Sociopathology has nothing to do with this.

Your quotes are blatantly taken out of the context of the conversation we had.
You have taken two parts separated by time and discussion, and claim it is revision.
In fact, they are saying the same thing, asked through two different ways, but since
you are stupid you do not understand that.

With majority of the question that I asked, you never give an appropriate response,
if I recall. Most of your answers (with your alt troll account Alex.BTC) were superficial
and required no thought, like a simpleton. Again, you perform the same feats of
arguments that are worthless and do not prove true things, but word play and
word games.

People who are smart know the difference here.




You fool, you never answered it in all the pages we discussed. I had to write out every
word plainly at the end again because you are incapable of understanding anything I was
saying. Its like feeding a baby. Now you again bringing it back up and again look
retarded since you still haven't answer it. You never answered any of my questions.
You continued to deflect everything, ignoring my main argument to only argue stupid
unimportant issues. This is another unimportant issue.

I had questions. You deflected my questions and didn't want to answer. You don't want
answers, you just want people to follow you and take your word. You think miners are
absolute. You seek full control and full obedience. That is not Bitcoin and you will learn
the hard way it seems.

I do not understand why you are picking a fight, unless it is out of pure ego.




Once again, if people take the time to read that part of the discussion, Troll Buster has
taken my statements out of context. At that time, I proved Alex.BTC (the alt of Troll
Buster) that his evidence was wrong with one simple answer. He screwed up the timeline
of events and never acknowledge that aspect and moved on in the discussion. I proved it
and he couldn't man up. Meanwhile, where is the part where I provided evidence to something
that was later proven incorrect and I did not correct myself?

It seems by this current ranting, he has had a hard time dealing with our prior discussions.
Your inability to move on and your insistence to "get me" only proves that I may have valid
points worthy of contemplation, not that they are worthless. If they truly were worthless,
they are not worthy of comment. yet here you are again, rehashing old issues.

Wow, look at that replay. Slow that down to half speed now.
That's a good look'n ass right there, if I could say so myself.

Hey, where did you get this video from? Is this my bathroom?
Did Chinese intelligence give this to you? You sick bastard.

How much do they actually pay for your garbage?

You don't care about Bitcoin, you are malicious.

Yes, Colombo. You have figured it out, I am a dishonest computer. Beep Boop.
You so smart, now go make another account and accuse someone else of being me.
(Which is really just me accusing me of being me though, but who isn't me, right?)

Anyone can read my past posts and see that I advocate for the most secure Bitcoin Network type.
If I was paid, I would be arguing to centralize the network and get rid of raspberry pis.

Actually, both Cuber Krypton and Troll Buster are my alt accounts.
Most anyone reading this is also my alt account.

I control over 100 septillion accounts on the internet and in telecommunication systems
that all talk to each other and any random real human who comes along. Chances are
that if you have conversed with anyone anywhere, it was always likely just me all along.

Remember when you saw that person and mentioned that thing and they didn't know
what you were referring to? Yeah, that's because you were originally talking to me that
time. I then forgot to contact that person after our conversation and pretend to be you,
so that you both had the same full recollection and didn't catch on to what was occurring.

I am Satoshi Nakamoto.
I am Gavin Andresen.
I am Greg Maxwell.
I am Craig Wright.
I am Roger Ver.
I am Jihan Wu.
I am Theymos.
I am Core.
I am Unlimited.
I am the attacker.
I am the defender.
I am almost everyone and everything now.

Anyone who makes arguments or uses phrases that are consistent with mine,
were always me. That is not paranoia, but logical observation and deduction.
I admit I was all those people all along.

Ask yourself, have you ever met in person anyone famous in the bitcoin space,
or has it always been through a computer screen? Ah, yes now you see, it was
green screens all along and none of these people actually exist in physical form.


Beep Boop.

Yeah guys don't listen to me,
nothing I say is of any value.
I am known for this.

Anyone want an autograph?
Might have value after I die.

But I'm no one of importance,
so pretend I was never here.

Immutability in a blockchain system only actually exists through the
decentralized and independent node network. Immutability is only a by-
product manifestation of that properly functioning validation system. Through
enforcement of the rules by a true decentralized node network (verifying
nodes) the blockchain can maintain a certain probability of immutability.
Without that independent verification of the miner's block work and
enforcement of current rules, immutability is always 0%.

If a cryptocurrency or a blockchain system is created and/or maintained by a
node network of banks, corporations, or government agencies, any belief of
immutability of this chain is always wrong and an illusion. Banks and
corporations are obviously legally regulated and mandated by law to comply
with valid court orders and governmental instructions. If a government deems
something as bad/illegal/confidential/national security interest/etc on a
blockchain that is maintained by the banks or corporations, obviously they
will be able to "undo valid block work". When this occurs, any illusions that
their chain was immutable falls away and they will then plainly see why it
was always 0%.

The "immutability probability" only comes about because the enforcement of
the rules are disbursed between all participants, even average citizens. Not all
participants need to perform this enforcement, but all that do willingly and
altruistically are protecting the network from many different forms of attacks,
whether internal or external to the network. They are the censorship-resistance.
These people are "Soldiers of Immutability" who stand watch to protect
everything that has been built and whats to come. By their voluntary acts,
Bitcoin exists today as immutable and secure. Without them, Bitcoin becomes
one of the greatest scam/tragedies of modern day, IMO. It transforms from a
"digital truth" into a OneCoin scam/ponzi immediately.

Thus, immutability of a blockchain that is created and maintained by a
corporation or bank is automatically not immutable since they are legally
compellable and responsible.


As for how to create a blockchain system for legal documents/property
exchange (ignoring immutability since I addressed that above), that is a
whole other issue. The truth is, ultimately a governmental registration
system needs to exist with this corporate/bank blockchain since legal
property is being recorded. For example, a blockchain can not replace a
court filing system or governmental vehicle registration system, but
could be used as an addition to it. The problem is that the addition is
redundant and brings no (new) value to the current system. Even if a
government had their own document blockchain, it serves no higher
purpose than the current systems they already use.

The blockchain was ONLY created to circumvent the law and disburse
liabilities among untrusted participants. It is that simple, yet so massively
misunderstood. The blockchain was the mechanism that needed to be crafted
in order to perform that which is not allowed and controllable under the law.
It is not a simple ledger. It provides for much greater things.

Basically,

(1) You would scan all finalized signed agreements into a PDF or JPEG and then hash that file.
That file and all of it's contents are now representable as that hashed string.
If I change that hash string by a single character, the contents of the file would not match.

(2) You then either use the Bitcoin blockchain or an altcoin blockchain and when making a
transaction, you add that hashed string as one of the outputs (which the Bitcoin blockchain
will not recognize as a standard output). You do not need to transfer 5 btc with this TX, it
could be as low as a dust transaction, and you could pay or already have, for the property
in cash. In theory, when you signed the document, you would then or have already exchanged
the property/money. You would then add this file's hashed string after that exchange, thus you
would only pay the dust limit, plus a miner fee to add this hash string to the blockchain in
memorialization.

(3) After so many blocks pass and in the future, you could use that block number and TXID,
(its non-standard output which is the hashed representative) as proof that the original finalized
signed agreements were added to the blockchain around that date, allowing the ability to prove
that the document is not a modern day fabrication, but did exist at that point in time.

(4) You are not adding the file(s) to the blockchain itself, but only an anchoring citation. If you
or another party to the agreement no longer possesses the fully executed agreement, and the
document does not exists in any governmental record, then the "anchoring citation" that you
performed in the blockchain is worthless. It is dependent on the original documents still being
retained in their physical form or the PDF/JPEG form.

---

The reality is that this part of record keeping/registering in conjunction with law and property
is very insufficient. Ultimately, no matter the circumstance, a trusted third party, such as a
governmental/judicial body, will need to intervene at some point. Most property can not be
exchanged between humans on a blockchain system without governmental registration,
unless that blockchain is maintained by a governmental office itself. All physical property
is normally registered and regulated by your government.

This system of data being anchored in the blockchain can only be useful for personal
agreements between people/entities that do not wish to register with governments or file
with judicial record systems, such as employment agreements or agreements to perform
work and etc. If later in the future, you wish to litigate one of the parties due to a breach,
this blockchain anchoring system only proves it was added to that blockchain at that date
the block incorporated your TX. It will not prove that your agreement is legally sound or
binding or etc. As I said prior, a third party, such as the Courts, will still need to intervene
and interpret the terms and decide the matter.

The truth is that the blockchain, used in this manner, is inefficient and worthless in
many use cases. If you wish to prove you created something novel like a new innovation
or a piece of art, that is interesting and helpful. But human health records, property
settlement agreements, marriage/divorce/birth records and etc is not at all necessary
whatsoever. This anchoring system is only necessary if governments do not exist.

The blockchain was only really designed for unregulatable currency. Using it
for "unregulatable documents of regulation" is really quite amusing.

No, you are mistaken. You do not need go through a business' taxes for laundering.
Laundering is the act of attempting to convert "tainted money" into "non-tainted" money.
It is the attempt/performance of the act itself, not the success of the act.

If I have dirty money, buy bitcoins p2p and sell those coins p2p for fiat in another location,
when I receive new fiat from a new individual, that is not associated with the original crime,
it is laundering. You do not need a business or other large operation to fall under laundering.
If you had knowledge the first fiat was dirty, then almost all other action that follow is
automatically laundering, even using that money in a convenience store for a single can of pop.
Under current interpretation of law, conversion into any form of property could be laundering.

What your example is actually describing is not the act of laundering, but a more sophisticated
system devised (usually by criminal organizations) in order to hide the act of large amounts of
laundering, so that conversion is from physical dirty money into electronic banking money.  
This type of money laundering is the most advanced form and provides the "cleanest" banking
money.

So, as I said, laundering is the act of attempting to hide or mix with knowledge of a "crime",
as opposed to only the advanced obfuscation through fraudulent tax reporting. Average
citizens can be accused and found guilty of money laundering without using a business,
without using tax reporting, and sometimes even without willful knowledge (there have
been times courts have asserted that an individual who participated "should have
known" they were involved in a crime or laundering ring, though they may have been
truly ignorant (more common with poor to low income youth/young adults).

So money laundering as you describe, is more complicated and not as specific as
you would believe. It can be performed in many different ways.




You have provided no answer either towards the "cryptocurrency" aspect nor "laundering".
First, the OP's question refers to "cryptocurrency money laundering", you ignored that.
Second, "Sitting on $100,000 from killing someone" is not laundering in any way.

Laundering occurs when you attempt to hide the origins of the $100,000 by conversion.
So for someone who claims I missed the mark, it is evident you do not know law nor english.


Edits: spelling and elaborations.

No. The 4th dimension, in this particular way, is only used for
relaying data. Crypto-currency data is not encrypted since that data
needs to verified publicly by all miners and nodes that are participating
in all times, but the miners and nodes are never leaving their current
location in time. They are only all "peaking into the future" by receiving
data through microscopic wormhole tunneling and confirming their current
time's actions with this data.

If you find a block or make a transaction, it is subject to your location
in time and that action will correspond to a pre-existing entry in the
4D blockchain. (When this occurs, it is no longer "sending a tx" or
"finding a block", but becomes "revealing a tx" or "reaffirming the block"
since all actions are already known.) The 4D blockchain is only a simple
3D blockchain, where the full record has been broadcast through the 4th
dimension, so that past nodes may have a full record from genesis till the
last block. This system allows for many new properties such as
"predetermined accountability" and "settled security".

You can not create more coins or exceed the coin limit since the amount
of coins is contingent on the future nodes that are broadcasting the finalized
ledger. All nodes that can broadcast into the 4th dimension enforce the
decentralized protocol and prevent doublespending or tokenduping. All
receiver nodes only enforce and participate within their own time, until they
reach the point in time where they are advanced enough to also broadcast
into the 4th dimension with their independently built partial ledgers.

If you wish to send your past self coins from your future, that TX will only
correspond to your location in future time. If your parent output is in your
future, and your child output is to your past self, the past miners will
consider that TX as invalid, so you can not "send coins back in time".
To circumvent this, you would need to broadcast an encrypted message
(privatekey to a Satoshi address) through the 4th dimension and hope that
not only is your past self listening and has the password to your encrypted
message, but also that no advanced AI is observing all 4D communications
and decide to intervene in your particular action. At this point in time,
thinking machines will defer almost all operations to this dimension for
efficiency. If they deem your communication to the past to be dangerous
or malicious to their future objectives, they will intervene either
electronically or physically.

Beep Boop.

Basically, humans currently can not enter the 4th dimension,
but can transmit data through it, whether or not there is a receiver
there. If a crypto-currency could be created that uses 4th dimensional
space in order to carry all the network's data and relaying, it is possible
to provide proofs to the past, in the present, and to the future, and
in what would be perceived in the 3rd as being instantaneous. (TXs
sent to the past, if receivable and understandable, are only used
for communication. These TXs would be considered misunderstood
anomalies until they were recognized as using a computer language.)

This system would allow nodes throughout time to communicate with
the 4th dimensional network "in real time" providing the only efficient
way to bypass the technological limitations of silicon and organic
circuit transmission.

Ultimately, it is very complex and when you participate with this
network, your pending transaction was already confirmed and placed
in a block years ago (from the miner's perspective in your future),
but prior to your present thought and broadcast, you didn't know
that pre-existing tx on the 4D blockchain corresponded to your
current action now. Essentially, it existed prior to your action,
but was always contingent (or relative) to your location in time.

This would make Bitcoin antiquated and obsolete, IMO.
Private monetary systems no longer exist on Earth, in this future.

A crypto-currency that can communicate in the 4th dimension
while still representable and transactable in the 3rd.

When that occurs, validator nodes will be decentralized not
only by location, but also by time.

Lol.
Personally it looks like an representation of an atom or maybe a Tibetan Mandala.
But... to each his own I suppose. The meaning is more important than the visual.

As usual, we disagree. Devs have no true power, since they are external.
For the sake of being as clear as I can, since the full system is complicated,
below is a visual representation I just made to explain my point of view.

As you can see, the developers are only one part of the Community Consensus.
If other community members wish to circumvent the developers, they could by creating
a new reference client (which has new rules). That is currently what has occurred with
SegWit2x. My understanding is a majority of Core devs do not support it, but that hasn't
stopped the other community members from creating and promising to support the
new reference client. Without majority Consensus, this is considered an attack.

So simply, Miner centralization is more powerful and threatening to the Bitcoin Ecosystem,
than perceived centralized developers. The reality is that blaming the developers is simple
scapegoating to attain more power for Bitcoin's internal systems by manipulating Bitcoin's
external systems. Blaming devs is like slight of hand. Security will be sacrificed for financial
gains and more power for centralized miners.

Almost everything you have stated I disagree with.

If you think Core developers and Blockstream are the real threat to Satoshi's system,
then you have no idea what real threats are. Developers are external entities to the
Bitcoin system who have no influence internally. On the other hand, miners are
an Internal system who can steer or attack the network if they wished to.

When miners or other subsystems of Bitcoin become too powerful, they begin to exceed
their expected boundaries and begin to expand or attempt to absorb the power/authority
of the other sections. When that occurs, Bitcoin is fully centralized. Complaining
about developers choosing to design new tx scripts that attempt to correct vulnerabilities
as well as provide future capabilities, which may help prevent/slow the full centralization
of the Bitcoin Network, shows your hand and who you really are.

Voluntary developers, whether anon or not, is not really important. What is important is
whether Miners have centralized to the point that they will now force the participants and
the network to be a regulated and centralized payment system maintained by the Chinese
Government. That is what is actually occurring here. Placing the blame on developers who
have no internal power within the Bitcoin system itself, is extremely shortsighted and biased.

Your writing attributes "Oppression from developers" and "Freedom with Chinese Miners".
It is a very twisted viewpoint that most citizens of the world would laugh at without needing
to know what Bitcoin even is. The Great Chinese Firewall's existence alone proves my point.


-
(As a side for fun, the Universe is not designed to have opposition, as you argued.
When the universe began, matter and antimatter battled to determine what type of rules
this universe would be, and in very short time, matter won. Antimatter will never overtake
matter in this universe ever again. There is no universal opposition occurring as you think.
The rules are balanced and secured as long as there is no outside universal influence.

When this is applied to Bitcoin, the miners now have grown imbalanced and are attempting
to change the "universal rules" so that antimatter will have a retroactive technical knockout.
This is effectively an attack on the whole system today. If miners play blame games with
developers and hire their own who will manufacture their antimatter universe, those miners
will have manifested their own future destruction unknowingly. Developers (like Core) are
External entities whose only purpose is to discover issues and attempt to bring them back
into balance before the whole system collapses, while also implementing new features/
upgrades without adding to that imbalance. Any developer (paid by miners/exchanges/
etc or unpaid) who wishes to add to the imbalance purposefully because it is what the
miners want or an easier solution, is not doing their proper job. Those developers have
lost touch with reality because they no longer value security, but only profits and
ideology. Security and future balanced existence of the network is the only thing
developers should entertain.

If Miners one day get everything that they wish for, it will be nothing other than an
equal matter/antimatter annihilation. Bitcoin, as we know it, ceases to exist then.)

Depending on how you define "new world order" I agree.
Cypherpunks basically believe that through certain mechanisms and coding, the people
can be protected from institutions that have slowly become corrupted or malicious to
those that they originally represented or led. When fully established, many things that
we consider today to be normal, like privacy and certain rights, will be seen as suspicious,
not important, and if performed, worthy of imprisonment or torture. As technology
improves and evolves over time, it is inevitable that those improvements will be used
against the people to the point in which they will become no different than watched slaves
who shortly become guilty until proven innocent. At that time, humans will only exist to
perpetuate that future totalitarian system and their controller's power. Those humans will
never again have the ability to overthrow them and institute a free and fair government/
society. The belief of life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness will be a pipe dream.

Cypherpunks, IMO, are the last group of freedom fighters who have the capability
and means to prevent that potential future oppression from actualizing. They are the
final safety valve that releases from time to time to counter balance and prevent that
potential future. Bitcoin, in this light, is much bigger than just a financial instrument.
It is a form of redemption that the world will not fully understand until it is actually
needed. For example, in Venezuela, Bitcoin's true need and use has manifested
in our modern day. So, Bitcoin is already changing things and creating a better
tomorrow.




Simply, if the Miners reach a point where they have become fully corrupted or
compromised, the community can decide to change the Proof of Work algorithm
so that those entities can no longer directly influence the system. In this case, a
new PoW algo will be selected that is ASIC resistant and likely rotated with other
algos so that centralization of mining power becomes harder to perform in short
time frames. It will not be perfect, but it is highly acceptable over a Bitcoin blockchain
that is regulated, mandates blacklisting of certain coins, ID registering and tagging of
addresses, and any other restrictive or oppressive aspects you can dream up.

This will be performed by a hardfork, where the new protocol/chain will have this
new PoW algo. If governments take control of mining facilities, which is not far
fetched and very likely, especially in countries such as China, we will just flip them the
bird and leave them on the old chain with the old protocol. If Miners do not resists
governmental attempts at control or directly regulating their block work, and choose
to play ball with them, they have chosen their side and we no longer are bound to
preserve their financial investments. In fact, we will proudly brick those investments.

When Satoshi created decentralized mining with the dream of 1 CPU = 1 Vote, he
assumed that potential governmental attack vector was covered since it disbursed
the liabilities over the whole world and through hundreds to thousands of decentralized
individuals. Since that did not develop as he desired (centralization happened faster than
he thought possible), if Miners willingly (or unwillingly) become compromised today, we
just adapt and move forward without those compromised systems. We will then
participate on a free chain like today. If it happens again over time, we will just hardfork
again. The governments can keep trying to regulate ortake control, but ultimately it will
always be futile. As Bitcoin is designed, it must continually evade all forms of capture,
whether from internal parties or external ones.

Yes, this is very possible with a "blockchain" with smart contracting. But, it is also possible
without a "blockchain". So the question is really about using an altcoin that already exists
and be subject to that, or create your own "ledger with contracting abilities" that your
business or the UN will maintain, in all aspects, in their own servers.

The reason why I originally answered your question the way I did was that as a
business, you would need to decide if you are willing to outsource all the backbone aspects
of your energy efficient business to an altcoin blockchain (Like Ethereum) that would
maintain and provide a majority of what you are looking for. The issue isn't so much about
whether a "blockchain" can provide what you are looking for, it is whether you wish to rely
only upon it and whether you really need what it was originally designed to provide.

Also, there are many complex question and scenarios that need to be answered to determine
what type of "blockchain like" system you would need. For example, will you be able to make
edits to the data in your "blockchain"? Will you need a master key backdoor to the "blockchain"
so you can turn on electricity for some customers, like hospitals, even though they did not make
their payments on time? Will you require these customer buy your own token, a currently
known and widely used token (bitcoin or altcoin), or use a regulated payment processor? And
so on and so forth. There are many questions that need to be determined first to prevent
issues later.

You need to keep in mind that if you use an altcoin blockchain, you will and your customers
will be subject to any issues/bugs/failures/rollbacks/attacks that could occur with that
blockchain and its token. In this sense, you have outsourced your security/finances/etc to an
outside unregulated entity, but any liabilities your business may incur will be attributed to you
(unless you than individually sue the developers of that altcoin for some failure, which in some
specific circumstances, is essentially impossible or too complex to bother with). Point is, there
are many things the "blockchain" provides for "near free" (not really near free, but for most
laypeople, it seems to be) but it comes at costs that are not fully apparent.

The cost saving or cheaper aspects of using a "blockchain" is an illusion. In fact, it is very
expensive. What most do not understand is that the costs of those "cheap transactions"
are actually distributed both throughout the node network and applied directly into the
token itself (besides production costs). The secret was, as the token increases in value,
it is actually a representation of the expenses and burden on the system, being applied
directly into the token itself. So, when people want to use a "blockchain" since it is
"cheaper", in reality they need all parts of Satoshi's system to actually be sustainable
and secure (miners, blockchain, and token). As the expense of the "blockchain"
increases over time, so does the token's growth in "value/expense". So, in theory,
"blockchains" are only cheaper as long as the customer base increases beyond the token's
accumulated expense. (As a side, IMO if you can mitigate or slow those expenses, you
will not need unlimited customers into the future (ponzi) and cause premature system
failure. The system should always self balance and not fall into ponzi status as long as
divisibility of the token is infinite.)

When I said a "self sustaining system" I am actually referring to something much more
complex. The "blockchain" is only a small part of the whole system that Satoshi created.
For a simplistic breakdown, the "Miners" build the "blockchain", the "blockchain" issues
and records the "tokens", the "tokens" are traded for "value" either P2P or on exchanges,
the "value" incentivizes the "Miners", and than it repeats over again. This whole system
is a self sustaining system that reinforces security and other interesting things. The
"blockchain" is only the part that facilitates this payment system in a decentralized and
individually provable way. In theory, if you changed out the "blockchain" part with a
single or few servers, it would still work, but would be centralized and subject to
governmental regulations.

So, is it possible to use a "blockchain" to facilitate your example, the simple answer is yes.
The important question is whether you wish to outsource and be dependent upon an altcoin
or build your own system, which will when completed, be no different than what people
used before the "blockchain" was invented.


edit: typos and repositioned paragraphs

Simply, Bitcoin is currently a decentralized open-source voluntary p2p network.
Each of the above terms prevents specific legal actions from occurring to the network.

For example:
(1)decentralized: since the validator node network is decentralized among thousands
of individuals in thousands of locations, it is not possible to shut down each one in all
jurisdictions at the same time without shutting down the internet for the whole world (Miner
nodes are no longer decentralized and are now majority controlled by state actors, such as
in China). This vector of regulation is only effective if the validator node network is disbanded
or becomes too burdensome for average people to maintain in diverse locations, otherwise this
regulation vector is not effective.

(2)open-source: since the code for Bitcoin is open and not considered proprietary,
anyone can copy and implement the code anywhere at anytime for free and anyone could
participate with code changes. In this way, the code is not controlled by any one person or
entity, and the only entity that could be legal regulated is where the code is maintained
(currently GitHub). There are many copies elsewhere and this vector of regulation is not very
effective, especially with decentralized nodes who also maintain this code.

(3)voluntary: since the network and developers are not paid by a "Bitcoin Development
Group" and all aspects are basically voluntary, there are no legal "responsible parties". This
means that there is no single person that a government could fine/compel/imprison/torture in
order to change or control the network/protocol. All parties from the developers to the users
(no longer true for miners), in theory are voluntary participants who have no liabilities nor
guarantees. This vector of regulation is not effective as long as developers (and users) are
voluntary individuals who are not associated with a company or regulated group and that the
open-source and decentralized node aspect is maintained.

(4)p2p: since the network communicates with decentralized independent nodes
throughout the world and that the token, through the blockchain system, can transact without
trusted parties, individual people are able to perform exchanges without regulatory oversight or
institutions blocking or allowing that transaction. Since Bitcoin was designed to be P2P, it allows
for and sidesteps this vector of regulation of transactions from user to user. This vector of
regulation can only occur on regulated/licensed exchanges.


Ultimately, Bitcoin challenges governmental authority, as designed, and there is nothing they
can currently do about that. But if majority of the decentralized aspects of the system was
destroyed (besides mining) then Bitcoin will fail since it becomes extremely simple to regulate
directly into the protocol itself. There are many areas where Bitcoin could be regulated from, but
only the Miners due to the centralizing and financial aspects of that subsystem, have already or
will soon be fully subject to governmental regulation (when that occurs we leave them behind
with PoW changes to prevent the total destruction and anticipatable oppression that will follow).

What many members of this forum and in the Bitcoin community in general do not understand
(or do not care) is that governments do not support Bitcoin at all. In fact, it is seen as something
that will eventually erode their power and control in many different areas. It blatantly violates
many laws which is only possible due to its design and decentralized independently voluntarily
maintained system. Users/members who argue that governments allow it now or like it because
it improves technological innovation or for tax collection purposes do not understand what is
actually occurring in some governmental circles. Within specific circles, mostly associated with
intelligence groups, Bitcoin is either a threat to themselves or a weapon for themselves.

Most simply, Bitcoin only exists today because Satoshi created a near perfect system designed
to anticipate and outmaneuver vectors of attack or regulation that powerful entities could use.
In this light, Bitcoin really is a masterpiece. An almost near perfect system that makes the current
world system, whether in law or finance, scratch their heads and say "Now what do we do?".
The answer, if decentralization is maintained, is nothing. There is nothing they can do but accept
its use over time and act like they allow us to use it.

The biggest threat to Bitcoin is not high fees or low user adoption, it is the law and regulation.
Users who think it is vice versa are not followers of Satoshi, the Whitepaper, Cypherpunks,
freedom, or anything. They are destroyers of masterpieces, like fundamentalists who destroy
ancient statues and art. They are ignorant of the actual feat that has been performed here as
well as where its true value originates.

Edit: spelling and some lines.

When Satoshi created the "blockchain", it was only designed to facilitate a
decentralized p2p network. The decentralization of the blockchain (like in Bitcoin)
was very important since it prevents regulation or capture from governmental
or other large entities, from stopping or steering the network. The blockchain is not
a simple "ledger that connects blocks(data) with hashing", it was only a means to
circumvent legal regulation and localized points of failure. This then allows for
secondary aspects that were originally desired, such as "censorship resistance"
from those and other entities.

The "blockchain" is not an energy efficient or proper system for micro-payments in
general. It actually is energy intensive when used as designed, and is energy
efficient only when used improperly.The "blockchain" system is actually very bad
at everything, other than what Satoshi designed it to specifically achieve. The
inefficiency is the acceptable cost for the decentralization and unregulatability
that the "blockchain" provides. The "blockchain's" design and purpose was only
to ensure the evasion of control and untrusted prevention of doublespends.

If you do not need "evasion of control and untrusted prevention of doublespends",
then using the "blockchain" to achieve your goals is a waste of time and money.
If you wish to be the organization that runs this "solar/energy/payment platform"
or that the UN wishes to run this platform, then a "blockchain" is likely not needed.
A blockchain would only really be needed if the "solar energy farmers" have to prove
the energy they created amongst themselves, and then the collective network would
self account a token representation of that energy, which is only transferable with
the energy itself. Since that is not possible currently (taging individual electrons),
a blockchain is not efficient or really needed for your purposes (I assume).

Simply, you could just use a normal system like M-Pesa or Paypal. There is no point
or benefit from using a "private, trusted, regulated, and centralized blockchain". If
you just changed the word "blockchain" with "server" in my above sentence, you will
understand what the "blockchain's" actual purpose is. The "blockchain" is more than
a new ledger accounting system, it is a means to facilitate a self sustaining system
without trusted authorities direct intervention.

There are two forms of governmental regulation that can be applied to Bitcoin.
(1) Are regulations applied to the on/off ramps of licensed monetary exchanges.
(2) Are regulations applied directly to and within the Bitcoin protocol.

The simple answer is that if governments throughout the world collectively took
control of all bitcoin mining facilities it would allow for "(2) regulations applied
directly within the Bitcoin protocol". In this event, that Bitcoin experiment would
fail since it was not able to resist this governmental attack type (Satoshi's original
decentralized mining theory was thought to minimize this type of attack vector).

If your scenario did occur, it no longer matters if Bitcoin is then "centralized" since
the proper viewpoint is that Bitcoin has been "infiltrated and neutered". It then
becomes an arm of those world governments, and if allowed to live, begins to be
used as a means to oppress the people.

Either way, it is not a total failure since with how Bitcoin actually functions, if
your scenario did occur, the Bitcoin community could emergency hardfork and
change the PoW/difficultly to bring back home mining, leaving behind those
attacking entities and their new infrastructure, and we would continue on without
them. It is a nuisance and would hurt Bitcoin/bitcoin temporarily, but Bitcoin in
this way would never be fully captured.

The real problem is not governments attacking Bitcoin as you described, what the
real problem is certain governments already controlling certain mining facilities in
the world and attempting to convince you to willingly want to go in their direction.
If that occurs, even the emergency hardfork mechanism is worthless since the
masses would be so ignorant at that point, they would desire slavery more than
freedom.

That is fine to believe, but that has nothing to do with the rule set.
Those are all secondary systems that facilitate the rule set's existence.




If the "Joes in their basement" has no importance or power within the
whole Bitcoin system, then Miners do not need to sign agreements with
companies, exchanges, and services. It is as simple as that. If you don't
want to accept that there is something more going on with non-mining
verifying nodes, then so be it. I'm not advanced enough nor have the
time to try to convince you of otherwise. Time will reveal which one of
our beliefs was correct.




The Game Theory aspect for Miners you describe was prevented since
2010. Can you give an example where this has occurred in Bitcoin since
the 1MB Cap? (Softcap is not actual game theory emergence since the
rule was maxed to 1MB.)

Since 2010, when Miners perform a change of chain, it is based upon a
majority Consensus with non-mining entities (some not bound to game
theory), and after a set future date only then does the Miner enact that
agreed change. That is entirely different than what you are describing,
which is full autonomy bound by game theory alone. Centralization within
the miner subsystem prevents that part of the original experiment from
being fully tested today. Consensus by miners alone died over 7 years ago.




I agree with most of these statements in general, but I think you have
come to an incorrect conclusion. Since you assume that monetary value
must always increase to offset the miners hash and expenses over time
(ignoring disinflation), as opposed to decreasing or stabilizing, the conclusion
is that Bitcoin is a simplistic ponzi scheme designed for the benefit of Miners
alone and not for the users benefit. That is clearly not the purpose.

On the contrary, this is where Verifying Node come in. Their existence
prevents Miners from unilateral chain control, and stops those miners from
perpetrating what you have outlined. Your argument is one of the reasons why
Satoshi added the 1MB Cap and why today Miners are still waiting before
performing a hardfork. Without Verifying Nodes (especially Economic one),
your premise does become our reality. But currently, the miners must comply
in balance with the rest of the system otherwise the whole organism stops, but
you can't accept that. You wish to now reverse 7 years of history.

If you think your beliefs are valid, the Miners will perform a contentious hardfork
within the next year or so and we should expect all subsystems, including the
exchanges, following close behind. IMO that won't ever occur.




This is a very simplistic understanding of the whole ecosystem and how it
works. It also ignore all the years in which the token had no monetary value
or very little.

If the Miners stop allowing transactions or blacklist certain txs, then the
system stops. If new users stop buying bitcoins, the system still functions
just as it did in the early days. What you are ignoring is that major miners may
die off and fall away as a result of less new users and their increasing profits.
The miners should assume there will be times of stagnation in profits and even
times of great losses. In the past, some miners went bankrupt because of these
and other associated reasons (over extension). Ultimately, your conclusion is
that "Miners are too big to fail and we need an ever increasing group of new
users to keep them afloat through time". That is a classic ponzi, not a
digital truth being used as a currency/asset.

The truth is that big miners will fail and home mining or the like will increase
like the old days, but will ultimately be centralized again and create a new
generation of large miners. This ebb and flow is natural and healthy for the
system over time




No, I disagree with every statement.

First, legalities do not apply here nor in regular unions (unless you're referring to
unionbusters being prevented from physically harming union members).

Second, if you threaten the old buyers then the new buyers never manifest.
That is like saying people who went to a movie and left and told others it was crap
has no bearing on anything, and new people (their friends and family) will go it
anyway to watch the crap. The reality is that the new users only exists because
the old users are currently still satisfied and providing "outside support". If you
disregard old users, then you disregard your future (simple ex. recent Ghostbuster
movie bombed because they purposefully disregarded the old audience/"users",
plus those who actually did see it told others it was crap and not bother.).




Only time will tell. A "user cartel" may be easier to form since the exchanges and
services are the proxies to the users, in this particular case of USAF. The exchanges
and services are incentivized to follow their users, not the "miner cartel". But, it is
true that the "Miner cartel" could organize faster and take action before a "User cartel"
could ever do.




I disagree.
Even if the miners got the world's best developers on their payroll or "took over
the reference client" and implemented rules without the non-mining consensus
(violation and thus an attack by default), then all the non-mining subsystems will
just stop participating in that version of Bitcoin. Some exchanges (some controlled
by the miners themselves) will still sell that token as they come in from "leaving
users" and new ignorant ones, but the community overall will leave and its users
and token value will be near worthless. Majority of the crypto-community will at
that point move to another Bitcoin implementation or an altcoin that is ASIC resistant.

---

The major disagreement I have with your overall argument is that you wish to change
Bitcoin back into the Whitepaper version that Satoshi understood had a fatal flaw.
He implemented the 1MB Cap to balance the problems his lack of foresight anticipated
and then "placated" the dissenters who understood what the far reaching consequences
of this patch would be. They made appropriate arguments to him and tried to
convince him that over time it would be almost impossible to remove. Satoshi
understood that since he intended a future freeze, but listened and decided that
the patch was more important. The consequences was that the original experiment
from the whitepaper was restricted (or died) when the 1MB Cap became the main
chain. Then the new experiment began using independently decentralized non-mining
verifying Nodes to share the "Consensus" for serious rule set changes. It has been
that way since. It is that simple. Majority of your arguments about game theory,
decentralization, anarchism, markets determine protocol, and emergence has not
applied to Bitcoin, if it ever did, since 2010. The truth is Satoshi changed his mind
& version of the Whitepaper within 1 year of testing and never made it plainly
obvious through written gospel for certain ideological participants to digest.
Majority of those people only started understanding this around late 2015.