false flag operation in France is being used as another excuse just as that false flag 9/11 got the BigT Lie rolling with the resultant "Patriot" Act). You think you are clever, but you are digging your grave by monkeying around trying to skirt USA regulations, which you've now admitted in public above. Not good. You are starting to demonstrate that you are not competent to run this operation. Please stop being obstinate and wake up to the realities. That will kill your coin because it means that FinCEN controls your coin.
|
|
|
|
Last post for hopefully a week or so: speaking of crowded defensive trades, physical fiat cash is clearly being delineated as a different form of money to digital fiat bank accounts, being subject to bail-in, confiscation, freezes, bank-holidays, etc. I'm expecting at some point to see physical fiat cash trade at a premium to digital fiat cash, as much as bearer bonds have and bearer stocks have versus their counter-party impaired representations in the past. Also I think this is a large part of the drive behind outlawing physical fiat cash is because it represents a bearer instrument and they have gradually side-lined or outlawed other forms of bearer instruments over the years. Bitcoin, gold and physical cash, stock certificates (if you can get them) should all be held closely. Bitcoin is a bearer instrument par excellence in the digital realm. In theory, the best bearer instrument would be a crypto currency that is widely used by the masses for microtransactions, because the government would find it impossible to ban or crack down on a social networking phenomenon involving zillions of small transactions all over the globe. It would also help a lot of the full nodes centralization problem of all existing crypto currencies was fixed; and fixed in a way that enables secure instant transactions. I switched from an anonymity focus to this new focus. I am implementing now. Stay tuned. The issue is the vast majority of the population will be perfectly happy with the new world order
Not necessarily. It depends. They are fattened and appeased right now because the "free" debt money spigot is open wide. On the backside of 2017, they are not going to like the pain, which will open opportunities to get them interested in online commerce so they can earn some income during the downturn coming. The elite know this and that is why will try to lock everything down with capital controls from 2017 to 2020 at least, so they can complete their global monetary reset. So the key is to work on projects which won't be in violation of any capital controls. Think small such as microtransactions. The government can't possible put capital controls on microtransactions. I have a specific plan now (which wasn't formulated when I spoke to you all in private) and it is doesn't involve air drops to n00bs. Also I have diversified my plan so that if the crypto currency aspect of my project fails, I will still have the social networking aspect which I can continue. |
|
|
|
speaking of crowded defensive trades, physical fiat cash is clearly being delineated as a different form of money to digital fiat bank accounts, being subject to bail-in, confiscation, freezes, bank-holidays, etc. I'm expecting at some point to see physical fiat cash trade at a premium to digital fiat cash, as much as bearer bonds have and bearer stocks have versus their counter-party impaired representations in the past. Also I think this is a large part of the drive behind outlawing physical fiat cash is because it represents a bearer instrument and they have gradually side-lined or outlawed other forms of bearer instruments over the years. Bitcoin, gold and physical cash, stock certificates (if you can get them) should all be held closely. Bitcoin is a bearer instrument par excellence in the digital realm. In theory, the best bearer instrument would be a crypto currency that is widely used by the masses for microtransactions, because the government would find it impossible to ban or crack down on a social networking phenomenon involving zillions of small transactions all over the globe. It would also help a lot of the full nodes centralization problem of all existing crypto currencies was fixed; and fixed in a way that enables secure instant transactions. I switched from an anonymity focus to this new focus. I am implementing now. Stay tuned. The issue is the vast majority of the population will be perfectly happy with the new world order
Not necessarily. It depends. They are fattened and appeased right now because the "free" debt money spigot is open wide. On the backside of 2017, they are not going to like the pain, which will open opportunities to get them interested in online commerce so they can earn some income during the downturn coming. The elite know this and that is why will try to lock everything down with capital controls from 2017 to 2020 at least, so they can complete their global monetary reset. So the key is to work on projects which won't be in violation of any capital controls. Think small such as microtransactions. The government can't possible put capital controls on microtransactions. I have a specific plan now (which wasn't formulated when I spoke to you all in private) and it is doesn't involve air drops to n00bs. Also I have diversified my plan so that if the crypto currency aspect of my project fails, I will still have the social networking aspect which I can continue. |
|
|
|
1) Because Nick Szabo spoke at DevCon1, Ethereum's last major conference. How many alt's can say that? There is no other alt that Nick Szabo has gotten this involved in, let alone really cared about.
Because Nick Szabo is ignoring the centralization problem and got paid $millions just like the rest of those "experts" who were boughtprostituted with YOUR money to wastegrab your money!The whoring has reached an all time high wherein dumb ass speculators hand their money over to former astute experts such as Szabo who have prostituted themselves.Satoshi, you mean Nick Szabo. The guy who contributed to the ethereum white paper and owns 500,000ETH
Yes that's right Satoshi Nakamoto is Nick Szabo. The guy who coined the term "smart contracts". The inventor of bitcoin and the major early contributor to the ethereum project.
Just more confirmation that everyone should be getting in to ethereum right now.
Yeap. And the price of Eth is rising cause Satoshi is exchaning his premined 1 mil bitcoins to ethereum at poloniex. When the n00bs start spreading nonsense to support their arguments... (come on guys realize who you are up against here, you can't get away with nonsense when I am around) Szabo has denied being Satoshi. And Szabo says "Centralization is insecure", thus I can now conclude (and this is second time I've seen Szabo make a technical error), that Szabo has no clue that Ethereum's planned Casper won't work and will result in centralization.  He is much wiser then Satoshi and his project Etherium is the bitcoin killer.
Yes, and that's why people on here are so butthurt and wanting to bash the project. Same thing the butthurt Bitcointards said to me in 2013 when I predicted the scalecopalypse that is underway now in Bitcoin. My antagonists from 2013 are now silent as I was proven correct. Same smell again when I explain the Vitalik is not the god you think he is. I am more capable than Vitalik in some ways (not in math but in other aspects of software development, strategy, user adoption marketing, etc). I really suck at putting together a scheme to take $millions from naive speculators. My conscience won't allow me to put the vapor before the ICO. |
|
|
|
Ethereum sold the future, first with an IPO for vapor, next with making a lot of publicity about Casper which they should know won't work.Thus I conclude the insiders have decided to bailout on this final pump.So why are you constantly making threads spreading pointless FUD about ethereum?
Yeah why are you doing that stoat? And you are lying about my identity and have refused to retract your slander, when I am clearly not the two users you accused me of being and I have even shared my LinkedIn photo and identity. Why can't you admit that Ethereum's developers suck and after $millions wasted, they still have not solved the most fundamental issue that must be solved in order to make scripting on a block chain work? The technological challenge with a long-running script on a block chain is verification. The gas (and txn fees) are paid to the winner of the PoW block, not to all miners, but all miners (full nodes) have to endure the SAME cost of verification. Yet not all miners have the same hashrate, thus not all miners have the same income per block. Thus some miners recoup less of their verification costs than other miners. As I explained in greater detail, this forces mining to become 100% centralized in one miner with 100% hashrate. Ethereum is off on another tangent named Casper, with shards, consensus-by-betting, etc, which is another hopeless and futile attempt to solve a problem that CAN NOT BE SOLVED BECAUSE OF THE INVIOLABLE CAP THEOREM! Ethereum will never solve this problem and remain decentralized. Never. Thus all the scripts and products being built on top of Ethereum are headed to failure when Ethereum fails to solve the scaling problem of verification in a decentralized manner. Because centralization of scripting is meaningless, we always had that already. I have solved the problem because I realized verification MUST be centralized (due to the inviolable CAP theorem and the correct understanding that a 100% decentralized system can not solve the Byzantine General's Problem), and thus I instead designed a way to control the centralization of verification with decentralized PoW miners (because each user submits a PoW share with their txn and because PoW mining is rendered UNprofitable for all parties). So who will be the winner of everything? Me. Not Ethereum. Not to mention that marketing plan is light years ahead of any altcoin, because I will market directly to the millions of masses and achieve millions of adoptions (and be the first coin to do so). Look I was there at the beginning telling Charles (one of the guys who founded and organized the creation of Ethereum) in Skype that Vitalik's PoW algorithm could be parallelized thus not CPU only, telling him that they could not solve the fundamental problem above, and telling him that they were going to raise too much $ with too many mouths to feed and still wouldn't solve the fundamental problems. Originally Charles was recruiting me to form this company, not Vitalik. But I balked and said I didn't want to raise all that money and I didn't want to start something until I was sure I had solved all fundamental issues. If you don't believe me, go ask Charles. All the gory details about Ethereum's technical incompetence are here: https://www.reddit.com/r/ethtrader/comments/42rvm3/truth_about_ethereum_is_being_banned_at/Enjoy the Ethereum pump while it is hot and while people are ignorant of the truth about the technical incompetence of the Ethereum developers. Eventually the truth will come out and especially when my white papers and coin are released. Edit: r0ach has also explained what I've been pointing out about Ethereum for more than a month. So far I see the ethereum blockchain and consensus protocol working fine.
It hasn't been scaled yet. Bitcoin's scalepocalypse will pale in comparison to Ethereum's doom in the wild. Essentially what Ethereum is designing with Casper is a technobabble wrapper around centralized verification, because either they know that verification can't be decentralized (as I have explained), or they are determined to delude themselves otherwise (with the result being the centralization occurs anyway). With centralization, Ehereum can scale except note that will be viewed as a failure by the market, unless verification centralization can be hidden behind Sybil attacks on the verification nodes (meaning no one can prove that a 1000 nodes aren't controlled by the same entity). I have a strong suspicion that is why Ethereum is being funded by Peter Thiel and other banksters, because they understand Ethereum is a way for them to control without being detected. Satoshi had prevented this outcome in Bitcoin by setting the maximum block size to 1MB, which thus restricted verification from centralizing entirely (yet it will still be impossible to prevent Bitcoin Classic from centralizing due to the other economics of profitable PoW mining). But centralization always leads to failure. So ultimately this will fail sooner or later. And what I see from you is just a load of wild claims.
That is because you are n00b and you can't understand the technological arguments. The points I have made are not wild at all. Do you realize I was probably the first person to predict Bitcoin's scalepocalypse in 2013 as ArticMine graciously admits today: Seems stoat you had no clue how long I have been here in this forum and doing serious technological research.
|
|
|
|
Amateurs who can't afford his paid service with their lunch money obviously have no clue about the details of what MA predicted in his paid reports: https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/armstrongeconomics101/just-follow-the-numbers/Looks like MA is stating gold will not bottom in Q1 but rather sometime later: QUESTION: Marty, at the Conference you said we could conclude this in the first quarter if we get the alignment. It does not look like we will get the alignment since gold is up and the Dow is down. This is why you have been saying this looked like it was postponing into 2017?
ANSWER: Yes. We could have concluded this here in 2016, but the Reversals determine the trend. Trend is ALWAYS defined by the Bullish and the Bearish Reversals. Those who expect forecasts to be one-sided opinions are not traders and will typically lose their shirt as 90% of people who try to trade do. A real trader MUST know where he is right and where he is wrong at all times since the market is the only thing that is ever infallible. Those who expect one-sided forecasts never survive. Those who do not grasp why we have Bullish and Bearish Reversals defining the trend claiming that is why we are always right are blind fools. You cannot elect both the Bearish and the Bullish on the same day. These type of people will be separated from their money real fast in the coming Sling-Shot because they are incapable of understanding how markets even move. This is a learning experience and when there is nothing left to learn, it is time to die. So those who are incapable of learning, well I suppose they are just a waste of humanity that drive the rest of us in awe watching their stupidity repeat over and over again.
True, 2016 would be the 5 years down from the 2011 high in gold. But because of the spit with 2012 being the highest annual closing, this has left the door open to the conclusion being pushed off into 2017. If we got the final low for gold in the first quarter then a low in the Dow as well would be the alignment that confidence in government would collapse now. But when the Dow closed year-end lower and gold closed above our number, then this is why I stated gold is not as weak as it appeared. It then began electing the Bullish Reversals, not the Bearish, and that gave us the indication we would get a rally BETWEEN the Benchmarks at a very minimum. This was only reinforced by the closing in the Euro where we warned the Euro should rise to 113 at minimum and 116 optimal. The decline in the dollar should have helped gold, but it will also intensify the deflation in Europe and help to push their banking system over the cliff as is happening right now.
The talk around the street is claiming the moves are a lack of confidence in general that central banks can control the economy. Well that’s nice, for they never could. But this is looking very dicey to say the least. That is why we have to just following the Reversals and the Timing. We have heard every excuse to explain the trend from the stock market is now following oil to gold has rallied because the Fed will not raise rates. Honestly, this all sounds like gibberish.
The markets are preparing for a sling-shot move that will make most people’s nose bleed. Gold has reached so far the 1263 level so there is still room on the upside yet before encountering resistance. The two key numbers to watch now are the 1309 and 1363 levels. Pay attention to the Dow. If we can closing below 15875 we have a shot of finally breaking last year’s low.
Also pay attention to silver. It has not kept pace with gold showing the bulk of the gold move has been short-covering. Here we need a closing for the week above 1643 to be comparable with gold just above the 1209 number. We also have a Weekly Bullish at 1544. Silver is begrudgingly following which does not speak well for the long-term sustainability here.
So in the end, we will set the stage for all this craziness moving to extremes. Then ask yourself this question? Are you willing to hand your money to government and ask it hold it for you? If we are concerned about banks, and we are concerned about government, then there is not much life but to move to the private sector. So when rates go negative, a 1% yield in a blue-chip stock looks like haven. That is the shift on the horizon from public to private. We have to get the weak-minded running into the arms of government before the markets will slaughter them for their stupidity.
QUESTION:
Dear Marty,
2011 was the intraday high in gold, but 2012 was the highest yearly closing. Add the 5 units of time bear market, that would potentially bring us with a low in 2017.
Likewise the Dow’s highest yearly closing was 2014. With a 3 units of time correction we end up with a possible 2017 low.
Is it possible that 2017 is in fact the year of global alignment in the markets, and what we are experiencing now is the False Move developing right in front of our eyes?
-SB
ANSWER: Yes. There is the risk of this extending sideways and 2016 becoming the staging ground in all markets into the first quarter of 2017. I have warned, for example, in gold that 2016 could produce the lowest yearly closing and 2017 could produce the intraday low. Gold held the 1044 number for the close of 2015, and that warned, as I stated, that gold was NOT as weak as it appeared. Markets are NOT random. Every subtle move is for a reason. To survive, we have to learn to pay attention. The market is ALWAYS right – only humans are wrong.
|
|
|
|
2. Creators of files must have a means to record their policies (and also perhaps/optionally their verifiable identity). I have suggested that before they publish the file, they create a record in a block chain. Policies could include for example the crypto currency payment per download expected (this record could be updated on the block chain by the signer of the original record)...
Seems Bryce Weiner @ Unobtanium claims to be working on something like this. |
|
|
|
Satoshi, you mean Nick Szabo. The guy who contributed to the ethereum white paper and owns 500,000ETH
Yes that's right Satoshi Nakamoto is Nick Szabo. The guy who coined the term "smart contracts". The inventor of bitcoin and the major early contributor to the ethereum project.
Just more confirmation that everyone should be getting in to ethereum right now.
Yeap. And the price of Eth is rising cause Satoshi is exchaning his premined 1 mil bitcoins to ethereum at poloniex. When the n00bs start spreading nonsense to support their arguments... (come on guys realize who you are up against here, you can't get away with nonsense when I am around) Szabo has denied being Satoshi. And Szabo says "Centralization is insecure", thus I can now conclude (and this is second time I've seen Szabo make a technical error), that Szabo has no clue that Ethereum's planned Casper won't work and will result in centralization. |
|
|
|
Correction: China's pools may not be getting all their hashrate from inside of China, but this does confirm their 65% share of Bitcoin's hashrate. That would impact the upthread post I made alleging they had to be lying about the impact of the Great Firewall (GFW) of China. However, I still expect that most of the hashrate is coming from within China. And besides even the hashrate is coming from outside the GFW then the claim of the Chinese mining cartel is false as well (since they could put a pool abroad as well). So either way, the lie I alleged remains valid! The Chinese mining cartel had claimed that the GFW made it impossible to support a block size increase. I argued upthread (to smooth) that this was a lie because the verification and pool could be abroad and only the hash of the block would need to be sent across the GFW thus the low bandwidth of the GFW wouldn't be a problem for the Chinese mining cartel. I thus concluded that the Chinese mining cartel had another motive for keeping the block size small and that might be that they want to drive transaction fees sky high, which is what the Tragedy of the Commons that I predicted in 2013 expects would happen. And even ArticMine recently graciously admitted I may have been one of the first to predict that. Note that effectively the Chinese mining cartel have 51% attacked Bitcoin, by preventing an upgrade to larger block sizes (even I read that Classic's doubling to 2MB has been refused by 70% of the miners). Upthread smooth and I stated it doesn't matter which side of the block chain size fence you stand on, the ability of anyone to dictate the outcome by themselves, means they control Bitcoin and thus have 51% attacked it (i.e. centralized control over the protocol). Note smooth did express the opinion upthread that the distribution of miners in the Chinese mining cartel might be decentralized thus should not be characterized as a cartel. I believe I retorted that they have just effectively acted as a unified cartel. |
|
|
|
Eth will soon crash (pretty freaking obvious pump and dump) and everyone will buy back into btc increasing the price just as ltc did during it's last big pump and dump. C'mon... one exchange with almost all the volume (and now we find out it might be in some kid's basement)...  yeah I retract my upthread doubts about the relevancy of the exchange. I said there is no proof. Yet is is very suspicious if it is true that all volume is going through an exchange that is on a server that is not even colocated on a Host, thus no chance it might be audited by a third party. That could be for security reasons, but it could also be for nefarious reasons. However is it proven where the server is? Is it proven all volume going through that server? |
|
|
|
No, I basically think that Satoshi was one person. Until someone has showed me an absolutly evident proof, I won't change my mind.
It is psychologically necessary for you to believe that otherwise your entire life would go into depression. Everyone who believes Satoshi is a hero has already been fooled. You don't want your fantasy of a knight in shining armor to die and the cold, hard reality of this fucked up world to be true. The odds of Satoshi being one person are extremely small. As a developer of software, I can assure you that Satoshi got almost everything BIG correct (from the perspective of the goals the DEEP STATE has for Bitcoin). The complexity of such a design makes it very unlikely one guy did that. |
|
|
|
He is much wiser then Satoshi and his project Etherium is the bitcoin killer.
Yes, and that's why people on here are so butthurt and wanting to bash the project. Same thing the butthurt Bitcointards said to me in 2013 when I predicted the scalecopalypse that is underway now in Bitcoin. My antagonists from 2013 are now silent as I was proven correct. Same smell again when I explain the Vitalik is not the god you think he is. I am more capable than Vitalik in some ways (not in math but in other aspects of software development, strategy, user adoption marketing, etc). I really suck at putting together a scheme to take $millions from naive speculators. My conscience won't allow me to put the vapor before the ICO. |
|
|
|
here let me get you started we are forking this http://www.trsst.com/we have successfully migrated bitcoinJ we are currently implementing it as seen here https://github.com/achow101/trsstthe basic idea is this when u create a new post u get 1/2 a bubble . when someone follows u they pay u 2 bubble . when they repost your post they pay you 1 bubble. so It actually is a self monetizing system powered by altcoin. The real beauty is people have to "build their Bubble" on their machine / server so more servers means better access to their content etc. eventually i want to build in a marketplace and an ad engine where users can promote goods or content or whatever. this is a labor of love as I will be using all my coins to fund new posts via POS system. I will most likely spend alot but recieve nothing back. (except status i hope lol) The product name and logo is well done. Not sure the name fits the site use, but its still catchy. Problems I see so far are: 1. Users hate being nickel & dimed by microtransactions. You are essentially putting a paywall in their face. Not good for adoption. 2. I think you will have huge trouble with posting spam. 3. What is POS system? Point-of-sale? Note proof-of-stake has Nash equilibrium flaws. 4. What is the use case that will drive adoption? Just being geeky cool is not necessarily enough to drive the minimum inertia needed to make it worthwhile to use Bubble. If not enough people use it, then it is not worth using it. 5. A labor of love is perfect if you have the plan sorted. I don't like to involve in plans that will fail. I am 50.7 years old and I don't have the youth you have to justify my effort in failure for the experience or whatever intrinsic values you might be contented with. I am interested in your love for what is not too distant from what I am also working on. Perhaps you need some help on making this succeed in a big way. I will be private messaging you. Apologies for replying in public, but I wanted the forum to know I did give you some feedback and to be able to see what sort of feedback I give on a topic such as this. Let's take our further discussion private now. Edit: okay I see you are not the programmer and you began developing this project less than a month ago but you do logo design and you are a first year student studying marketing? |
|
|
|
Since he's not better than Satoshi because this is simply impossible
Because Satoshi wasn't one person: Again I think this another evidence that Bitcoin was created by the DEEP STATE with evil intentions Another? As far as I know such an argument is the only evidence. One guy in his basement created Bitcoin.  And used clever psychology to cause geeky Libertarian hard money folks to lose their reason and wet their pants by claiming Bitcoin is a better gold because it has 0% debasement (when in fact anyone with a functioning brain stem can see the debasement has been in the double-digits for the duration which Bitcoin can obscure its coming failure). I wrote these observations when I first joined this forum in March 2013. Inserted edit: He disappeared without a trace, yet the entire world is hunting for him. No mere mortals can do that. Governments would be pro Bitcoin because everything is being recorded in the blockchain
Correct. That's why Bitcoin is a God given gift to the the government and tax man. That's why there are conspiracy theories - which I don't subscribe to - that Sathosi is an NSA creation. Non-sequitor. (plz don't be offended) If Bitcoin is a God given gift to the government, then it does not logically follow that Satoshi wouldn't be a DEEP STATE (global elite/NSA/CIA) operation. On the other hand, I don't agree with conspiracy theories that government will make Bitcoin big just to have this centralized place for tax collection i.e. intentionally make Bitcoin very big as some theory advocates it. Government don't have to do that - they implement the electronic FIAT system anyway, in Europe very-very quickly so they don't need Bitcoin, the electronic FIAT system is their central store of information. That's why I said if for some miraculous reason BTC get bigger then the government will step in, but not before.
I years ago figured out why the global elite planted Bitcoin. It undermines the nation-states, central banks, and existing banking systems. They could not accomplish that in a hidden way if they did it top-down as you claim. (yet another reason that Zcash should take my advice and make sure they focus also on corporate applications of their technology) The plan all along has been to discredit the existing nation-state system to move towards a world government system. |
|
|
|
|
I voted. I am not sure if he is intentionally selling snake oil but alas intentions are probably irrelevant. In the videos I have watched of him, he appears to live in another world inside his head. He is smart and especially apparently quite smart in math.
|
|
|
|
|
Okay datz you've earned a second look from me. So please stop the game and tell me what you are all about and why should I care? Give it to me pragmatically, not an ideological puzzle-speak.
|
|
|
|
It removes degrees-of-freedom for the users (and full nodes as well), whilst I don't think it is necessary to limit transaction volumes at all if one has the correct system design. The reason Bytemaster (Dan Larimer) is having a problem is because he hasn't yet centralized verification cost. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
