It is sort of like how we felt when we read Satoshi's whitepaper, "why didn't I think of that!". Adam Back's hashcash concept was already known. The Satoshi Proof-of-Work was a fairly obvious step, but yet no one saw it until he published.

When this hit me in the forehead, my reaction was "this is sort of obvious, it must have a flaw because surely someone else thought of this before". So I as I dug into potential pitfalls it became more clear to me why others may not have entertained this idea before. The key is that true decentralization arises from careful use of centralization and that is what I believe makes the concept non-obvious, even though once it is revealed it seems quite simple and obvious.

It is sort of like how we felt when we read Satoshi's whitepaper, "why didn't I think of that!". Adam Back's hashcash concept was already known. The Satoshi Proof-of-Work was a fairly obvious step, but yet no one saw it until he published.

When this hit me in the forehead, my reaction was "this is sort of obvious, it must have a flaw because surely someone else thought of this before". So I as I dug into potential pitfalls it became more clear to me why others may not have entertained this idea before. The key is that true decentralization arises from careful use of centralization and that is what I believe makes the concept non-obvious, even though once it is revealed it seems quite simple and obvious.

Of course they have a net to arrest the collapse (but not until after the necessary suffering and war to get the capitulation of nation-state sovereignty they demand). The collapse is to scare everyone into the one-world reserve currency monetary reset outcome.

Bitcoin is part of the plan to move us to centrally controlled digital money.

Armstrong finally sets the exact date of the global collapse.

http://www.welt.de/finanzen/geldanlage/article140550440/Es-wird-zu-einem-grossen-Crash-kommen.html


If anyone can speak German and give us a more accurate translation, that might be useful.

Armstrong finally sets the exact date of the global collapse.

http://www.welt.de/finanzen/geldanlage/article140550440/Es-wird-zu-einem-grossen-Crash-kommen.html


If anyone can speak German and give us a more accurate translation, that might be useful.

Appears this was just the warning of what is to come after October 1.

FUD.

I know the hardware is compromised but not to the degree you are thinking.

"Solution" means a change from the existing. Code will still run on hardware, but the nature of the changes required have nothing to with any role that hardware plays.

I understand from what you wrote upthread that you may think that for as long as we use the establishment's hardware, then we can't win, and I emphatically disagree (and have very sound reasons for disagreeing which I will not detail now).

Clever but no the solution is paradigmatic or algorithmic and not related to hardware.

I thought I had a $millionaire angel investor (who understands crypto because he is a computer science guy) until he got sick with Multiple Sclerosis too and got most of his coins stolen. But who knows, maybe he was just a scammer.

I think if I revealed everything in public to try to teach people like you at this juncture, then I might as well just hand my ideas to others to steal from me. Then what is the point?

And the time I would expend doing all that, would be better be spent implementing the damn thing.

I only put out a feeler to see if anyone could part with a measly $10,000 because you all keep asking me if I am going to implement something and I told you I would like to work on it if I had sufficient finances.

Heck I paid $30,000 for a week's programming work in 2001, when the dollar was worth 1/2 or 1/3 of what it is today.

We have the chance to totally change the world and become $billionaires and no one has $10,000 to spare. Fucking amazing.

So please don't ask me again why I am not talking about what I am working on or whatever. Why should I bother?

So what do I get for revealing the details now (versus working in private to implement and earn money on an altcoin)?

I have solved the design problem. I now know the Holy Grail design we need for crypto-currency.

I will give you one hint. Adjustments to difficulty are no longer critical.

Edit: I will give you one more hint. Bitcoin's design conflated what is centralized with what can be decentralized, thus causing the entire design to have a centralized final destiny. The solution is to unconflate.

So what do I get for revealing the details now (versus working in private to implement and earn money on an altcoin)?

I have solved the design problem. I now know the Holy Grail design we need for crypto-currency.

I will give you one hint. Adjustments to difficulty are no longer critical.

Edit: I will give you one more hint. Bitcoin's design conflated what is centralized with what can be decentralized, thus causing the entire design to have a centralized final destiny. The solution is to unconflate.

I am the former AnonyMint.

I agree with Satoshi. Even though Bitcoin is destined by design to become the centralized bankster coin that they (the DEEP STATE or NSA) commissioned, it can for the time being be used anonymously if careful and it is the reserve currency of the altcoins and thus is building an altcoin ecosystem wherein the superior design can be realized.

Perhaps "Satoshi" outsmarted his handlers. That would be historically the wise way an engineer would fool those he works for (knowing that they would continue without him anyway).

Kudos, I did edit my statement to fix the error. (I tend to think of win-win more in the realm of joining a positive investment together not as trade). But you made the same error again, so I corrected your statement also.

When someone buys gold and someone sells gold, then gold either appreciates or depreciates, there is only one winner and one loser in terms of the ROI.

However it is more complex than that of course because the entities may have other constraints to maximize, such as timing, liquidity, etc.. And in general a trade can also be for something both parties need, e.g. you give me cash and I give you good or service, then I use that cash to replenish inventory.

I do understand your point that the best trades are win-win, unfortunately if you always defined a market trade that way, you would be married to Marxism (the ability to guarantee and control outcomes) and thus you would be in lose-lose trajectory holistically.

I understand that you are promoting win-win scenarios (and I don't disagree with trying to be involved in positive scenarios), but even if two parties think it is win-win, they aren't in entire control of that. Only later can they determine whether it was.

A trade shouldn't bind me to promises of what I can't promise.

Sorry I have to disagree with you for the most part. You are leaning communist if you really meant every trade must be win-win.

You've always been the disingenuous debater in every discussion I've ever had with you.

You know damn well that Satoshi's major invention was Proof-of-Work in Section 4 as solution to the Byzantine General's Problem of how to trust an outcome without trusting the participants.

The above Satoshi quote as an aside at the bottom of section 6 (not even the main point of section 6) is stating that the abnormal case of 50% attack where Proof-of-Work fails would disincentivized if the entities doing the attack also is vested in a lot of coins. But that doesn't even cover the case where the entities doing the attack don't have a lot of coins.

Sheesh you and your wise cracks. You know damn well I read the whitepaper.

I am the former AnonyMint.

I agree with Satoshi. Even though Bitcoin is destined by design to become the centralized bankster coin that they (the DEEP STATE or NSA) commissioned, it can for the time being be used anonymously if careful and it is the reserve currency of the altcoins and thus is building an altcoin ecosystem wherein the superior design can be realized.

Perhaps "Satoshi" outsmarted his handlers. That would be historically the wise way an engineer would fool those he works for (knowing that they would continue without him anyway).

Buy a lot more crypto-currency than gold, in the range of a 10-to-1 ratio.

Watch for someone who can solve the SEVERE (see my prior two posts) fundamental problems that haven't been solved by any of the existing crypto-coins, including Bitcoin and Monero.

If that someone succeeds, buy with both fists like there is no tomorrow. Sit back and smoke a cigar.

Other areas of diversification I will not comment on other than what I replied to CoinCube that all those assets will probably not be anonymous. I am only speaking about anonymous assets gold vs. crypto.

How Bitcoin becomes the bankster coin by design...


How do you know the owners of the former double-digit pools don't control several of the single digit percentage pools, i.e. a Sybil attack is present?

How do you know that the owners are not purposefully attempting to distribute their miners across several different pools (all under the same management), i.e. a Sybil attack is present?

The fact that there isn't a visible attack (Sybil attacks are often invisible) doesn't impart any information on whether Bitcoin pools are becoming owned by a few. You can attempt to make the argument (below) that control over the pools isn't a problem, but that is a sometimes orthogonal argument to whether Bitcoin pools are centralized.


ZERO barriers means a Sybil attack is plausible.

ZERO barriers often implies there is no way to defend market-share and profits. Thus it is a power vacuum to be exploited by those who don't want profits, but rather willing to lose money because they want control (and external profits from that control).


If the pools have 50% of the hashrate, then any flag from a minority is ignored. Do you mean make a political statement to the miners imploring them to stop using the offending pools?

So what if the pool owners distribute their miners across 100s of pools they own (which appears to me to be what they have done). You going to play political Whack-A-Mole? Sybil attacks are very difficult to deal with.



And more so implausible game of Whack-A-Mole when they aren't do any falsification, rather just refusing to include certain ("unapproved") transactions. As their hashrate approaches 100%, the have a Digital Kill Switch on humanity.

And what do you do when the government has dictated that only registered and licensed entities can be pools? Then the ZERO cost shifts to INFINITE cost for those who don't sell out to those in control of the power vacuum of the democracy-lie.


If they are wise they do the falsifications from 100s of smaller pools with a Sybil attack. This forces you to the bigger pools with reputations, then they can do it from the bigger pools too.

How can you win? If a pool establishes a good reputation and is not part of the cartel, they will use the same methods they used to capture monopolies else where such as murdering the owners if necessary or more simply just offering pools free-of-charge or even pay miners extra to mine at their pools driving the honest pools bankrupt.

Sorry you can not win.

Bitcoin is fatally flawed and will end up a centralized bankster coin. I warned that in 2013. See my linked essay above.

How do you know the owners of the former double-digit pools don't control several of the single digit percentage pools, i.e. a Sybil attack is present?

How do you know that the owners are not purposefully attempting to distribute their miners across several different pools (all under the same management), i.e. a Sybil attack is present?

The fact that there isn't a visible attack (Sybil attacks are often invisible) doesn't impart any information on whether Bitcoin pools are becoming owned by a few. You can attempt to make the argument (below) that control over the pools isn't a problem, but that is a sometimes orthogonal argument to whether Bitcoin pools are centralized.


ZERO barriers means a Sybil attack is plausible.

ZERO barriers often implies there is no way to defend market-share and profits. Thus it is a power vacuum to be exploited by those who don't want profits, but rather willing to lose money because they want control (and external profits from that control).


If the pools have 50% of the hashrate, then any flag from a minority is ignored. Do you mean make a political statement to the miners imploring them to stop using the offending pools?

So what if the pool owners distribute their miners across 100s of pools they own (which appears to me to be what they have done). You going to play political Whack-A-Mole? Sybil attacks are very difficult to deal with.



And more so implausible game of Whack-A-Mole when they aren't do any falsification, rather just refusing to include certain ("unapproved") transactions. As their hashrate approaches 100%, the have a Digital Kill Switch on humanity.

And what do you do when the government has dictated that only registered and licensed entities can be pools? Then the ZERO cost shifts to INFINITE cost for those who don't sell out to those in control of the power vacuum of the democracy-lie.


If they are wise they do the falsifications from 100s of smaller pools with a Sybil attack. This forces you to the bigger pools with reputations, then they can do it from the bigger pools too.

How can you win? If a pool establishes a good reputation and is not part of the cartel, they will use the same methods they used to capture monopolies else where such as murdering the owners if necessary or more simply just offering pools free-of-charge or even pay miners extra to mine at their pools driving the honest pools bankrupt.

Sorry you can not win.

Bitcoin is fatally flawed and will end up a centralized bankster coin. I warned that in 2013. See my linked essay above.

When you all are ready to get serious then ping me.


That is the same faith we put into a top-down democracy. Fact is a power vacuum sucks in those who can maximize the exploitation of the power vacuum.

You are violating the fundamental tenet of Satoshi's white paper which is decentralized trust, meaning we don't have to trust that people are honest.

You are blacksliding because there doesn't appear to be any solution the fact that pools become concentrated due to the variance cost to them not. It is pure economics.

Now what are the proposed solutions?

If there are none, we are just lying to ourselves and the decentralization is a mirage. And smooth's valuation statement follows accordingly.

As for the scaling of Bitcoin, they will never get there because there are these fundamental problems, such as the design decision to charge a transaction fee and the need to propagate all the transaction data before a new block can be started.

There are fundamental design errors here. Very very fundamental.

Who is going to fix this? And pronto!


There is a fundamental design error. They are just farting around the edges without going to the heart-of-the-matter, which is that transactions need to be orthogonal to blocks.

Bitcoin is headed towards centralization at a few servers. It was designed that way!