cjmoles & Milkduds,
The globalists have ultimate control over the mining cartel that ultimately captures Bitcoin. Proof-of-work can't remain decentralized (even without scaling, but even more true the more it scales). Period. It is economically impossible.
So you can be as organized as you want to be, but that still doesn't give you any alternative money system which your idealistic hearts can prevent the powers-that-be from controlling.
I think both of you guys would prefer not to live in a civilization and instead revoke the maximum division-of-labor (i.e. Adam Smith's Invisible Hand) and go live "on the other side of moon" at the standard-of-living of the Amish. Well actually worse than that, because at least the Amish acknowledge trade with the outside world and its money system.
The rest of the world will not follow you there...
But....if they "capture" all the bitcoin, then the bitcoin will have no value. Capturing the control over mining doesn't transfer all the Bitcoin to them (each BTC holder can have control over his/her own private keys). It just means they can control what they want to control such as turning off the ability to transact for someone they deem to be a problem (the 666 Digital Kill Switch I predicted in 2013). They could then also inflate the money supply beyond 21 million coins and/or set transaction fees as high as the market will bear. https://gist.github.com/shelby3/e90a45604969f1ed64395b0b72a56487https://gist.github.com/shelby3/c0d6e0ed132be7e4577df3663c81ee09https://gist.github.com/shelby3/67111f328822a36beb4cad1a5220eb33That doesn't necessarily destroy the value of Bitcoin if they manage it well. It can also increase the value of Bitcoin, because it becomes an approved and accepted form of money in their IMF, World Bank, UN, etc global institutional system. |
|
|
|
@OP:
technically we have a double top formation with the lower second top on the chart for this year. This looks technically ugly, and I guess correction is imminent.
how about that? Do you still think it is a good buying time?
"Buy when others are irrationally pessimistic or too cautious" Do you not see the uptrend? That imaginary "double top" is just the unavoidable intersection of that powerful uptrend with the prior Bitfinex hack (likely an insider "hack" where the exchange is shorting and did the hack). that is the time when price is at the lowest (with the exception of weird unexpected stuff like bitfinex hack and the drop).
The Bitfinex hack overreaction was another buying opportunity.   In the short term, anything is possible. There could be a hack or something which could create a sell-off and buying opportunity. But that uptrend line will over a long enough time horizon remain intact. |
|
|
|
Doug Casey is a smart idiot, like most other tinfoil hats. The disintegration of large nation-states into a plethora of smaller ones is precisely what creates the power vacuum that will make the world government possible. Duh. Why do you think that Rothshilds is protecting Wikileaks and encouraging the destruction of the nation-state, by exposing corruption and for example fomenting a civil war between liberals and conservatives in the USA. |
|
|
|
Doug Casey is a smart idiot, like most other tinfoil hats. The disintegration of large nation-states into a plethora of smaller ones is precisely what creates the power vacuum that will make the world government possible. Duh. Why do you think that Rothshilds is protecting Wikileaks and encouraging the destruction of the nation-state, by exposing corruption and for example fomenting a civil war between liberals and conservatives in the USA. |
|
|
|
Doug Casey is a smart idiot, like most other tinfoil hats. The disintegration of large nation-states into a plethora of smaller ones is precisely what creates the power vacuum that will make the world government possible. Duh. Why do you think that Rothshilds is protecting Wikileaks and encouraging the destruction of the nation-state, by exposing corruption and for example fomenting a civil war between liberals and conservatives in the USA. |
|
|
|
But right now i do not know how it is possible to buy bitcoins without the use of bank and without going through exchanges specially in India.
It will become possible to get crypto-currency for free by joining a social network and just using it the way you normally use Internet sites. You will "earn" this crypto-currency. Steemit.com pioneered this concept but for blogging only and their method is I think not optimum. I have a project coming for this. Stay tuned... |
|
|
|
|
cjmoles & Milkduds,
The globalists have ultimate control over the mining cartel that ultimately captures Bitcoin. Proof-of-work can't remain decentralized (even without scaling, but even more true the more it scales). Period. It is economically impossible.
So you can be as organized as you want to be, but that still doesn't give you any alternative money system which your idealistic hearts can prevent the powers-that-be from controlling.
I think both of you guys would prefer not to live in a civilization and instead revoke the maximum division-of-labor (i.e. Adam Smith's Invisible Hand) and go live "on the other side of moon" at the standard-of-living of the Amish. Well actually worse than that, because at least the Amish acknowledge trade with the outside world and its money system.
The rest of the world will not follow you there...
|
|
|
|
How will the global elite force us to use their platform when we decide it has no use?
You attribute far too little apathy and far too much awareness to the sheepeople. Besides there is a stronger force in play. Society can't function in complete chaos. Society requires a winner, especially w.r.t. to money. So which money is society going to choose when all the globalized options are winner-take-all power vacuums? Would the people prefer their corrupt nation-state currencies and be shut off from a global marketplace? India this week (with the cancellation of their largest currency notes) is a prime example. So the government can stop people from avoiding taxes and force them to give their money to government funded corruption. Yet of course the MSM tells you that ending black money is about reducing corruption, which is a lie. Idealistically taxes should always be voluntary. |
|
|
|
...
Which my paper states very clearly, that is only true because you assume that transaction volume won't be significant enough such that transaction fees do not approach the minted block reward. You assume Monero will never handle any where near the world's volume of transactions and/or that the market cap will rise sufficiently such that the tiny perpetual minted block reward is greater than the transaction-related costs (but given the horrendous O(n2) scaling problem of Satoshi's design, then this assumption also isn't likely true at VISA scale).
But that doesn't help because as my paper states very clearly, proof-of-work remains a winner-take-all any way. Thus Monero's perpetual minted block reward does nothing to solve the problem.
The inevitable mining cartel (presuming Monero becomes economically relevant) will dictate transaction fees in Monero as well, and also control the mining and all the bad impacts (censorship, deanonymization, etc) that come with it.
Sorry. Better luck next time.
I make no such assumptions. What you are assuming, incorrectly I must add, is a fixed per KB transaction fee in Monero regardless of blocksize or market cap. This assumption is fundamentally incorrect as I have explained before because of the adaptive blocksize limit and penalty function ensure that over time the total fees paid per block remain in a constant range when compared to the block reward. Increase the blocksize in Monero by a factor of 100x and the fees per KB drop by a factor of 100x. ArticMine here you are again posting your inkblots. Slow down and try to understand your mistakes. Go take some quiet time and think for a while before you respond, so you don't fill up thread with useless noise. I am saying that is as the "transaction-related costs" approach the minted block reward, then the Tragedy of the Commons in transaction fees results. This has nothing to do with a fixed per KB transaction fee, but rather the costs of actually processing the transactions. You have to factor in that costs include the fact in proof-of-work mining, that a 0.1% hashrate miner must propagate and validate 100% of the systemic transaction volume (yet he is only paid 0.1% portion of the total systemic rewards, and probably even paid less because of selfish mining and asymmetric propagation costs due to mining on the wrong chain part of time). And any way, the entire discussion is irrelevant, because regardless, the economies-of-scale in proof-of-work dictate that it is a winner-take-all power vacuum. So you are just wasting your time any way arguing about the transaction fee aspect. The inevitable mining cartel (presuming Monero becomes economically relevant) will dictate transaction fees in Monero as well, and also control the mining and all the bad impacts (censorship, deanonymization, etc) that come with it. Sorry. Better luck next time. |
|
|
|
Did those posts occur before or after my post (my post which basically pointed out that Zerotime is a lie)? I am thinking he saw my post and realized he had no more upside and decide to call it a day, and head off into the sunset on his anonymous horse (carrying the bag of bagholders' BTC that they foolishly gave him). |
|
|
|
there's still a few retards who still believe in john connor.. at vcash forum is all about "john, you're great! i believe in you!"
How much does Johnny pay for these blowjobs? |
|
|
|
... Here is the rough draft from my white paper for the section concerning transactions fees, block size, and the unavoidable monopolization of Proof-of-Work by a few: https://gist.github.com/shelby3/c0d6e0ed132be7e4577df3663c81ee09Applies to every proof-of-work coin which attempts to scale up, not just Bitcoin.
... I edited it after proof-reading upon awakening. I waited a few days before responding to this. The analysis is the paper is correct, except for the where the POW coin has a tail or permanent block reward sufficient to secure the coin on its own. The notable cases with a tail or permanent block reward are Monero and Dogecoin. In the Monero case the net fees paid to the miners (fees less block increase penalties) could theoretically approach zero under the right circumstances, where there is a sharp decrease in the transaction volume. The obvious example would be on Christmas Day. The point in Monero is that fees are not there to secure the coin, that task is left to the block reward, but rather to regulate the blocksize and deter spam. I would expect gross fees, before any penalties are paid, in Monero to be about 2-3% of the block reward so we are dealing with the case where to quote from the paper the minted block reward is significantly greater than the average transaction fees per block In this situation since the fees are insignificant and determined by the block reward and the variance in transaction demand, the financial incentives for a centralizing cartel over fees are simply not there. Which my paper states very clearly, that is only true because you assume that transaction volume won't be significant enough such that transaction fees do not approach the minted block reward. You assume Monero will never handle any where near the world's volume of transactions and/or that the market cap will rise sufficiently such that the tiny perpetual minted block reward is greater than the transaction-related costs (but given the horrendous O(n2) scaling problem of Satoshi's design, then this assumption also isn't likely true at VISA scale). But in any case none that can help, because as my paper states very clearly, proof-of-work remains a winner-take-all any way. Thus Monero's perpetual minted block reward does nothing to solve the problem. The inevitable mining cartel (presuming Monero becomes economically relevant) will dictate transaction fees in Monero as well, and also control the mining and all the bad impacts (censorship, deanonymization, etc) that come with it. Sorry. Better luck next time. |
|
|
|
Bitcoin is far from being some trojan horse; if it was there would either be less push-back against it or more subtle acceptation of it globally, and we're not seeing that.
Dude, you didn't understand the OP. The entire point is that it is a Trojan horse against (nation-state) governments. Of course they are fighting it, and that is consistent with it being a Trojan horse against them. Governments treat it like a threat, and the population is equally wary of it. Something being a trojan horse would be more accepted rather than rejected.
The population is going to accept it with open arms, once someone solves the onboarding and security problems. Both of which I've conceptually solved. Implementation follows. Also, for those suggesting a world government is a good thing; not on the banker's terms, and not before the rest of the world catches up to "first-world" status. The labor imbalances and new labor markets opening up for super cheap, along with societies further back in technology, are a net negative. Plus national culture is lost, among other things. Not a benefit.
Malthusians are always correct.  (they never are, never) They always see a larger pie as impossible. |
|
|
|
Follow the link below for the cons: |
|
|
|
Secondly, when you say that banks are powerless to stop lurch to cryptocurrency, you lie from this first proposal. Ask me in this question, who offers you bitcoin to usd exchange? Banks of course, who are mining companies? People who wants to take control on it and than manipulate price.
You didn't state anything that refuted the premise, " banks are powerless to stop lurch to cryptocurrency". I didn't say that some banks wouldn't find some profit in Bitcoin. Nevertheless, as cryptocurrency becomes the currency of virtual commerce (and the lurch to the Knowledge Age which will overtake everything), the national fiats the banks control, will become an ever smaller portion of the economic pie. Also onboarding without going through fiat is now coming into reality. Also bitcoin is mostly used for money laundering and it's also good for both side ( for bankers and govermant ).
For the individuals in banking and government, but not for the nation-state jurisdiction scoped institutions. I have an essay which I wrote for you to read about genius: http://unheresy.com/Essence%20of%20Genius.htmlGenius is able to distill the essence from the irrelevant. |
|
|
|
So, any tool that provides freedom to the individual instead of control for the state, is a Trojan horse that the state can use to justify increased control?
Does that mean the war is lost and we should simply give up?
As we ratchet up the entropy levels, we attain greater degrees-of-freedom in society: |
|
|
|
Bitcoin removes the necessity of requiring third parties to keep track of personal transactions
Incorrect if you mean to imply that Bitcoin is not centralized: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1690725.msg16991114#msg16991114The distinction is that the centralized entities are global. The nation-states can't regulate the miners. But the miners are centralized and will become ever more so. It is a winner-take-all economic paradigm. Why wouldn't the global elite love that? Decentralized is not the same as distributed! |
|
|
|
Bitcoin removes the necessity of requiring third parties to keep track of personal transactions
Incorrect if you mean to imply that Bitcoin is not centralized: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1690725.msg16991114#msg16991114The distinction is that the centralized entities are global. The nation-states can't regulate the miners. But the miners are centralized and will become ever more so. It is a winner-take-all economic paradigm. Why wouldn't the global elite love that? Decentralized is not the same as distributed! |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
