I believe the rush was fabricated to draw Blockstream into a political cat fight which of course Gavinmike could win because the majority are easily hoodwinked by "this is for the masses" and Blockstream "is against progress" and are "elitists". I think they wanted to prevent side chains some how if they could gain control over the fork, such as blacklisting all BTC that went off chain.

That is why I urged Adam to cool it in public (no direct communication, just my posts and one unacknowledged private message).

Appears Gavinmike may be losing now as awareness is rising.

We don't need to trust them, just the technology.

The federated servers can't deviate, for if they do, the BTC will be considered stolen and implicitly blacklisted on the Bitcoin coin.

Side chains don't need federated servers after we've eliminated Bitcoin Core (moved all the BTC out of it), which I don't think will take long.

Sorry your ASICs will be paperweights.

You are astute at politics, but a technological whipping boy.


The socialists, elitists include the gavinmikrophones who say we have to have one size fits all and no technological progress.

Simple. Don't expect people to interact in technological communities larger than their Dunbar limit, i.e. allow the maximum division-of-labor to proceed. And the knowledge age allows people to directly access experts, rather than proxied by the Theory of the Firm.

The full employment comes from needing liason experts between tribes of experts of different specializations.

The reason anonymity remains forever necessary every where is because the threat of autonomous reset of reputation will ameliorate trolling.


The knowledge age and the NWO are fundamentally incongruent, because the former produces at such a high rate, the latter's fixed capital is diluted towards 0. TPTB have no power in a knowledge age.



They were forced to get into central banking instead. This time, there is no where for them to transition so they go for total control as last desperate option.

Checkmate.

My goals are much wider in scope and I don't want to get bogged down in politics over which coin will win.

I am just stating that competition will bring out the best.

And I am saying that the anonymous coin and chain that has a wide distribution paradigm is not only more likely to win, but also more likely to be resilient (but I don't mean giving coins away that users dump for fiat).

And I only wanted to box  

(checking to make sure I still have all 21 fingers, toes, and ...)

It may have upside within the crypto community still. But beyond that, IMO I don't see it yet (unless something changes that I am not aware of), but everyone is entitled to their own appraisal.

There is also a real risk that Monero will be replaced by Blockstream's Confidential Transactions.

Competition is good, as it encourages better outcomes.

The Monero whales own more BTC than XMR. They've said that if their effort causes anonymity to be built into BTC, then their goal was accomplished.

No need.

Sorry your Monero vested myopia is very clear.

It is sad how much politics causes us humans to retard production.

Don't expect me to repeat everything again. You can go read and become smarter if you want. Your investment decisions will be affected by this knowledge.

Monero can be 50% attacked by the DEEP STATE for example, because it isn't as popular as Bitcoin. (But no need to do that if it isn't anonymous and or will die economically anyway, which in my rough observation looks like a possibility not a certainty)

Monero can't likely become popular because it isn't distributed to the masses. Rpietila is working on that game.

Specifically he must think the pegged side chains are going to be failure prone and or easy to attack forcing people to stay away from them.

He must think Gavinmike have cornered the world's developer talent pool.

Does he have any clue how many developers do not work on or with cryptocurrency related projects? The sky is wide open for providing an ecosystem for them and competing away from the paralysis of Bitcoin Core.

Yes, but I am saying that any coin that doesn't distribute itself as "free money" to the masses, won't remain viable (for several reasons, please review what I wrote at the other thread carefully) and thus those three qualities won't be sustained if the distribution is not correctly done.

Now you have to prove that is a special case, and not the omnipresent one.

I think you will find the Theory of the Firm is at the generative essence entirely predicated on political gridlock.

Thus mankind is being held by politics every where. And this is precisely why local community based on personal reputation (i.e. our Dunbar limit) can't scale.


Your cited resource showed that men have fought back from 17-to-1 to 5-to-1 since the dawn of agriculture.

Of course I didn't mean fist fight; I mean in the economic competition dimension.

It won't be possible to advance the knowledge age if the sovereign debt-fiat backstop capture mechanism isn't thwarted. Because that totalitarianism requires snuffing out the decentralization the knowledge age is.

So I don't think you have a choice on anonymity. Eugenics or knowledge age. Each person can make their choice because it will be a bifurcation. And I think think even the Bible makes it quite clear we will choose the 666 or be raptured away from that world.

Indeed, the fixed capital age meant aggregating was the key to success. Agriculture required also armies to protect stationary crops.

As we've advanced into the knowledge producing activities, men have been fighting back.

Transparency and merit is on the substantive production. Personal identity is not only not always required to maximize production, it is sometimes a detriment to doing so when politics can attack or slow production. That is not to say personal reputation isn't valuable in come contexts, e.g. local, tribal community.

For example, if I wanted to become a prolific leader of open source projects, I could create an anonymous persistent identity that was not correlated with my personal identity. That anonymous persistent identity would have a reputation that is orthogonal to my personal identity.

The argument against this is that society couldn't hold me personally accountable should I violate the reputation. However this is a good thing because it forces society to not place too much trust in any one identity and encourages a decentralized, fine grain approach to production versus a top-down one. Let me explain by example.

Recently there were discussions about how to organize the management of the proceeds from the launch of an altcoin ICO. The problem is that if you put all the private keys in one person's hands, not only could they run away with all the money, but that person also risks the rubber hose. If you made that person non-anonymous, the pressure to corrupt him would increase (e.g. the IRS threatens audit and the CIA says, "we can make your problems go away").

If you put these funds in a board whether anonymous or not, the potential problems magnify and/or you end up with political morass that wastes the funds. Ethereum is a prime example of having too many mouths to feed (too many managers and paralysis).

So anonymity is telling you that concentrating funds is not a desirable activity. Whereas, sending all the capital to the utility, hardware, and usury entities and wasting the opportunity to focus some of that capital to key investments in the ecosystem is also flawed. And so any solution to that altcoin ICO problem would need to reduce the concentration, in order to be more robust.

But if you compared with what Monero did, where the PoW distribution was heavily front loaded to reward the early adopters, but shared like a Communism, then there is less focused investment in the ecosystem and it probably flounders.

I am saying that for as long as loaning money and charging it to the sovereign debt-fiat backstop (i.e. the Logic of Collective Action) is the easier way for the masses to get "free money", then all attempts at non-free money will be subsumed by that aforementioned paradigm which inherently concentrates power.

For example, the 50% attack on PoW.

So that is why if you are going to succeed, then your perpetual debasement must be high enough to compete, then you need a way to give this away (distribute it) to the masses that can't be gamed such that it really is taken by the wealthy.

I solved this design problem finally!

I am saying that for as long as loaning money and charging it to the sovereign debt-fiat backstop (i.e. the Logic of Collective Action) is the easier way for the masses to get "free money", then all attempts at non-free money will be subsumed by that aforementioned paradigm which inherently concentrates power.

For example, the 50% attack on PoW.

So that is why if you are going to succeed, then your perpetual debasement must be high enough to compete, then you need a way to give this away (distribute it) to the masses that can't be gamed such that it really is taken by the wealthy.

I solved this design problem finally!

Adam has said they are in private discussions, which is what I urged them to do.

He retweeted these Wladmir tweets which are clearly show Wladmir gets it:

https://twitter.com/orionwl/status/613212008020844544

https://twitter.com/orionwl/status/613218317436887040

https://twitter.com/orionwl/status/613214989386678272

https://twitter.com/orionwl/status/613209976857829376

Or some use case that cause a minority to demand it.

So they need to argue some features their hard limit fork will have that drive a use case. If store-of-value is the use case, they have to explain how their coins are better than gold. If their system has no anonymity then it is surely toast. Also how does their minority system resist 50% attack? Whack-A-Mole isn't a viable retort. They will never get the necessary changes to the protocol without SCs.

They can't. I already told you that you wouldn't have enough hashrate unless you were a member of the cartel monopoly that is able to charge the cost of mining to the entire population via the capture of the sovereign bond-fiat connection.

What do you think KYC and 9/11 is all about?

You are socially myopic.

Edit: don't forget a monopoly can also raise transaction fees but withhold transactions for the minority miners. I (AnonyMint) described this attack in 2013 (Transactions Withholding Attack).

And without SCs, your hard limit fork will be absolutely worthless in exchange value.

I think you need to review a thread I wrote as AnonyMint:

No Money Exists Without the Majority

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=226033.0

Duh. Exactly that was _my_ point if you argue there will be only 10 miners.

I am not going to waste my entire day as you drag me into more nonsense debate.


Not necessarily. You always assume Nash equilibrium and are myopic about out-of-band incentives, such as the incentive to apply censorship (KYC compliance) and other payoffs that can come from that.