Your self-proclaimed superior intelligence is going to waste
I don't claim to have superior intelligence over every member of this thread and certainly not in every facet of knowledge (that would be absurd). I know for a fact that both smooth and Peter R have corrected me in the past. I get frustrated that I can't write something critical, succinct, and factual without inflaming someone's ego. I make some succinct corrections and insights and this appears to set off the egos of those b-listers who are being debated. Note however, the way the discussion between NewLiberty and myself proceeded in this thread. There was no inflamed ego, so you probably missed the factual discussion. Try to review and see how I cordially I debate with those who are interested in useful discussion and not ego wars.
Doesn't make sense that the protocol allows non standard TX's to be accepted in block form by nodes yet at the same time they won't relay or accept them if simply propagated.
The transactions were always valid. To make them invalid would require a hard fork. We try to avoid hard forks for obvious solutions. So the compromise was... As a consequence, non-standard transactions can still be included in a block because they are valid transactions from a block verification standpoint. However to discourage them, most P2P nodes and most miners ignore them. You added to my knowledge. Normally I don't acknowledge, because it is noisy to do so. Just this once, so that others will understand I don't think I have all the knowledge (would be an absurd claim). |
|
|
|
it seems to me that the Nasdaq is not only going to want it but demand it if they want to transact shares off the blockchain. seems to me that Goldman Sachs is not only going to want it but demand that Circle be able to act as a MSB so they can get a return. seems to me that the NYSE is not only going to want it but demand that Coinbase be able to act as a MSB so they can get a return. i also think that guys like Arthur Levitt, Vikram Pandit, Eric Schmidt, Reid Hoffman, Li Ka Shing, Richard Branson, the Winklevii, Andresen, Sheila Bair, Blythe Masters are NOT going to take kindly to their millions of investment capital being vaporized by some politicians.
i also highly doubt that the Chinese Mandarins are going to cooperate with the USG apparatchiks to prop up a sinking USD. not to mention Iran & Russia.
I don't know what part of "centralization" you thought you were refuting.  You appear to be describing centralization underway. I don't know why you think the global elite wouldn't profit from destroying the USD as they usher in a political multi-polar world run top-down with a one-world reserve currency. China and Russia are in the power sharing agreement of the elite and the plans to enslave the minions and maximize fascist profit with a Global Technocracy. I don't have more time to expend on you. Sorry. |
|
|
|
IMO this block size debate is not about block size but other interests.
Correct (I agree). The block size must be increased. Within the current design (even with IBLT) this is driving Bitcoin towards centralization as I have outlined. And only a radical redesign that removed transaction data from blocks could change that. So increasing block size and implementing IBLT has to be done and moving towards censorship (via increased centralization) has to be accepted. The only alternative is radical redesign. Butthurt idols aside, it is better when we deal in reality and not fantasy. I would bother to explain why mentioning Nash equilibrium in this context is not applicable, but I see that my efforts here are not welcome. |
|
|
|
Your whole attitude of riding into this thread on your high horse and 'prodding' people who I have come to hugely respect is pushing it, though.
I respect many of those in this thread who deserve the respect because their comments are factual (or they don't persist ignorantly when someone points out an error) and they don't pick silly fights with me because of ego. Examples include Peter R, NewLiberty, smooth, etc.. Note what I did not write. Did I write they want to associate with me? You're being a know-it-all and smartass and you should be clever enough to predict the reaction and you should be emotionally prepared for it.
Yes I know the reaction of b-listers when they are factually corrected. Instead of recognizing error and moving forward on learning and synergy, they play their egos all over the thread wasting all our time. My mistake is letting them drag me into it, thus making it appear as I am the one with the problem. It seems you aren't and frankly name-calling is something I hadn't expected from you. Kinda sad.
If you interpret a little tease as disrespect then that's entirely on you.
If you interpret "arsehole" as disrespect then that's entirely on you. |
|
|
|
And you haven't understood the technical conversation then.
my apologies, from the tone of your posts, and the your boxing videos I wasn't sure if you were having a technical conversation either, I'll have to have another look. The discussion has been multi-pronged, lol.   Yeah I am a type A personality and a fighter. I hate to lose. I also talk too much for my own good. And all this ego noise in this thread is just a huge waste of time. My first posts were about technical and correcting incorrect statements. This caused a firestorm of egos and character assassination attempts. Ah fuck it, I am outta here, it is a huge time sink. ...
Centralization isn't avoided by such shell games. It is no longer permission-less when your hosting company requires you to be compliant with coming global (G20) regulations on crypto as the war on cash advances. Having such an extreme bandwidth, connectivity, and processing power footprint means it is unlikely you can obfuscate your activity on a home internet connection over Tor or other anonymity network (preferably a high-latency anonymity network so it doesn't have Tor's vulnerability to timing analysis attacks). Anonymity comes from blending normal activity with targeted activity. The future is bifurcated. If Bitcoin continues to be legal in any jurisdiction, it will be very popular so we will need these high powered computers. If it is outlawed to the point where you can't even be part of the network then running in your home computer over TOR will be fine. But BTW TOR will likely be outlawed first. If is illegal in some jurisdictions, you won't be able to run a full node there. But you'll be able to do stuff like hide txns in image files and upload them out of the jurisdiction. You didn't include the scenario which I am confident is the actual outcome coming. That is ultimately (after some gyrations) Bitcoin will not only be legal, but it will be encouraged and very popular. And to run a full node you will comply with all regulations, which includes requiring signed identity to accompany every transaction (automatically done for those who use a mainstream behemoth wallet such as Coinbase, Circle, Paypal, Amazon, Facebook, etc). The Digital Kill Switch. I wrote "I think". Apparently there were a few more points that needed to be finished. thezerg expressed comprehension. That inspires me. I acknowledged it. Then he backslid a bit. I prodded him again. I know he will get it.
This kind of comment is the exact reason why you head over to a forum topic full of early adopters and you can't even score 10-20k seed. You are offended by my competence and confidence on the facts. Yet you are confident that I haven't scored a seed. Should I be offended or smug. Your technical "hints" don't suck which makes me think you might have some ideas in there (I mean I only have time to read 1% of your walls of text), but you somehow think that you are the end-all-be-all of BTC and economic knowledge and you need to "prod" me from backsliding.
Thanks. Sorry but I think I have more HOLISTIC experience than you. I am ~50 years old. I come from an era where the youth respected their elders. This new generation of geeks think experience comes from being smart and they expect elders to act as their peers. I am inspired to be both a mentor and to learn from interacting, but first we must begin with mutual respect and appreciation for the fact that experience comes from doing and not from just being smart nor academic cathedrals. If you are youthful, you can do somethings better than me (e.g. I have no patience nor energy to dig up a $25 computer from the junkyard as you've stated) and in theory you have a more flexible mind than me. Realize the above comment from me was provoked by some arsehole who was offended that I posted after I said I thought I could exit the thread. So it is not something I would have said to you if not for the general animosity towards me in the thread from numerous individuals. You and others disrespected me from the start. That is where the tone of acrimony and animosity began. Any time you want to recognize and respect my experience, I am willing to be more cordial and couth. Otherwise, I will just go pound you into submission with my code. You can rightly say it is my fault for coming into a hive of butthurt Bitards and trying to speak against their idols. I hate the concept of we are all equal and all this politically correct Communist bullshit. I realize I am not respected here, and I will have to go prove myself in the crypto space (even though I already proved myself numerous times probably even before you graduated high school). The truth is that I haven't learned a single thing from you, possibly because you don't share your ideas, possibly because there is nothing there. We'll never know. But from my perspective reading your stuff is just a waste of time so I only read it when someone else quotes you.
Yeah when you start with the attitude of disrespect, then this is what we get. I respect myself because I know what I have accomplished in my life and where my expertise lies (and doesn't, e.g. I have to walk on eggshells when debating gmaxell because his crypto-math knowledge is superior to mine). And it is simply rude to be so holier-than-thou to non-programmers like cypherdoc about technical issues. They make great contributions here by distilling the gestalt of today's markets into something that readers can understand quickly. I try to do the same for the technical side.
Sorry but I emphatically disagree. Cyperdoc makes incorrect statements in nearly every post he writes and is causing a lot of disinformation. I don't subscribe to the Communist bullshit of telling people they are worthy when they are not. He could learn to respect more the experts instead of speaking about that which he is in unqualified to speak about. His lack of humility is Dunning-Kruger-ish. I would be more compassionate towards him if he wasn't such a presumptuous arsehole. My humbleness depends on yours. But I disgress again...wasting time on shit that doesn't matter... it is better for me to STFU... I will see you in codeland... |
|
|
|
I will happily invest if there is a Bitcoin or CryptoNote level whitepaper that can be vetted first by scholars worldwide. Do not need a single line of code released (unless the whitepaper needs some illustrations) that can be copy/pasted. Even ethereum has a good whitepaper (not that I support that project because of IPO/ICO). First of all, I made a public promise a long time ago (and reiterated several times I would) never to associate myself with nor promote an altcoin. I am going to keep that promise. If ever I work on something, my identity will not be explicitly on it. Thus indeed the whitepapers and designs have to be compelling on their own merit. Vetting is important. Development happens in stages. Right now anything I might do is in the angel funding stage (and several months from launch at least), and not only would it slow me down too much to eloquently publish every detail in my head, it would also aid my competitors, and bog me down in (e.g. venture capital) process. Involving process and venture funding would enslave the coin to the powers-that-be. I would eat rice and salt to survive while coding rather than enslave my effort. But I probably destroyed my health in the past by being such a masochist and I will turn 50 years old in June (oh my a half century!), so hopefully I will receive necessary cash cushion so I can take better care of myself. I also have family obligations which consume a significant amount of cash every month (it is not only me and they live in the USA!). Recently I upgraded from my $80 a month "chicken cot" to a $350 a month fully furnished 4 bedroom house with inverter type aircons, hot shower, proper glass windows, and the point is living at or near Western standard. This has really boosted my performance. Angel investors get more coins than ICO investors for the same quantity of dollars invested, because they take on more risk and incomplete information (but they get the benefits of knowing who is the developer and they get to monitor progress monthly). Let's discuss the distribution of coins. Proof-of-work (PoW) mining can distribute coins in free market driven process, but this has the tradeoff of excluding those who don't have the hardware and the technical acumen, while sends much of the capital down the drain to electricity and it rewards those who can rent botnets or devise optimizations to the PoW hash algorithm. Thus PoW is not an entirely fair process of distribution unless perhaps there are mitigating preparations undertaken (see my CPU hash algorithm point below). ICO/IPOs can also distribute coins in free market driven process, sends the capital to the developers instead of to electricity and hardware (purchases, leasing, theft). ICO appears to be superior in every way, except that it can't widely distribute coins in a decentralized process. And it might be illegal in some jurisdictions unless the proper filings have been made with the authorities, e.g. the SEC in the USA. Can you thus understand why any such developer MUST be anonymous? My complaint against Ethereum's (and Skycoin's) ICO was they were selling vaporware. I think any ICO should only happen when the coin is finished and either launched or to be launched the instant the ICO completes. My goal with PoW has always been a CPU hash algorithm that can compete with ASICs (because there is a small ASIC built into every modern CPU) and to encourage every household to mine on their PC during CPU idle cycles, because the household miner does not count his electricity cost. I believe I already achieved this hash algorithm in 2014 (after discarding my 2013 attempt, which was similar to Monero's hash algorithm and preceded my awareness of Bytecoin and Cryptonote). This can actually make the coin unprofitable to mine for mining farms. Mining farms are probably receiving loans from the banksters because the banksters wish to centralize mining. I have a multi-pronged design in mind to defeat them. Your reactions are most welcome. I will read. P.S. I would like links on the actual or summary of the pertinent SEC regulations if any one has them? |
|
|
|
what happened to this? To everyone, I think I've written all I needed to write. Thanks for reading and apologies if haven't managed my couth optimally. Good luck to everyone and hope to see you all on the other side of this chasm.
I wrote "I think". Apparently there were a few more points that needed to be finished. thezerg expressed comprehension. That inspires me. I acknowledged it. Then he backslid a bit. I prodded him again. I know he will get it. |
|
|
|
And also it may not be ideal but its OK if full nodes exceed the home hobbyist's budget. If it takes some $ to rent a small data center to become a full node we will still have "permissionless innovation" for small startup companies. This is what really matters.
EDIT: On the other topic, I also don't think scalability is this huge doom and gloom issue for bitcoin, so long as we allow it to happen! Worst case, when BTC is adopted worldwide it may not be usable for small payments, and you may need to rent a kick-ass cloud computer to run a full node. But that's an effect of too much success... I wish we had that problem today! :-) This is why I'm not in a huge rush to post my ideas on a scalable blockchain. [today I'm running a full node at home on an old junker laptop I bought for $25 on ebay. We have a long way to go]
Centralization isn't avoided by such shell games. It is no longer permission-less when your hosting company requires you to be compliant with coming global (G20) regulations on crypto as the war on cash advances. Having such an extreme bandwidth, connectivity, and processing power footprint means it is unlikely you can obfuscate your activity on a home internet connection over Tor or other anonymity network (preferably a high-latency anonymity network so it doesn't have Tor's vulnerability to timing analysis attacks). Anonymity comes from blending normal activity with targeted activity.
The simple reason why I still do not understand the concerns over increased blocksize and scalability, is because the mining mechanism is not impacted by blocksize at all.
And you haven't understood the technical conversation then. And that is a problem with having any discussion here. |
|
|
|
Cypher, he's not full of shit talking about txns being orthogonal to blocks. He's on the right track. I mean I would not have used the term orthogonal but the real confusion here is that a reformulation needs to tweak the definition of what a block and txn is, so using those terms creates confusion and mental blocks. Think about it this way:
Today every node needs to see the full information of every other part of the network. This is inherently not scalable. What if every mobile phone in the world received everybody's email and chats? The idea is silly.
In fact, the ONLY way to scale is to limit the information propagation across the network. But you need to preserve the essential security of having blocks record transactions, so I would have said that blocks and txns should be not-quite-entirely-orthogonal.
A long time ago I wrote that Satoshi's genius was to realize that disks have gotten so large that you could put the entire world's transactions on a single $100 drive. But in fact he was wrong -- you might be able to store them all, but you can't send them all. On the other hand, its quite possible that he was not trying to replace credit cards, only bank accounts and wire transfers... in which case my hunch is that Bitcoin at 20MB or 100MB blocks works fine. And also it may not be ideal but its OK if full nodes exceed the home hobbyist's budget. If it takes some $ to rent a small data center to become a full node we will still have "permissionless innovation" for small startup companies. This is what really matters.
Excellent. So now if an altcoin is released with this direction, then no one will know if it was me or not, because it is clear that others visualize the concept. In fact, I was not even the first person thinking along this direction. At least bytemaster and the author of Decrits were doing delegation in their designs. |
|
|
|
Money has no value if at least a super minority doesn't also use it as money.
I seldom need to correct you, but that one is actually a fallacy. Commodities are thought to be selected as money because they were useful in trade and consequently people started to hoard them to match their present and future spending needs. While that might be possible, there is another mechanism that is even more valid. The buyer of last resort. Any single entity with enough economic or coercive power can make anything money by making markets for it. The modern day examples are true not only with the various fiats, which are held together by the debt and tax payments, but also in voluntary interaction. My game Crypto Kingdom has plenty of assets that are pseudo-monetary, and some of them have (rumor only) started to be used IRL transactions as well. Also Monero has worldwide only a few thousands of users, but among my friends, it has become as accepted as Bitcoin (or cash), simply due to the perception that it retains convertibility at market rates (which of course is a nonstatement - it either does, or becomes completely worthless, a phenomenon that only arises in the market, requiring everyone to perceive it worthless, contradicting the premise). Only a very interesting post like this can bring me back now to the forum. What I wrote is correct and not a fallacy, yet I think we are still in agreement once we define some terms... My quoted statement is congruent with your market observations and statement. Monero is a store-of-value for a super minority of that demographic that does not need more than say $100,000 a day in liquidity (what is the daily market float currently?), have a speculative interest in (especially anonymous) crypto, and who only want to exchange Monero for BTC (or fiat) and not for diverse goods & services. However, as I first pointed out in 2013, crypto offers a unique paradigm shift because goods & services provided in exchange for BTC can (in theory) be purchased with Monero by a seamless exchange to BTC in the purchasing process. However this exchange process risks destroying some quality of the anonymity that is one of Monero's main features. Money is also a unit-of-exchange and unit-of-account, thus no volatility in liquidity nor price (respectively). Afaik, Monero remains primarily a store-of-value asset with volatile liquidity and price (not a unit-of-exchange nor a unit-of-account). But see below... I'll switch to dash if theres no cash
You seem to forget that money has no value if at least a super minority doesn't also use it as money. Also differentiate assets from money, primary by the liquidity (and slowing declining marginal utility[1]). Money is highly liquid while assets have variable (over class and time domains) liquidity.
Money is not a communist concept and does not require a majority or even a superminority. I also thought so previously but everything around me seems to prove it wrong. The short history of CK has opened up the understanding that the monetary future of the Knowledge Age might be more fragmented than the dominant theory. As TPTB have declared war on money the same way as they have declared war on drugs, money needs to go underground the same way as drugs have gone. Both are very essential to the individual so there will always be people who put their survival first and the government's wishes second.
I have made the following point in my writings in 2015. It is a crucial point and I suspect that many readers did not pay attention. In the Industrial Age, the hedging carrying cost[1] of an asset that is not your unit-of-account was deleterious[2] because of the fixed ROI usury economy that the high proportion of fixed capital investment required. Whereas in the Knowledge Age (as you have recognized and summarized in your recent upthread post) the ROI is driven by active (knowledge) investing and the hedging carrying cost is just another fixed cost that is irrelevant to the ROI from innovation (and usury winner-take-all, passive investing can't get any ROI at all, i.e. OROBTC's complaints). Thus the Knowledge Age can probably prioritize other qualities for money than unit-of-account. And as I pointed out above, instant digital convertibility mitigates the unit-of-exchange dominance problem, but doesn't entirely solve it especially if I am correct that Bitcoin is a Digital Kill Switch. So yes I agree with your conclusion (yet retain reservations as noted), but for different and more specific, generative essence reasons. I hope my post has helped you gain generative essence clarity. [1] I mean hedging against your unit-of-account, the volatility of your asset which is not your unit-of-account. [2] In the winner-take-all paradigm of usury accumulation (i.e. too big to fail, the larger never allowed to fail and shrink), any fraction of reduction in fixed interest ROI is intolerable due to effects of compounding.
I also think that, unfortunately, the mass will be too dumb to realize what's going on and will get trapped inside the cool, cashless society with centralized, state funded crypto, while a Bitcoin resistance survives as a parallel decentralized system of freedom. Hopefully all it does is putting Bitcoin up there and what ends up going global is BTC and now Fiatcoin.
Bitcoin ≅ Fiatcoin; or more accurately Bitcoin ∈ Fiatcoin; or most precisely P(Bitcoin ∩ Fiatcoin) > 0.5 See my recent posts. |
|
|
|
To everyone, I think I've written all I needed to write. Thanks for reading and apologies if haven't managed my couth optimally. Good luck to everyone and hope to see you all on the other side of this chasm. I don't like the idea for Bitcoin of letting the pools decide the blocksize because via the Sybil attack they have a hidden monopoly and can either drive block size very large to gain 100% hashrate by starving miners with less connectivity and thus higher effective orphan rate; or they can make blocks smaller thus driving tx fees skyhigh for their profits. They'd likely do the former first and the latter later, as all self-respecting monopolies do. That 1TB block is not possible even if the 1MB disappeared, because the 33.5MB message size limit still exists. It would need block segmentation logic to be implemented to increase it.
However, even that is not necessary, 30MB IBLT blocks would facilitate about 3GB standard blocks, or 20,000tps. Bolt on lighting networks, or similar, and who knows, maybe it would be enough handle a large chunk of global commerce.
As I explained upthread in a reply to thezerg on his micropayments idea, Lightning networks is for real-time payments, not all micropayments. It moves a payment channel between two parties offchain, but it doesn't address the fundamental blockchain scaling problem of distributed micropayments. At some point the world's transaction rate in the Knowledge Age outscales what Bitcoin can do without being fully centralized and monopolized. But that is okay, because Bitcoin serves us well interim and we can fix this with an altcoin. The age old model is that when the banks get out of control, a few fail (or a few hundred) and it resets as the survivors scoop up the remains. Now with the use of state power, they have taxpayer funded bailouts, bail-ins and all sorts of new ways to destroy wealth.
It was the emergence of the "Too Big To Fail" policy which created this and was effectively codified into law with the LTCM bailout in the late 1990s. To Big To Fail = disabling the clearing mechanism which is necessary for a functioning capitalist society. If you are too big to fail, then you can do anything and be as inefficient as possible, but that inefficiency will never be cleared out of the market. The creation of the FED in 1913 was essentially to formation of a too big to fail policy at the government level (before the US gov would have to go for bailouts itself). But as you pointed out banks and other industry were still allowed to fail. This stopped in the 1990s and TBTF was extended to corporations, which is why every corporate entity from banks to auto manufactures (i.e. GM/Chrysler) have tried to position themselves as too big to fail. This will continue until the dollar fails, effectively destroying the too big to fail enabler. Perfectly stated. TBTF has also been added on the other side of the dollar though with the IMF SDRs (XDR), so we get to break the world now, not just the United States. Here's how: As you noted, LTCM was the catalyst for the smaller side TBTF. Since this happened after we already had the fall of USSR from bond failures, the USA certainly has had a similar risk. XDR are still a small percentage of FOREX trade, but as the USD gets closer to a potential fail point we should see that percentage grow. Jim Rickards postulates that the US might do a gold bail-in and initiate a new gold standard, but I suspect that would be a last resort after the XDR TBTF pops. He details the process the US could use to accomplish this quite well at the end of his last book. Its feasible. Bitcoin could also potentially fill that spot if investment continues to advance. There are factual errors. The Fed was originally created to buy only corporate paper and was supposed to be a backstop on the ebb and flow of the 8.6 year business cycle. Then the powers-that-be launched WW2 with some false flag operations and manipulations of public information (e.g. Pearl Harbor, etc) and with that and FDR's New Deal Socialism, the Fed was tasked with funding the military-industrial complex through the government bond spigot. So the transgression began in the 1930s. That was roughly when the elite was also funding the Bolsheviks in Russia, Hitler in Germany, the Socialists in Wiemar Germany, etc.. Indeed the elite kept their promise, "By ascent or conquest, we will have our world government". |
|
|
|
|
Thanks mikelitoris (is that a portmanteau of clitoris?)
To everyone, I think I've written all I needed to write. Thanks for reading and apologies if haven't managed my couth optimally. Good luck to everyone and hope to see you all on the other side of this chasm.
|
|
|
|
But I guess we are all Marxists...  Yes. The cognitive dissonance is that most men would rather contemplate the system reforming than a totalitarian collapse into a NWO. You all can't fathom a world where the collective can't reform and it literally euthanizes its citizens. And we are forced to fork away from it to survive. I observe that most men seem to go into a binary mode, either collective reform or I am an island with my gold. They don't look for the synergies of the third and only realistic option at this juncture. |
|
|
|
-
when you first registered March 2013 the price was $34. do you feel silly now? I spoke to rpietila in January on Skype. I got around to writing a syndicated article "Bitcoin : The Digital Kill Switch" by March and joined the forum to share it. Around that time of Dec. 2012, I was suffering severe tinnitus, difficulty swallowing, and other adverse symptoms in a tail-spin collapse with my Multiple Sclerosis (after sending it into complete remission at the end of Sept using high dose vitamin D3 for week, then quitting). I was distracted on fighting to survive. At the time I didn't know I had M.S.. I thought it was expected long-term head and throat effects from high # strain HPV infection I contracted in 2006. |
|
|
|
Armstrong opened my eyes to reality.
[...] he has been selling his conferences on world collapse [...] I like his ramblings about history but don' t like his simplifications of opponents or people with a different view. It really went south for me when he avoided a factual debate with Denninger on his 'one dollar of capital' suggestion in relation to fractional reserve banking. The beginning of that debate was here, and it went on for a few thread pages. Armstrong chimed in with a few more blog posts on the subject matter since: Creating Market Depth: The First Step in Creating an EconomyBut I guess we are all Marxists... Yes. The cognitive dissonance is that most men would rather contemplate the system reforming than a totalitarian collapse into a NWO. You all can't fathom a world where the collective can't reform and it literally euthanizes its citizens. And we are forced to fork away from it to survive. I observe that most men seem to go into a binary mode, either collective reform or I am an island with my gold. They don't look for the synergies of the third and only realistic option at this juncture. |
|
|
|
Gold and silver are no longer money. They are illiquid assets that will become incredibly more illiquid in the coming war of private assets. Gold is very liquid in physical sense, not sure how else you would mean. My upthread post. |
|
|
|
if tx's don't have to be "put in blocks" in your altcoin, logic follows that there are no blocks.
Illogical. i am not a programmer
Ah that likely explains your lapses in logic. you couldn't have been more correct than me.
Rpietila can I believe probably atest I was buying 1000oz bars below $9 in 2008. For sure he knows I was selling him rounds I minted in the $9s. btw, you seem to think gvts are going to continue to grow and take over the world. here's a great chart from Calculated Risk that shows shrinkage of the public sector jobs under Obama and since the crisis.
Thanks for a great example of your myopia and cherry-picking data. This is why Armstrong is correct that those who don't correlate all the data will be blinded. You forgot that those on welfare are effectively government "employees" (both do no productive "work"). As I warned you, that when we dig into specifics, it will be clear I am correct.   i also think this graph is fascinating. it shows the US national murder rate heading steadily down since the 1990's. i'd like to think that might be because of the internet and a spreading social consciousness worldwide as ppl link up. that means there's hope for a better world perhaps.
Murder is only one type of crime. You must look at total crime and also don't forget to include corruption which is becoming more rampant. The turn on the chart since the 2008 unemployment crisis began is because the citizens are now enslaved outside of prison in terms of being married to government welfare and long-term unemployment insurance.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USA_Freedom_ActCritics assert that mass surveillance of the content of Americans' communication will continue under Section 702 of FISA[7][8] and Executive Order 12333[7][9] due to the "unstoppable surveillance-industrial complex"[10] despite the fact that a bipartisan majority of the House had previously voted to close backdoor mass surveillance. your doom and gloom is tiresome. here's the greatest conspiracy of all: is Anonymint a paid NSA shill?
Ah so I was spot-on in my assessment of the source of your cognitive dissonance.  |
|
|
|
if tx's don't have to be "put in blocks" in your altcoin, logic follows that there are no blocks.
Illogical. i am not a programmer
Ah that likely explains your lapses in logic. you couldn't have been more correct than me.
Rpietila can I believe probably atest I was buying 1000oz bars below $9 in 2008. For sure he knows I was selling him rounds I minted in the $9s. btw, you seem to think gvts are going to continue to grow and take over the world. here's a great chart from Calculated Risk that shows shrinkage of the public sector jobs under Obama and since the crisis.
Thanks for a great example of your myopia and cherry-picking data. This is why Armstrong is correct that those who don't correlate all the data will be blinded. You forgot that those on welfare are effectively government "employees" (both do no productive "work"). As I warned you, that when we dig into specifics, it will be clear I am correct. i also think this graph is fascinating. it shows the US national murder rate heading steadily down since the 1990's. i'd like to think that might be because of the internet and a spreading social consciousness worldwide as ppl link up. that means there's hope for a better world perhaps.
Murder is only one type of crime. You must look at total crime and also don't forget to include corruption which is becoming more rampant. The turn on the chart since the 2008 unemployment crisis began is because the citizens are now enslaved outside of prison in terms of being married to government welfare and long-term unemployment insurance. And also due to the dead-cat bounce of the USA economy to by end of 2017. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USA_Freedom_ActCritics assert that mass surveillance of the content of Americans' communication will continue under Section 702 of FISA[7][8] and Executive Order 12333[7][9] due to the "unstoppable surveillance-industrial complex"[10] despite the fact that a bipartisan majority of the House had previously voted to close backdoor mass surveillance. your doom and gloom is tiresome. here's the greatest conspiracy of all: is Anonymint a paid NSA shill?
Ah so I was spot-on in my assessment of the source of your cognitive dissonance. |
|
|
|
You do realize gold and silver are THE only monies out there that are not “credit based” or derive their values via the credit markets
Gold and silver are no longer money. They are illiquid assets that will become incredibly more illiquid in the coming war of private assets. The war on cash has been long and ongoing. Bitcoin is as of now the most stalwart defense, but it is in its infancy.
But a profound paradigm shift is upon us because every human will be always connected with their smartphone, and thus physical cash dies. And with this gold's black market dies too and becomes incredibly illiquid except for institutions that are in the back pocket of the system. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
