and not getting caught?
Don't assume she won't be caught in 2018 or so. TPTB are letting everyone incriminate themselves first, so then we move into the totalitarian smashup/takedown. |
|
|
|
b/c i just debunked the main spam attack the Blockstream devs have been scaring everyone with
 I am seriously thinking (for my efficiency) you need to go on my ignore. I have no one on ignore. This would be quite an accomplishment, because I usually think all information (even noise) has some value. Again you are missing the point. It isn't who are the largest miners today with 1 MB blocks, it is who would be the largest or only miners and node operators with 20 MB blocks.
Yup again and again and again... |
|
|
|
i'm quite sympathetic to the concept of making Bitcoin digital gold. that's why this thread was born.
however, what the 1MB apparatchiks are missing is that Bitcoin really does represent the "ideal money". and that includes it being used widely in a manner that gold was never able to achieve. and that means, widespread worldwide adoption that crosses borders and gets into the hands of individuals. for it to be considered digital gold, however, i already talked about how that requires cheap reliable dependable tx confirmations. that is b/c Bitcoin is digital; it can't be held, weighed, shaped, coveted, etc. all the normal tangible aspects that poor ppl covet or expect from physical gold.
I agree. I also like your example of the African kid who has to witness--with his own eyes--Bitcoin getting him the things he wants, before he'll ever be able to fathom that those digits on his phone are more valuable than the paper notes his father uses to purchase food from the market, or the little diamonds he once saw a man killed for. We're not as smart as we think. We need to see, touch, and experience something before we can really understand that thing. You can't learn to ski by reading online tutorials--no matter how well you think you grok body mechanics and the laws of physics. Similarly, the world will only understand (and come to appreciate) bitcoin by getting out there and using it. The centralized financial institutions will be providing that scalability for you. It won't scale to micropayments and it won't be decentralized. Political fascist result. Enjoy. All this ideological delusion is pitiful. Does anyone have a grip on reality? Please speak up. |
|
|
|
The ad hominem slights and MP style roastings seem to be counter productive, though they are fun.
Because this isn't technological disruption. It is politics. And you wonder why I would never put my name on any altcoin. Note the distinction between Bitcoin and cell phone adoption. And that is why I call nonsense MP's claim that Bitcoin is the only possible entrant. The competition over what is money is inexorable. And Bitcoin doesn't have the attributes to take over virally (i.e. decentralized). Bitcoin stopped growing decentralized about when it peaked at $1000, which was the entire point of my thread on that issue. The next ramp is the centralized ramp out to the masses. |
|
|
|
Here's a great example, in which Frap.doc doesn't even bother trying to substantiate his wacky, vaguely senile assertion that the bank bailouts Satoshi singularly cited in Genesis had something to do with Visa/Paypal:
The Genesis Block mentions bailouts for TBTF banks. It does not mention Visa or Paypal.
"banks" were used as a broad term to encompass Visa/Paypal Satoshi actually used the term "financial institution" in the white paper. He focusses heavily on the transactional aspects of Bitcoin (e.g., the Visa/Paypal angle): Commerce on the Internet has come to rely almost exclusively on financial institutions serving as trusted third parties to process electronic payments. While the system works well enough for most transactions, it still suffers from the inherent weaknesses of the trust based model. Completely non-reversible transactions are not really possible, since financial institutions cannot avoid mediating disputes. The cost of mediation increases transaction costs, limiting the minimum practical transaction size and cutting off the possibility for small casual transactions, and there is a broader cost in the loss of ability to make non-reversible payments for non-reversible services.
There's actually no mention of central banks in the white paper whatsoever (although he does use the term "central authority" twice). The only mention of gold is in Section 6: The steady addition of a constant of amount of new coins is analogous to gold miners expending resources to add gold to circulation.
TL/DR: The white paper focusses more heavily on the transactional aspects of bitcoin than on its potential as a replacement for fiat currency/gold. The only technological issue Satoshi solved was a form of consensus that can't scale decentralized. So while he might wish some related decentralized crypto technology can compete with the centralized financial institutions, fact is he didn't create such a technology. Thus I must conclude he planted a Trojan on Bitcoin itself as I explained a few posts back. |
|
|
|
When we become aware of ourselves and ourselves to others, we develop more of which we are aware in ourselves and between others.
So true. As I have become more aware of my attributes, it has enabled me to be more attuned to which relationships work smoothly for me and why. Even if astrology is just a thought process, it is worthwhile if it is worthwhile to the person applying (your mileage may vary). And my point is that life is a relative process with no permanent, global theories. Entropy wouldn't allow it. Life couldn't exist if there were permanent theories (change would be predetermined). The laws of entropy might be permanent and fundamental because in them change is inexorable and relativity is never absolute. |
|
|
|
Central bank vs central authority in this context is a distinction without a difference.
Another point that follows from the key word "central" is that Visa doesn't have a monopoly on payment (although arguably close to one as we move digital and away from cash). Disrupting a central authority is not the same as competing against Visa. |
|
|
|
notice how none of the Blockstream devs come in to the thread on Reddit, where we know they hang out, to challenge me on this
Perhaps because unlike stupid me, they don't waste their scarce time on n00bs who will bury relevant discussion in useless noise. |
|
|
|
and you know what? from the beginning, even before we found out about the large Chinese miners, i said this is a highly dubious attack that any such large miner should want to perform. large blocks do not change the fact that miners will want first and foremost the block reward and should only continue to form the smallest, most efficiently propagating blocks they can so as not to be orphaned. an attacker still risks losing their entire hardware investment by destroying the system in which they participate. i've contended that the blonde in the Governing Dynamics video from John Nash is equivalent to either the the selfish or 51% miner attack. they won't do it b/c all miners want to get laid.
Nash equilibrium doesn't apply in a system with out-of-band incentives. |
|
|
|
I also thought astrology was bullshit. But as hard as I tried, I was proven wrong in my experience (now that isn't a double-blind survey but relativity can't be i.e. your experience may be different).
I'm not surprised at all. People ( such as myself) who are drawn toconflate "conspiracy theories " with data correlation tend to be suspicious about everything except the most obvious fraudsassume that everything that can't be falsified within their (our) data set is a fraud (and should be ignored thus further limiting their <our> available armchair dataset in a self-reinforcing myopia). ftfy |
|
|
|
I hope that people reading this thread do not skip this comment, so they can save time by skipping everything else you've written and everything else you will write from now on.
That assumption does not follow from any other theoretical point you had in mind. With that proclamation your are conflicting with your stated conceptualization of chaos theory. |
|
|
|
I also thought astrology was bullshit. But as hard as I tried, I was proven wrong in my experience (now that isn't a double-blind survey but relativity can't be i.e. your experience may be different).
I'm not surprised at all. People who are drawn to conspiracy theories tend to be suspicious about everything except the most obvious frauds. You assume I made any global assumption (don't conflate what you read with what wasn't written but in your desired bias). All I stated is that in my experience I have noticed that early period Cancers have a tendency to be more proactive (rebellious) than those later. Ditto my observation about all Cancers being so incredibly attuned to details and ramifications about the background of intentions. I have tried (even again recently) to find a case where it isn't true (even I subjected myself to complete loss making the assumption that my prior experience won't repeat). Try as I might, I always fail to. Until I find a case that disproves the theory, then I have to assume that in my experience it is true (that is not a statement of truth globally). How many times I have written that I am not omniscient. You appear to be leaning towards a simpletoncompartmentalized/presumptuous thinker (so far). Afaics, your conceptualization of chaos is so myopic, but we need to dig in to that to ascertain for sure where we both stand. Due to relativity, we must triangulate to get some synergy on understanding each other. You do realize that every double-blind survey is subject to being entirely false due to the laws about entropy. The veracity it provides is only relative. |
|
|
|
The Genesis Block mentions bailouts for TBTF banks. It does not mention Visa or Paypal.
"banks" were used as a broad term to encompass Visa/Paypal Dunning Kruger simpleton (to a hammer everything is a nail) extrapolation on 'roids again. More likely he just hadn't figured out how to scale it yet. And left it as an open problem for a new altcoin, because he said before he left that the fundamental Bitcoin design was frozen forever. As I hope, one of the programmers working for the DEEP STATE to implement Bitcoin planted it as a Trojan horse on itself. And now I am about to avail of it. I am communicating with Satoshi (in a metaphoric way). it is a revolution. but it needs to be widely adopted.
Grasshopper the cell phone was a revolution too but it didn't require any preachers in forums to make it happen. Note the distinction between technological disruption and bullshit political delusion. |
|
|
|
Mentioning that technological train wreck doesn't help make your case. At least for those us who are not n00bs or junior programmers. |
|
|
|
Game over, Frap.doc. Thus Saith The LORD. Amen! of course not. as long as you continue to constrain it to 1MB. Cypherdoc is correct. Nick Szabo and Oleg Andreev are both wrong. [further deranged babbling] The point Szabo retweeted (and favorited) is that it's not possible for Bitcoin's volumes to approach Visa-scale just by using gigantic blocks. We simply can't get there from here. Simply super-sizing blocks is not true scaling. We need side/tree/Lightening/ alt chains to even plan the start of the long journey towards coming close to approaching in theory the subject of scaling to Visa+Paypal+gold+TBTF zombie bank levels. Diverse/diffuse/defensible/resilient blockchains are not a substitute for specialized/proprietary/centralized/optimized real-time Visa-type retail POS systems or consumer friendly Paypal-style payment systems. In short, it "won't run" (decentralized) at Visa scale with large blocks. I was correct in my terse rewording. Good to see the word I bolded appear in your post. So I assume you've gotten my latest point about the evils of lockin with pegged side chains. But you've still got to accede to my point that since pegged side chains are a centralization end game (per the logic I laid out upthread), then interoperability amongst innumerable alts is not a substitute for a single design that actually scales. There are no ways to avoid what is coming at you. My train is unstoppable now, even I am not the one who implements it. no, no, we learned from the great programmer, TPTB, that he means the program will not run  You have an extraordinary Dunning Kruger talent for fooling yourself into believing that two statements are not logically equivalent. |
|
|
|
MP et all can force their will only until Blockstream's pegged side chains arrive. Then afaics his GavinCoin short is rendered impotent since GavinCoin can be forked as a pegged side chain. What say he this?
http://log.bitcoin-assets.com/?date=11-12-2014#95116409:10:20mircea_popescu:fluffypony all future coin, of any type, and more generally all future human industry of all types is indelibly linked to bitcoin 09:10:26assbot:[MPEX] [S.MPOE] 18250 @ 0.00067111 = 12.2478 BTC 09:10:36mircea_popescu: this is a fact and it's not going away except in fiction.So we see he isn't that omniscient after all. Who is going to relay the above epiphany that is going to ruin his day, year, and reputation? Can someone remind me his forum username? I will PM him a link to this post. It is going to be fun when he eats those bolded words. |
|
|
|
"A decentralized payment system must not depend on a single person's companies decisions from financial conflicts, even especially if this person company is a composes 2 core developers and 3 commiters. Hard constants and magic numbers in the code deter the system's evolution and therefore should be eliminated (or at least be cut down to the minimum). Every crucial limit (like max block size or min fee amount) should be re-calculated based on the system's previous state. Therefore, it always changes adaptively and independently, allowing the network to develop on it's own.
CryptoNote has the following parameters which adjust automatically for each new block:
1) Difficulty. The general idea of our algorithm is to sum all the work that nodes have performed during the last 720 blocks and divide it by the time they have spent to accomplish it. The measure of the work is the corresponding difficulty value for each of the blocks. The time is calculated as follows: sort all the 720 timestamps and cut-off 20% of the outliers. The range of the rest 600 values is the time which was spent for 80% of the corresponding blocks.
2) Max block size. Let MN be the median value of the last N blocks sizes. Then the "hard-limit" for the size of accepting blocks is 2*MN. It averts blockchain bloating but still allows the limit to slowly grow with the time if necessary. Transaction size does not need to be limited explicitly. It is bounded by the size of the block."
ftfy Indeed Bitcoin is broken no matter what choice is made on block size. That is the point. It ain't Black & White. |
|
|
|
what's your skype address?
That should be you first. Any way never mind. I don't have a debt to you. |
|
|
|
having invested before them must mean something.
Many possible meanings, not all (mostly none of) which you assume. For example, some were too busy actually accomplishing work on other projects and weren't yet focused on Bitcoin. Your extrapolations of your value to the Bitcoincrypto-coin ecosystem are afaics beyond nonsense and loitering in dangerous proximity of the slobbering lunatic realm. Go try to find the above writing style on Armstrong's blog. You will not. |
|
|
|
blah, blah, blah from the Monero pumper. btw, i see you cleaned up your sig to hide that fact  Did you see the point of the sig? If one were to follow, "I could not agree more that developers should not be in charge of the network rules. Which is why - in my opinion - hard forks cannot be controversial things. A controversial change to the software, forced to be adopted by the public because the only alternative is a permanent chain fork, is a use of power that developers (or anyone) should not have, and an incredibly dangerous precedent for other changes that only a subset of participants would want." one might find that, "A decentralized payment system must not depend on a single person's decisions, even if this person is a core developer. Hard constants and magic numbers in the code deter the system's evolution and therefore should be eliminated (or at least be cut down to the minimum). Every crucial limit (like max block size or min fee amount) should be re-calculated based on the system's previous state. Therefore, it always changes adaptively and independently, allowing the network to develop on it's own. CryptoNote has the following parameters which adjust automatically for each new block: 1) Difficulty. The general idea of our algorithm is to sum all the work that nodes have performed during the last 720 blocks and divide it by the time they have spent to accomplish it. The measure of the work is the corresponding difficulty value for each of the blocks. The time is calculated as follows: sort all the 720 timestamps and cut-off 20% of the outliers. The range of the rest 600 values is the time which was spent for 80% of the corresponding blocks. 2) Max block size. Let MN be the median value of the last N blocks sizes. Then the "hard-limit" for the size of accepting blocks is 2*MN. It averts blockchain bloating but still allows the limit to slowly grow with the time if necessary. Transaction size does not need to be limited explicitly. It is bounded by the size of the block." Appears Monero attempts the best that can be done within the PoW paradigm that Satoshi provided. To truly reach for decentralization on auto-pilot is going to require a new fundamental design. You've argued in the clearest way that political mind controllers should get the fuck off our lawn! |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
