you realize i can't even bother to read the content of what you write any more; it's so bad. all i can do is think of these images of you and little iCEBLOW:  I'm pretty happy to be a little dog if the alternative would entail ripping people off by participating in a mining gear scam involving none-existent and never-to-be-existent hardware. At least you could have been original and teamed up with Josh and Sonny at BFL. You probably would have done much better. |
|
|
|
cypherdoc you're actually doing awesome job at keeping the plebs off the barbarous relic, i gotta thank shills like you. keep it up.
I've long felt that cypherdoc's stance on gold was almost exclusively to shift a small fraction of stacker's hoards into Bitcoin which could make us hodlers a bundle. It never did and does not now make much sense to risk it all on Bitcoin unless one is pretty hand-to-mouth and doesn't have much to risk anyway. This makes cypherdoc's advice against a balanced risk strategy shitty and self-serving (though it pales to pimping Hashfast for big shill bucks) and thus I never felt to bad about giving him shit. I could see gold going significantly lower in dollar terms under a severe deflation where the USD held together (an unlikely combo but possible.) The catch is that at that point there is a strong likelyhood of 'bail-ins'. Only then would Bitcoin make sense, but so would physical (which is the only thing I've ever had any interest in.) Both phyz and BTC, being resistant to counter-party risk, would have obvious advantages in a bail-in scenario. The trouble with both is that one would find oneself on the wrong end of the pitchforks and 'homogenized' with people who were insider scumbags before 'the event'. I'll expect that then, just as now, these insider scumbag types will enjoy flexibility and protections denied to simple paranoids like yours truly. you've always told me i'm irrelevant so i find it quite satisfying that you would attribute to me such influence. of course, i have been right on gold for 4 yrs running now and you have been devastatingly wrong. but that's ok. no one is perfect; esp you. what's even more hypocritical is your presence in this thread despite your never ending narrative of cypherdoc irrelevance. seems you find me quite important on the contrary. you're still a little dog nipping at my heels though. only now, you've got a partner named iCEBLOW on the other heel so you shouldn't feel so bad. I have no more regrets about appropriately balancing my risk according to my analysis over the last 4 years than I would have about choosing tails when the coin came up heads. Obviously I would have made more money if I had sunk everything into Bitcoin at the time I got involved, but the same could be said in retrospect about any bet. IIRC, you were pumping money in at $30-ish when waiting 6 months could have gotten you Bitcoin at closer to $2.00, right? Smooth move Ex Lax. As for your 'effectiveness' at getting people to dump gold and run to Bitcoin, I'd say it was marginal at best just looking at the price at present and over the last year and a half. If you had been even marginally effective, Bitcoin should be in 5-figures by this time. The only thing more pathetic than someone constantly tooting his own horn is someone who does so in the face of obvious failure which he alone seems blind to. The only one I can think of who nailed it was ~nagle, and he only mentioned his buying once that I can remember (and then only vaguely.) It matched perfectly with the point in time when he stopped talking Bitcoin down. |
|
|
|
cypherdoc you're actually doing awesome job at keeping the plebs off the barbarous relic, i gotta thank shills like you. keep it up.
I've long felt that cypherdoc's stance on gold was almost exclusively to shift a small fraction of stacker's hoards into Bitcoin which could make us hodlers a bundle. It never did and does not now make much sense to risk it all on Bitcoin unless one is pretty hand-to-mouth and doesn't have much to risk anyway. This makes cypherdoc's advice against a balanced risk strategy shitty and self-serving (though it pales to pimping Hashfast for big shill bucks) and thus I never felt to bad about giving him shit. I could see gold going significantly lower in dollar terms under a severe deflation where the USD held together (an unlikely combo but possible.) The catch is that at that point there is a strong likelyhood of 'bail-ins'. Only then would Bitcoin make sense, but so would physical (which is the only thing I've ever had any interest in.) Both phyz and BTC, being resistant to counter-party risk, would have obvious advantages in a bail-in scenario. The trouble with both is that one would find oneself on the wrong end of the pitchforks and 'homogenized' with people who were insider scumbags before 'the event'. I'll expect that then, just as now, these insider scumbag types will enjoy flexibility and protections denied to simple paranoids like yours truly. |
|
|
|
WTF happend to gold just now? Bitcoin holding steady.
I told you not to buy. Were you listening to iCEBLow and tvbcof again? I drew down my BTC supply instead of my PM supply at or near the point when it was at 4-figures. I've don't believe I've said anything about gold for a long time now, but someone who 'listened to me' over the last few years now could be forgiven based on my history. That is, informing people that I was buying BTC at the end of 2011 and selling at the end of 2013. And would think about buying BTC again about 6 months ago IIRC. Dunno what ever became of ~goat, but he and I seemed to have achieved the same strategy wrt gold and bitcoin in terms of buying and selling. This contrasts sharply with, say, you (cypherdoc) who always only says to buy BTC and sell gold. As I say, 'one trick pony'. You've got a 50% chance of being right which doesn't exactly take a rocket scientist to figure out. I might add that your call to 'buy Hashfast' did work out extraordinarily well...for you and a few other insiders. Nicely done...so far...we'll have to see how the lawsuits progress before cementing in that conclusion I guess. |
|
|
|
Checkpoint. People are waking up and we crossed the 30/70 threshold...even here on on the defective wording of cypherdoc (Generalissimo, Free Shit Army.) Question: Will you support Gavin's new block size limit hard fork of 8MB by January 1, 2016 then doubling every 2 years?
1. yes 200 (69.9%)
2. no 86 (30.1%)
Total Voters: 286
|
|
|
|
 Wait..for...it... Later that day....   man is desperate On the contrary, that is about the only thing I can think of where I agree with Hearn nearly 100%. That said, it does seem to me that in terms of overall design (which is all I am even vaguely informed enough to critique) 'old school' in the way Hearn seems to have meant it and to me that is a very good thing. Back in the day, resources of many types were scarce and people had to, by necessity, expend a lot of energy thinking about how to make things efficient. From what I can tell Satoshi thought a fair bit about some of these things. In some cases it seems like he had some ideas which were abandoned half way through though. For instance, the idea of spending all your money and having change returned opens the door for some significant preening but the actually leveraging it to it's potential was something which really never happened. It is worth note that when the dimension of time is introduced, modern resource availability is not nearly as much of a panacea as it is for someone just trying to get the next release out to a customer or deployment. Tight and well considered 'old school' designs have a place even in the 'modern' world in some corner-case efforts. Bitcoin is a classic example of one of these. s/blast from the past/old school/g |
|
|
|
A pool once got around 50% of the mining and fritzed everyone out. The most obvious and common sense thing large miners could have done was to break apart their 'empire' at least on paper so they could mitigate concerns along these lines going forward. It's almost inconceivable that this would not have happened. Cypherdoc and other blatant propagandists studiously ignore this possibility. What sets cypherdoc (Generalissimo, Free Shit Army) apart is that he continues to rely heavily on charts and graphics which are supposed to somehow prove that mining consolidation is not a threat and is not likely to every be because  . Cypherdoc's work when he now known to be shilling (using the term formally) was pretty basic and obvious. Even had I discovered the work in real-time rather than after the fact I would have characterized it as so. He is not known to be shilling for those who seek to bloat Bitcoin at present but his methods are similarly simplistic to the point of being laughable. |
|
|
|
Finally got around to listening to it while having my morning coffee (which tends to last until afternoon and was not bought with BTC.)
another productive member of society dispersers into the wild after realizing bitcoin profit, while he doesn't buy coffee with Bitcoin ( unlike Adam Back who advocates bitcoin should be good for coffee) it's unclear if he left the proverbial note: "Who is John Galt?" before embarking.  I agree that 'bitcoin should be good for coffee' with the caveat that it should be done (in cup-sized quantities) by use of a proxy. Exactly the type of thing that Blockstream seems to be working on in fact. |
|
|
|
sorry for bumping the thread. but I want to ask if this still happens to anyone else. the connection just got a lot worse for me since yesterday.
Today is worse for me today than the last several. |
|
|
|
blocksize has nothing to do with DDOS. transaction fees, on the other hand.. they are just bound to skyrocket at some point - but that would ensure safety and integrity of the network, regardless of blocksize. bitcoin is a privilege, bitcoin is a worldwide decentralized network. it wont save neither greece, nor the "africans" (such fucking racist argument BTW..). you wont be able to buy frappucinos with bitcoins, nor any other immediate useless consumption carp.. remember: p-r-i-v-i-l-e-g-e we lucky - & screw the mass  Distributed crypto-currency solutions have the potential to support 'the masses' no matter what their position in life by taking over certain functions of government when and organized and 'standard' government fails to serve the people. Bitcoin will hopefully end up being a part of this process, but will fail and will in fact become part of the problem if it is subverted. The most likely way this subversion would happen would be that it is induced to outgrow itself and centralize. That concept is the source of my desire to see things 'go slow and with caution' with respect to the blocksize (and other things.) In other words, it is absolutely the lesser of two evils to reserve the use of Bitcoin itself to those who are positioned to support it in a net-positive manner and plan on Bitcoin being a key element in a foundation upon which solutions which can realistically support disadvantaged people can be built. To me, and I suspect many others, the 'restriction' in native used of Bitcoin via fees or anything else is pretty much exactly the opposite of 'screw the masses'. It's just that there is an added layer of complexity which might make it look that way to the casual observer. |
|
|
|
Oh how nice to hear the view from 2865 Sand Hill Road, courtesy of In-Q-Tel (AKA CIA) partner A16 and Hearn@sigint.google.mil. 27 seconds in, and we've already being treated to hard-selling, counterfactual exaggeration in the form of "there not much time left to make changes before Bitcoin blockchain capacity runs out." "1MB kludge" No, wrong, a sanity check/DOS regulator is not a "kludge."  FFS, I'm struggling to not attribute to malice what can be explained by ignorance, but Hearn should know better. Especially as Gavin as told us the sky will not fall because of full 1MB blocks. Finally got around to listening to it while having my morning coffee (which tends to last until afternoon and was not bought with BTC.) I'd say your suspicion is likely correct. The part I was listening to when I pecked out this note was the guy explaining away the 'privatized gains/socialized losses' in the mainstream system as being associated with spreading the cost of theft and fraud around. The guy completely neglected what I suspect to be the major cost in mainstream-land which would be the cost of spying on and regulating individual users at the behest of the govt. There are good reasons to ignore this cost from these guys perspective because they expect to channel Bitcoin into an evolutionary path where it does this only better. Whenever I hear someone make a big deal about standard Libertarian principles but subtly leave out large and important blocks I get suspicious. |
|
|
|
i'll be offline for the next 3d camping. have fun with your new Master "iCEBlow" et al!
2d without your FUD and bitcoin is at $318. ... The guy comes back and we drop down into the $270's. Go figure. yeah, and you're full of shit. when i got back it was already down to $292 and dropping. do you enjoy being such an idiot? Sometimes. |
|
|
|
i'll be offline for the next 3d camping. have fun with your new Master "iCEBlow" et al!
2d without your FUD and bitcoin is at $318. BOO!!! The guy comes back and we drop down into the $270's. Go figure. |
|
|
|
1. mempool: 57000 0conf-Statoshi, 11000 Tradeblock
2. avg wait time for 0confs=45-60 min Chain.so
3. Mycelium no longer able to prioritize fees
4. continued complaints on Reddit of stuck tx's even with higher fees.
5. continuous stream of full blocks and functioning full nodes indicative that the capacity for bigger blocks exists today.
6. TPS able to spike to >100 when needed indicative of greater bandwidth than initially thought.
7. continued lack of wallet development for fee feedback.
8. full blocks creating new deviant behavior.
Each of these is neutral reality to deal with, or great things that we should be thankful for. Mostly the latter. I'll defer on enumerating a reason for each at the moment. What I will say is that when a toilet is getting clogged one can usually tell that something is up before the problem finally comes to a head and water threatens to overflow with turds and toilet paper and the like floating inches away from the rim. At that point one breaks out the plunger and gives the the thing a few good plunges. The obstruction cleared, the water, shit, soggy shit-stained toilet paper, vanishes never to be seen again. This happy solution works when the pipes are in good shape but the system was simply not designed for certain kinds of abuse. A more significant (but still solvable) problem exists when there are infrastructure failures. Happily Bitcoin has very clear pipes (complements of the simplicity and 1MB setting) and simply needs a quick fix to a problem brought about by kids playing around and not using the system appropriately. The solution is to give the kids a slap on the ass, a talking to, and something else to play with. The distributed crypto-currency ecosystem has evolved to where both of these remedial activities are easily accomplished. |
|
|
|
speaking of Mike Hearn anyone caught that one the other day? http://log.bitcoin-assets.com/?date=11-07-2015#1197442Luke-Jr:(it's ironic but true that Mike Hearn has written two changes in Bitcoin Core, and both of them introduced serious bugs..)
this is the one you chose to place your faith in frap.doc ? Cypherdoc don't like him no Luke-Jr. Says he's funny looking. He's had a man-crush on Hearn forever though. Perhaps he thinks that anyone who constantly has a bottle of beer handy is cool or something. |
|
|
|
I don't know, but that alleged "vote" isn't reflected here:  The bleating Gavinistas' paeans to argumetum ad populum are getting very old and busted... Hahahahaha. The sad thing is that cypherdoc himself has like 5% 'distributed' among his far flung empire of hardware situated around the net. No wonder the 'Show us your XT' thread has not been seen much these days. I think XT has more shills on this forum than actual XT nodes. FAIL! On the other hand, as Hearn says, Bitcoin XT can run just fine with 5 copies of the blockchain worldwide. i think the only revason we haven't seen any movement yet on XT is that Gavin is making one last attempt to work with Core dev. if it doesn't work out then we'll have to see where he goes with the fork. no one is suggesing Mike be lead core dev. hence, the wait. So says Cypherdoc. Generalissimo, Free Shit Army. I thought I heard noise about the core devs taking away Gavin's alert key one of these releases. I'm sure I'm not the only one who feels that it was bad enough that they guy has not done much of anything worthwhile over the early part of his involvement in Bitcoin, but that there is utterly no point in having him around at all now that he as stopped doing anything at all except get in the way and attract fleas. He is so irrelevant now that I'd be surprised if even Hearn would take him. |
|
|
|
Bump. And... C'mon luzers. Fire up that winstaller and get busy will ya? |
|
|
|
I don't know, but that alleged "vote" isn't reflected here: The bleating Gavinistas' paeans to argumetum ad populum are getting very old and busted... Hahahahaha. The sad thing is that cypherdoc himself has like 5% 'distributed' among his far flung empire of hardware situated around the net. No wonder the 'Show us your XT' thread has not been seen much these days. I think XT has more shills on this forum than actual XT nodes. FAIL! On the other hand, as Hearn says, Bitcoin XT can run just fine with 5 copies of the blockchain worldwide. |
|
|
|
what we're witnessing is Blockstream core dev forcing Bitcoin into their vision of what it should be. not Satoshi's vision.
nor the vast majority of the community's vision.
Unsurprisingly, a vast majority of the 'community's vision' is free shit. Far from destroying that vision, what the Blockstream dudes are doing is making it not only practical but likely. This because an infinite number of entities will develop and subsidize their own pegged sidechains. They'll do this in order to tap other value streams inherent in the use of customized currency solution. Blockstream is developing ways of doing it which protects end-users via sophisticated pegging (if they choose to protect themselves) and protecting core Bitcoin at the same time. As a bonus, a wide variety of tunings at the sidechain level are possible providing the end-user a much better experience. One 'better experience' would be robust '0-conf' function in cases where that is important (and there are many cases where it is not.) Blockstream seems to have attracted an impressive number of the most dedicated, active, and skilled developers in the crypto-currency space and I'm sure that this is because these people recognize not only the value but the necessity of moving distributed crypto-currencies in this direction in order to have the best hope of meeting the challenges on the horizon. |
|
|
|
Now, for the first time ever, people are starting to have to think about abandoning Mycelium, probably the most popular android wallet, because core dev refuses to address the spam attack with bigger blocks.
Great job ICBLow!
Will you please spare us your brainless FUD? This is why people cannot take you seriously. Mycelium fucked up. That's all there is to it. Think of finally starting to develop a transaction fee market as Tough Actin' Tinactin for some of the maladies that have increasingly infected Bitcoin. If Mycelium cannot handle Bitcoin, they should look into a dedicated pegged sidechain which functions in the way they need it do in order to make their software work. Sounds like they already have a decent sized userbase. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
