If you know that the promise can't be broken because the funds will get transferred when the channel closes, then there is no problem.

The problem is when you have no idea if the promise will be kept. That's not the case here.

Banking = promise where you have no idea if the agreement will be honored.
Payment channel = you know for a fact that the channel can be closed, settling the fund transfer

One is trusted / wishful thinking, the other is trustless and assured algorithmically.

If we are doing offchain txs through an exchange, the exchange can run away with toknormal's and alex's money. The payment channel can't. So it'd serve us better to do it in a payment channel.

Consider the alternative: Offchain transactions with cryptsy-like payment IDs on third-party platforms.

Compared to that, payment channels are a decentralized paradise. It does help scaling if it aggregates payments into less bloat. And it will also allow small micropayments that at some point may be infeasible as ordinary txs.

The creation of payment channels will be a function supported by the protocol. As such theoretically anyone with the knowhow could make such channels. I recently read there are 4 implementations in the works by different parties. So there is nothing inherently corporate or privately-controlled to that. For example the DASH masternodes could be used, say, for providing payment channels for bitcoin.

Δε νομιζω / don't think so

http://vitalbet.com/sport/match/577428

Book closes 31.05.2016, 16:00
DR. CRAIG WRIGHT TO PROVE HE IS SATOSHI?
Yes 2.76
No 1.37

By noobz perhaps. The 1mn coin uncertainty is always priced in, as a fundamental. These coins are considered to exist - not coins that have been destroyed or lost. If they exist, then they have the same potential of moving around as other coins. If tomorrow satoshi moved 1mn coins to bitcoin eater address, price would rise to reflect this. How much would that rise be? A few percent perhaps. So I don't see why would it "crash" if satoshi had an intention to sell some (nobody dumps the whole lot, all at once - that's not how it works). And even if he did dump to the ground, selling his coins for ..300-200-100-50-10$-1$, then the mid-term impact would be less as he would have absorbed less buying power from the market, compared to slowly selling 10k coins for 450-450-450-450 etc.

Me too. It's also way more impressive. Platinum is actually dull compared to silver's reflectiveness (silver=the most reflective metal, aside from being the most conductive one). But it's only for a while... then silver will bond and make sulfides and chlorides that will tarnish it. It's a bummer that you can't really touch your uncirculated coins for fear of damaging them - something that doesn't really apply for pure gold or platinum coins. You can touch them and they will not be harmed by the oil of your fingers - or practically anything that you'll throw at them.

As for the upside potential, indeed. If the gold/silver ratio adjusts towards a more rational level it could easily double or triple.

Interesting...

1) Because fiat will always be "toilet paper". Arbitrary quantities can be printed out of thin air.
2) Because the 200-year old discovery of platinum ensures it.

Platinum has better anti-corrosion and anti-counterfeiting characteristics than gold (having a density of >21g/cm3 - while gold has 19g - which is very close to the much cheaper tungsten) while it is resistant even to aqua regia in lower temps.

You can't counterfeit the weight of platinum with any cheap material like tungsten and if you try to do so you'll need irridium or osmium which are very rare and in very low global supply volumes (=if there was need for counterfeiting platinum, their price would very quickly become multiple times that of platinum). Should I also mention that contrary to gold's inertness, platinum is a prime chemical catalyst and thus extremely useful for industrial reasons. Yet, despite these advantages, gold remains as the #1.

The only uncertainty regarding gold is the price of energy. If energy costs go to near-zero, then the extraction of gold can become much cheaper. There is gold EVERYWHERE. If you look out your window and see soil, well, there is gold in that soil. The only problem for not recovering it so far, is that it's probably in such low quantities that the energy expended to extract it would not be worthwhile. This changes if you have near-zero cost energy.

I cannot prove what is already proven. What do you think the placebo effect is? It's a presupposition / an implied suggestion. If I'm taking this pill, then surely it must do something - otherwise I wouldn't be taking it. Thus I get better.

It also escalates depending the degree of "sacrifice". For example a red capsule may be more efficient than a white pill (all inert / all made of the same substance). And an inert injection can be even more potent than either. Why? Because the subconscious goes like "if I'm going through all this painful process, then surely it must have some positive effect". An injection is a bigger "sacrifice" than drinking a pill. So the "reward" implied is also greater, and it shows.

What you are saying can happen but you must first accept the programming from your environment (in other words being convinced that you have crappy creativity and that it can't get better - when this is false). So you fall into the self-defeating trap of cheating/stealing etc which then "cements" the belief you originally had, which then starts going into a downward spiral of confirmation and repetition.

You are simply uninformed. What I'm saying is also applied in hypnosis and suggestion. It is known as presupposition.

You "load" a sentence with a presupposition and it goes right through.

Actions are the same. They are subconscious presuppositions.

BUMP:

If you factor the subconsciously implied self-limitations, then nobody would want to be a thief. The long-term losses far outweigh the short-term "gains". They aren't gains really.


This is automatically done by doing what is best for yourself. However it will require a broader understanding for the individual to understand what is best for themselves. That's the only thing missing right now.

I believe the closest we have to Satoshi these last years, is this: https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-August/010238.html

That particular email is not known to be hacked (but we can't say for sure that it isn't), there is no spoofing involved, and he also had to register and verify the email to the mailing list:

https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-August/010329.html
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-August/010327.html
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-August/010334.html

The writing style and essence of what is written does not have any troll like qualities like the spoofed "I'm not craig wright, we are all satoshi" message that appeared a few months later. The August one isn't spoofed, it is serious and consistent in writing style, while also trying to "sneak in" some comment of concern for bitcoin itself - as far as node incentives go. Kind'a like, since I broke my silence, let me also say this that is bothering me for a while.

As far as I'm concerned it is legit with very high probability. Which, in turn, would imply that if I'm right then Satoshi was alive a few months ago. It would also imply that Craig Wright writing with one space, instead of two, is fraudulent, and that no writing style change has occurred for Satoshi, despite the passing of time since 2010.

Yes.

There is only 1 command, which combines spirituality, morality and logic. It is also the only command that can lead to a coherent output for societies and individuals alike:

Do what is in your best interest.

The only problem with the above "command", is that people don't really know what is in their best interest because the (current) environment is informing them in the wrong way. We are living in "dark ages" but we don't know it.

For example, if you can steal money and know with 100% certainty that you will not be caught, then traditional game theory will tell you that "the logical thing to do is steal them because you gain".

The problem is that this type of game theory does not account for the hidden costs of the silent observer - which is our subconscious (or superconscious).

When the subconscious watches what the conscious does, it says "if I'm stealing, then this means that I'm worthless to create what I want on my own". This observation then becomes a self-limiting self-suggestion that is extremely powerful. "I'm worthless / I'm a parasite". This is implied, signed and "sealed" by our own very actions.

What we do defines us and, by consequence, prescribes our own limitation - if what we do has self-limiting implications.

Humans have been looking for thousands of years for a system where people can be moral / ethical / law-abiding, without having a god or a policeman to watch over them. They will never find it for as long as they do not understand that cause and effect are already embedded in the human mind.

You steal? You become limited as a parasite. The "judgement" and "punishment" is served immediately as a consequence of our new self-definition. I am stealing = I'm a thief = I am worthless parasite.

Do I want to become a worthless parasite? No. Then why would I steal? Do I need a policeman? Do I need a God threatening me with hell? No.

Likewise for any other "sin". If I'm harming others it's only because I lack faith in myself to promote my wellbeing in any other way. Let's say I'm a worker who feels that by badmouthing a fellow worker I can advance my career. My subconscious sees me harming the other guy and asks "Would I need to be harming others if I could advance on my own? Therefore I'm useless to advance on my own - and that's why I have to resort to such tactics." And at that moment it's sealed that I'm useless. It's sealed that I do not have expanded potential. It's like dis-acknowledging it by my actions. The "punishment" is immediate. The "karma" is instant.

All Game Theory that is based on "rational behavior" while not accounting for the hidden costs of the silent observer = bad science.

Proper Game Theory accounts for the subconsciously implied programming and the associated costs of each action. It understands that there are two thought-streams, one conscious and one subconscious. It understands that what is a "gain" now is countered by a repeated "loss" down the line, where I lose again, and again, and again, because I programmed myself as a loser. So why would I do that? Why would *anyone* do that?

The only reason they would, is because they are unaware of the hidden costs of their behavior. It's 2016. It's about time everybody finds out about them.

BUMP:



...now let's wait a few days while he releases ....documents (LOL) and "proofs" - within ""

IIRC the genesis block coins are unspendable.

Good catch aahahahah, this is getting better and better.

He already said something about ...340GB blocks