Bitcoin was created by the DEEP STATE as a strategic move to coop existing banking and currency systems in order to drive the move to digital currency and do to this power grab in a obfuscated manner that fools the geeks and turns them into gullible accomplices.

Are you not aware of the $3+ trillion black budget of the DEEP STATE?

Donald Rumsfeld (while he was Secretary of Defense under POTUS junior Bush) announced on the eve of 9/11 that such amount had gone missing from the DoD's budget. Conveniently the next day all the records of the investigation and the investigators were eliminated by the airborne attack on that one specific section of the Pentagon (with of course the alleged leaks of former Vice POTUS Cheney commanding the F-15s to stand down and allow the attack to proceed).

Catherine Austin Fitts (former Asst to the Secretary of HUD, Jack Kemp and former Wall Street insider) has written extensively about the Black Budget at her http://solari.com

Bill Moyers did a TV documentary on the DEEP STATE.

Armstrong has a letter from the SEC confirming that all the tape recordings he had of the bankster manipulations were destroyed at the World Trade Center towers on 9/11.

Etc.. The evidence weaves a story.

Control over the drug trade is not about funding as much as it is about corrupting other officials, governments, and societies. It is one element in a full spectrum matrix of power and control.

I can see they are trying to take this forum down again. Keep getting "Bad Gateway" which is what happened right before it went down a few days ago.

---

Edit: a very smart friend of mind relates to me that a Soros foundation was contributing money to the campaign to legalize marijuana in Colorado that was eventually successful. And notes that the-powers-that-be have objectives to simultaneously both restrict and promote drugs. They promote them because a population in a stupor is less resistant to erosion of freedoms and quite dependent in any collapse scenario. They restrict drugs because this gives them legal control over those individuals they've promoted to use and traffic drugs.

Note that legalizing marijuana is also synonymous with agreeing that plants should be regulated by the State. Otherwise, why is it necessary to legalize use of a plant? You see the-powers-that-be are playing game with you, regulating you at the Federal level unconstitutionally then getting you to pass laws at the State level to admit their unconstitutional Federal laws are the law, thus enslaving yourselves by bringing plants under the prevue (jurisdiction) of law.

Simpleton thinking falls for the ploy that legalizing MJ is any form of increasing freedom. Rockefeller's foundations and NGOs were instrumental in funding everything from 1960s activism, to feminism, to environmentalism.

I didn't have a chance to look at this in detail, but if the sender knows the private key, then double spends are a concern and the incomplete mitigation (to spend asap) is a timing analysis vector and afaics brings the traceability right back onto the blockchain.

Edit: myself (and I assume smooth and others) have thought deeply about all these sort of schemes and dismissed them. There isn't likely anything new under the sun except for some exotic new crypto that improves upon the Zerocash, Zerocoin, or fully homomorphic schemes. I would like to see a quantum resistant reformulation of Cryptonote.

Untraceability (e.g. when merging change from prior txns) can only be secured mixing of txns on the blockchain. Mixing can be done on the blockchain using an orthogonal protocol such as CoinJoin, but as explained by myself and smooth upthread, CoinJoin is not autonomous, is not immune to being jammed by a determined attacker, and has a user simultaneity requirement that will prevent it from scaling. Darkcoin mitigated the jammability by implementing masternodes which compromise anonymity against a ubiquitous attacker such as the NSA and they were the last time I checked adding some pre-mixing scheme to mitigate the simultaneity issue but that pre-mixing comes at a cost (and I think also a cost to scalability as well). Afaics after much thought and study, onchain mixing such as Cryptonote's one-time ring sigs (or Zerocoin and Zerocash but we pointed out their vulnerabilities upthread) is the only way to achieve anonymity with ledger-based crypto-currency. Note I also pointed out upthread that one-time ring sigs are not sufficient, and we need IP obfuscation as well. I argue that Tor (and likely I2P as well) are not entirely reliable IP obfuscation (argue they are subject to various attacks on the anonymity).

This stance from you is  most welcome. I am pleasantly surprised and very much willing to prove to you in the market whether I am correct or not. I don't want to just blow air here. I want to make sure we have what we want, whether it is Bitcoin or otherwise.

And I feel now there is a slight possibility I am a marked man, so the sooner I release my ideas, the safer for me personally. I am in a mad rush to do so, not only for reasons of personal safety but moreso because the opportunity is so interesting.

I will be making a post later in my day (GMT+7) to make some counter points on this article:

On the Clothing of Emperors: A Rant about 21.co and the Future of Bitcoin Mining

My main points will be:

1. Marginal-cost of electricity and variable seasons of the Bitcoin price market vs. speed of deployment of fixed capital investment (Economics 101 lesson)

2. (Politically obfuscated) goal of >50% control of hashrate to increase profits in side-channels, including but not limited to a near monopoly on setting txn fees.

3. TDP is only limited on cell phones by the mass and/or extent of heat dissipation apparatus?

P.S. I made some comments about the recent downtime of bitcointalk, and I noticed the timing of the takedown was approximately immediately after I wrote my prior jaw-dropping post and my post which solidified some of the essential points of my allegations against 21 Inc.'s business model. I am not totally ruling out the possibility that the the-powers-that-be are scrambling to figure out how to squelch these revelations. A friend of mine has agreed to pass on these revelations to those who can publish them far and wide in the alternative media scene (think Alex Jones and spin offs). It is possible they wanted to view my private messages, if they don't already have them since I turned off email notification and assuming the elite aren't in control of the certificate issuer for the SSL certificate for this site. In any case, they won't learn much from my private messages. They would need to crack Bitmessage instead. OTOH, it is not likely that elite are concerned about the unproven capabilities of some nobody like myself. They have bigger fish to fry and the masses are probably going to fall into the NWO no matter what we all do here.

Also I should add the Larry Summers and Robert Rubin were instrumental in the repeal of Glass-Steagal during the Clinton administration.

Also note I emailed Martin Armstrong about these revelations and he did not print it, even though he is the one who has been harping on Larry Summers and the move to electronic cash. The only reason I can think of for him not writing about this, is because it is blatant evidence of a globalized plan towards a global Technocracy — something which he denies the elite are capable of planning or coordinating on a global scale. Martin claims the elite are fools who can't trade well and need a public backstop so they can gamble with other people's money. He doesn't agree that there is a global coordination amongst the elite with long-range plans for NWO control. Thus this is evidence that either Armstrong is disingenuous (censors to fit his irrational ego) or worse he is in bed with the elite helping to promote globalized "solutions" such as his calls for coordinate political and bond restructuring reforms harmonized with a move to a NWO one-world reserve currency.

And then most of Russia's resources were handed out to a few oligarchs who are beholden to the cartel. And do you know who was over there organizing that?

Larry Summers.

The same former US Treasury and World Bank official (also was nominated to replace Bernanke) involved with 21 Inc, who first floated the idea of negative interest rates and eliminating cash.

Do some research folks.

Since my last post on 21 Inc, other than posts from smooth and some of one of cypherdoc's post, all I read is delusional denial and irrational nonsense in the other comments about 21 Inc's business model.

You myopic idiots that are emphasizing that mining can't be profitable on phones, are entirely missing the point! The owners of the cell phone don't care about the electricity cost. They never pay attention to that. It is insignificant to them. All they care about is the discount on the device when they purchase it. And they are not going to throw away the phone after purchasing it. They will use it.

The point is that if you have a billion smartphones giving up $10+ a year in electricity to mining, then even if the phone ASIC is 10X or 100X less efficient as mining, the cartel's mining pool still has a huge hashrate.

One can assume phones will consume much more electricity than they do now while on the charger, because the phone discount has to be recovered by the electricity input (and efficiency of the mining ASIC in the phone) over the lifespan on the device. Bear in mind that phones are becoming more efficient over time, so the business model can cannibalize the user's expectation of electricity usage keeping that expectation constant. Yeah the developing world females (in fact most females every where) wouldn't know different. Many males also in the developing world.

Also smartphones are declining in cost (now $65 for basic Alcatel here in Philippines) thus the $10+ per year of unnoticed electricity usage, will become a greater proportion of the smartphone cost over time. The business model of 21 Inc is a 10 year plan.

The cartel isn't deprived of income if the phone is no longer profitable for mining, because they are getting the hashrate cycles for free after they recover the initial subsidy they provided for the discount on the purchase price of the phone.

And phones are upgraded often by users, so more opportunities to upgrade the efficiency of the ASICs in the mobile phones. (Add: and the used phones get handed down to relatives who don't have a smartphone so continue to generate mining for the cartel)

What they can also do is give some token amount of Bitcons to the user of the phone, to obtain ringtones and shit like that which girls love but doesn't really cost anything. Also they can do bundled deals with for example Facebook, Viber, and the telcom carriers giving free connectivity for basic low bandwidth services (e.g. messaging) in exchange for exclusivity and/or marketing access to this large base of users.

What you fail to understand is the cartel wants to own access to every person, so to gain access you have to be connected in the cartel. This is really about eliminating competition. And capturing holistic profit by controlling all access to markets.


Because the user might replace the charger and still use the phone. Chargers are lost all the time over here in the chaotic developing world with zillion people in and out of your house, but phones are guarded more carefully.

Also because you would have to duplicate all the radio, processing, etc that is  in the phone.

Duh!


Nonsense all those comments! Also the guy clearly says they will use sidechains to the micropayments, exactly as I warned you this is a centralization of mining in every facet!

You all can keep denying that Bitcon is the NWOcoin, but your delusion won't help you avoid the fate coming.

rpietila, let's see if Europeans are still so loving and peaceful after their socialism is pulled out from under them by its bankruptcy. Europeans borrowed from the future in order to appease themselves. The reality of that won't be so amicable.

How can you blame everything on the zionists when in fact the people of Europe chose to bankrupt their future?

Defending the irresponsible choices of the chattel[1] will get you no where in this life nor in heaven. Why can't you accept that people are responsible for themselves?

The reason your fundamental analysis fails is because you are ideologically detached from reality. Your intellect is great.

[1] This is orthogonal to helping specific individuals work their way out of mistakes or difficulties, based on your individual appraisal of each individual situation.

On the logscale chart going back to 2011, the projection of the bottom is around $30. The pattern drawn in the OP on the logscale chart shows the price action broke down through the bottom support line as of the start of 2015, thus the next line of support is the long-term line.

I place high odds on Bitcoin breaking back below $100, because there are still too many hyper-proud, overconfident Bitcoin fanatics who don't understand basic facts. Capitulation will likely be some where in the double digits because we need blood in the streets and below $100 is the psychological pain/panic/despair threshold for many.

I am expecting a potential bounce to $320 (to the upper line of the wedge to touch support that became resistance) before the waterfall (stampede) decline to the capitulation bottom.

I have in mind a cryptographic means of preventing pools. One of the fundamental design errors for PoW mining has been the simultaneity requirement that leads to orphans. It is essentially an aliasing error on consensus. That will give you a big hint as to what the big breakthrough in my design solution is. And it turns out I can retrofit it to a non-PoW algorithm that doesn't suffer from PoS's weaknesses, thus our recent discussion on 21 Inc has proven to be very lucrative for me. As usual I (and the community) benefit greatly from discussions with you. How will I repay you?

PoW is now a dead-end (due to the 21 Inc economics) except it has value in attaining the widest spread initial distribution for a coin.

Thus Bitcoin (and apologetically Monero) are dead ends in terms of a decentralized future. I will fork the community and bring in a somewhat orthogonal userbase of the most intelligent Libertarians. My plan is now solidified.

I am preparing to go silent. Any questions or comments?

I for a free market in drugs on the internet, but I am strictly anti-drug in my life and local community. I approve of the death penalty for repeat drug pushers who refuse (after multiple warnings) to reform or leave our local community of Davao City, Mindanao and our vigillante mayor who makes it so we have the safest city in the Philippines. I am for free markets. The drug pushers are welcome to go form their own communities else where. I am welcome to avoid their communities if I so choose.

For the heating appliances then using older lithography makes the mining hardware component of the device nearly free relatively speaking, and the electricity is indeed free because the heat is being consumed.

For the phones, smooth's point has been the chipset makers might be able to fit this onto excess or underutilitized silicon. The electricity is "free" because the users don't count such small portions of their electric bill (and they charge at relatives' and friends' houses too, everything is open house and more shared in the developing world).

The design and mgmt cost can be amortized over this huge scale of billions of unbanked users in the developed world who are eager to have a smartphone.

The competition will be essentially nil, because of the economies-of-scale and cartel level relationships (e.g. Samsung, telcoms in every nation so the device can always send mining shares with no user interaction) required to pull this off in an opaque device that just works on auto-pilot. Once you have eliminated the other miners, you can raise txn fees to any level you want that the market will bear (return of the credit card companies!) and even adjust difficulty to your desired level without a fork by modulating the number of devices you sell into the market
(think it out).

Thus the valuation looks fine to me.

Increase the battery size slightly.

Phones are too thin now. Female users here don't care that much about slight increases in thickness as evident by the phone case monstrosities they wrap onto their mobile phones. Do not forget those monstrosities that females cart around a.k.a. purses or shoulder bags. They obviously have different innate priorities than we men do, namely carting around a baby on their shoulder.

Probably irrelevant. The users won't care nor notice the electricity used. No one here in the Philippines studies their electric bill to see how much their smartphone charging was.

NO ONE. NO ONE. NO ONE.

Capice?!

---

Thankfully there are some rational engineers on this board.

That is the way more sophisticated users of such a mining phone can view the economic proposition. The vast majority of naive mobile phone users in the developing world (especially females) won't even need that level of sophisticated analysis (women don't typically analyse anything). Rather for them it is simple. They get a discount on the device and/or they get these cute ringtones and other walled garden upsells for these "bitcoiny" things the phone gives them. And it is "free", uncomplicated to use (all automated), they won't have to "pay" anything for this. Thus it is a no brainer for them.

I can visualize that.

Indeed I remember my posts and then cross-link them to a hell similar to this map of the owners of our financial world (and yet you all claim you know how they are not fooling you  ):

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21228354.500-revealed--the-capitalist-network-that-runs-the-world.html

My retort based on on-the-ground experience your armchair lacks:


I have relatives in the Philippines who live in a squatter area. I know exactly how these people manage their lives and electric bill — they don't.

In short, they have no discipline whatsoever and run up huge electric bills then pay it off with short-term debts. They are perpetually in debt.

Many of you all apparently have some incorrect fantasies about the developing world. It would help if you actually had experience.

You need to quantify the BTC earned and the cost of the hardware produced. If the former is larger than the latter, and if the electricity is "free" due to the 100% mining efficiency of the heat appliance (because the heat is consumed), then it is a viable economics in theory (assuming the company can pull off the opaque, auto-pilot integration of the mining into the heater appliance). Note smooth's upthread point that cutting edge silicon is not necessary. One could go back to older (e.g. 64nm or greater) lithography to attain the necessary heat and low-cost, and for as long as the BTC generated exceeds the cost of the device and support network, then the business model is in theory viable.

Since you appear to be referring to the smartphone device which does not replace consumed heat, then the assumption is the users don't count variability in their electricity bill. The designers will presumably keep the targeted electricity below the normal variability on the typical electric bill (or below the differences that consumers pay attention to), larger battery, larger charger, and thus the user may not notice.

Remember the target market are dumb (ignorant, naive), non-technical users in the developing world.

Any one who claims this target market is going to care that their device has been captured for mining without their active knowledge and participation, has not spent enough time with ladies in the Philippines and their interaction with their mobile phones.

Larry Summers is likely laughing how we want to bring the unbanked into Bitcoin and they will fulfill that goal with captured devices that mine for the cartels which these dumb (ignorant, naive) users operate and supply with electricity. Be careful what you wish for, you might just get it.


This is pretty much an accurate statement, but irrelevant to the business model. It is an accurate refutation of cypherdoc's Freudian slip.


No you haven't thought it out well. Hope I have helped you above to sort out your mistakes.

Users mining in an algorithm where pools are impossible is positive for decentralization of mining. Users possessing devices that mine without user control possible and which can not be stopped from sending the mining shares to the centralized server for the device provider is centralization of mining. Decentralization is permissionless freedom. Centralization is totalitarianism.

Note since PoW enables the latter case, PoW is no longer a viable choice for the consensus algorithm. The cartels will gain more than 50% of the hashrate virtually guaranteed because the efficiency of heat appliance mining is maximum and thus drives all independent mining (that isn't also a heat appliance) bankrupt.

My God I was just born again. Finally someone gained something (even if only an opinion to consider) from all my effort. Hope you can withstand the backlash. Thank you.

Grand Master 15th degree fluorescent, Nibiru belted to be precise.

Some of you are really pathetic. It is sad.


Ignore(ance) is your special talent.