Monero folk will tell you we need more anonymity. sure, i'd like more but i think Bitcoin gives enough. unless one can attach a human identity to each address in a linear sequence you can never be sure you can tie the ends to each other of say a 5 address sequence. you might infer it but you'd have to do some investigative work which police can do if suspicious. that's enough anonymity for the ordinary user not doing anything wrong.
in short, Bitcoin should be able to provide everything for everyone. that's my opinion at least.
that doesn't mean it won't happen though but is the reason for the extreme resistance to it's adoption from the economic majority who are currently invested in Bitcoin.
There you go. A rational individual (investor) with this set of beliefs would hedge. If you don't, there is something other than a rational decision making process going on. No refutation of this is possible. For the logic of hedging to be incorrect you would have to be 100% sure that Bitcoin is the Eternal One True and Only Coin, which you apparently are not (see above). If you had that unquestioning faith, fair enough, but since you don't, then not hedging is just a mistake. to your mind. that's your rationality. i think it is such a remote possibility that i'd rather take the risk of not hedging and instead riding Bitcoin to new heights. Monero is not even worth me studying at this point. and it's on par with other altcoins that i find equally as improbable therefore i have concluded that i will be willing to pay a premium in the far future if it seems to be gaining traction; which i don't. You're giving away your credibility. i don't accept criticism from liars, esp ones who doxx me with intent to incite physical harm. Why would I want harm upon anyone? Of what harm would you fear, and why? "A monk in the jungle need not fear." denial is great, huh? especially someone who waxes philosophical and moral. did you choose to ignore the comment TPTB_need_war made to me immediately after you doxxed me yesterday? about coming up to my town and starting a physical fight? btw, i clicked on the LinkedIn profile smooth put up and WTF is this? i thought you said this yesterday?: Obviously, I'm not allowed to talk about the case. vokain shamelessly knows this so he can freely go off.
Actually I didn't until you said you were, but it's besides the point. I've removed myself from the case as far as I could for the most part, and it no longer matters to me. Thank you for the blessing. but yet you advertise this is in your LinkedIn profile? WTF: Creditors' Committee Member United States Bankruptcy Court June 2014 – Present (1 year 1 month)San Francisco Bay Area Representing the body of unsecured creditors that HashFast Technologies, LLC. owes in neglected contracts and witnessing Karma firsthand... http://hashfast.org/I have an exuberant proxy. No way that case is worth any more of my time. |
|
|
|
Monero folk will tell you we need more anonymity. sure, i'd like more but i think Bitcoin gives enough. unless one can attach a human identity to each address in a linear sequence you can never be sure you can tie the ends to each other of say a 5 address sequence. you might infer it but you'd have to do some investigative work which police can do if suspicious. that's enough anonymity for the ordinary user not doing anything wrong.
in short, Bitcoin should be able to provide everything for everyone. that's my opinion at least.
that doesn't mean it won't happen though but is the reason for the extreme resistance to it's adoption from the economic majority who are currently invested in Bitcoin.
There you go. A rational individual (investor) with this set of beliefs would hedge. If you don't, there is something other than a rational decision making process going on. No refutation of this is possible. For the logic of hedging to be incorrect you would have to be 100% sure that Bitcoin is the Eternal One True and Only Coin, which you apparently are not (see above). If you had that unquestioning faith, fair enough, but since you don't, then not hedging is just a mistake. to your mind. that's your rationality. i think it is such a remote possibility that i'd rather take the risk of not hedging and instead riding Bitcoin to new heights. Monero is not even worth me studying at this point. and it's on par with other altcoins that i find equally as improbable therefore i have concluded that i will be willing to pay a premium in the far future if it seems to be gaining traction; which i don't. You're giving away your credibility. i don't accept criticism from liars, esp ones who doxx me with intent to incite physical harm. Why would I want harm upon anyone? Of what harm would you fear, and why? "A monk in the jungle need not fear." |
|
|
|
Monero folk will tell you we need more anonymity. sure, i'd like more but i think Bitcoin gives enough. unless one can attach a human identity to each address in a linear sequence you can never be sure you can tie the ends to each other of say a 5 address sequence. you might infer it but you'd have to do some investigative work which police can do if suspicious. that's enough anonymity for the ordinary user not doing anything wrong.
in short, Bitcoin should be able to provide everything for everyone. that's my opinion at least.
that doesn't mean it won't happen though but is the reason for the extreme resistance to it's adoption from the economic majority who are currently invested in Bitcoin.
There you go. A rational individual (investor) with this set of beliefs would hedge. If you don't, there is something other than a rational decision making process going on. No refutation of this is possible. For the logic of hedging to be incorrect you would have to be 100% sure that Bitcoin is the Eternal One True and Only Coin, which you apparently are not (see above). If you had that unquestioning faith, fair enough, but since you don't, then not hedging is just a mistake. to your mind. that's your rationality. i think it is such a remote possibility that i'd rather take the risk of not hedging and instead riding Bitcoin to new heights. Monero is not even worth me studying at this point. and it's on par with other altcoins that i find equally as improbable therefore i have concluded that i will be willing to pay a premium in the far future if it seems to be gaining traction; which i don't. You're giving away your credibility. |
|
|
|
what's striking to me using the ignore is just how many pages and pages of posts TPTB-dick has been spamming to derail substantive and meaningful discussion. there is no doubt he has an alternative motive which is anti-Bitcoin.
I don't share other people's commitment to unmoderated, uncensored discussions... they have their place, but allowing every thread to let in trolls as a principle of free speech is like letting strangers into your house (instead of invited guests) based on the right to free assembly. Which is a long way of saying... cypherdoc, you should start a "Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. [moderated]" thread. All of the intelligent people will migrate over, and then you can just kick out the trolls. Haha no chance, such an action would be akin to throwing in the towel. After all this history? |
|
|
|
what's striking to me using the ignore is just how many pages and pages of posts TPTB-dick has been spamming to derail substantive and meaningful discussion. there is no doubt he has an alternative motive which is anti-Bitcoin.
I guess you can have Any Colour You Like. The motive has always been decentralization. |
|
|
|
The season you are born (climate in general) has MUCH to do with who you are (and not the stars).
Epigenome.
There are studies, bored to dig them up now, but it is very straightforward for people with evolutionary biology, epigenetics etc background.
Dude, our climate is from the Sun (a star)  If your choice of nickname is apt, then you should easily realize that. I don't think he excluded that entirely. My assumption is he was arguing a direct correlation so as to give his argument maximum veracity here. I look at language maybe like a programmer would their code, and using the operator " and not the stars" would, to me, exclude all stars from that set. It is well known in computer science that syntax doesn't capture semantics. The semantics here is highly layered, so it is difficult to concisely express intent in syntax, because he is also dealing with politics and audience comprehension/belief. What's poetry? What's musick? A living, dynamic and reinterpretable interaction with the audience? What a strange loop... |
|
|
|
The season you are born (climate in general) has MUCH to do with who you are (and not the stars).
Epigenome.
There are studies, bored to dig them up now, but it is very straightforward for people with evolutionary biology, epigenetics etc background.
Dude, our climate is from the Sun (a star) If your choice of nickname is apt, then you should easily realize that. I don't think he excluded that entirely. My assumption is he was arguing a direct correlation so as to give his argument maximum veracity here. I look at language maybe like a programmer would their code, and using the operator " and not the stars" would, to me, exclude all stars from that set. It is well known in computer science that syntax doesn't capture semantics. The semantics here is highly layered, so it is difficult to concisely express intent in syntax, because he is also dealing with politics and audience comprehension/belief. What's poetry? What's musick? |
|
|
|
The season you are born (climate in general) has MUCH to do with who you are (and not the stars).
Epigenome.
There are studies, bored to dig them up now, but it is very straightforward for people with evolutionary biology, epigenetics etc background.
Dude, our climate is from the sun (a star) If your choice of nickname is apt, then you should easily realize that. Εh? Paul Klee, artist. |
|
|
|
I mean that stars have nothing to do with the mechanisms astrology describes but of course a lot with the physics involved. Pardon my ενγλις  The stars and everything else that go around in circles all follow a calendar, all together. It's all a mathematical pirouette. http://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/435:_Purity |
|
|
|
Oh, sounds like Warz is attempting to build the foundation of his pump.
He claimed it will go to 0.004.... Do you think it will really go that high? I mean, if he sets the target to price x, he needs to sell largish amount of coins and thus he needs to sell it below x (nobody is willing to buy at the peak and if the assumed peak is known by everyone, everyone try to sell prior to it and thus creates lower actual peak)
You might find that Warz himself gets pushed out of the market; there are other players on the scene now who are seeking to move it back up to 0.0065. I don't think this would be very difficult at all. |
|
|
|
The season you are born (climate in general) has MUCH to do with who you are (and not the stars).
Epigenome.
There are studies, bored to dig them up now, but it is very straightforward for people with evolutionary biology, epigenetics etc background.
Dude, our climate is from the sun (a star) If your choice of nickname is apt, then you should easily realize that. I don't think he excluded that entirely. My assumption is he was arguing a direct correlation so as to give his argument maximum veracity here. I look at language maybe like a programmer would their code, and using the operator " and not the stars" would, to me, exclude all stars from that set. |
|
|
|
The season you are born (climate in general) has MUCH to do with who you are (and not the stars).
Epigenome.
There are studies, bored to dig them up now, but it is very straightforward for people with evolutionary biology, epigenetics etc background.
Dude, our climate is from the sun (a star) If your choice of nickname is apt, then you should easily realize that. |
|
|
|
|
The Revivalists - Not Turn Away (My Generation)
2015/01/07 Jam Cruise 13
|
|
|
|
|
Ah, astrology, one of my favorite tools to reflect with, and one of man's most ancient studies (along with alchemy and magick).
One should realize that astrology is not relegated to just the sign that the sun was in the moment you were born.
I could go into astrology's process of determining the relationship between space and time but more tangibly, there is a burgeoning branch of knowledge exploring a field termed epigenetics. Depending on certain environmental influences, the expression of our genetic code also changes. In Dr. Bruce Lipton's Biology of Belief, he posits that our beliefs can have an influence upon gene expression. The whole point of astrology reading in general is to make us aware of the traits inherent in every man and how we come to develop those traits. When we become aware of ourselves and ourselves to others, we develop more of which we are aware in ourselves and between others.
In the Human Design school of thought, one of my traits is from the Incarnation Cross "freak-to-genius" channel, and so, here I am.
"...born on The Right Angle Cross of Explanation 3: Your job is to explain revolutionary and principled solutions; untested Individual knowing necessitates clarifying and repeating insights which have been filtered through logic’s formulas. (Gates 4-49-23-43)"
Edit: There is also theory re: neutrinos from stars. As they are small enough that they can pass through matter, yet still have effects upon what they pass through, it is posited that they carry influence that can also effect gene expression. This is a bit of a headier topic but astrology helps maps the timing of such influence.
|
|
|
|
"A decentralized payment system must not depend on a single person's companies decisions from financial conflicts, even especially if this person company is a composes 2 core developers and 3 commiters. Hard constants and magic numbers in the code deter the system's evolution and therefore should be eliminated (or at least be cut down to the minimum). Every crucial limit (like max block size or min fee amount) should be re-calculated based on the system's previous state. Therefore, it always changes adaptively and independently, allowing the network to develop on it's own.
CryptoNote has the following parameters which adjust automatically for each new block:
1) Difficulty. The general idea of our algorithm is to sum all the work that nodes have performed during the last 720 blocks and divide it by the time they have spent to accomplish it. The measure of the work is the corresponding difficulty value for each of the blocks. The time is calculated as follows: sort all the 720 timestamps and cut-off 20% of the outliers. The range of the rest 600 values is the time which was spent for 80% of the corresponding blocks.
2) Max block size. Let MN be the median value of the last N blocks sizes. Then the "hard-limit" for the size of accepting blocks is 2*MN. It averts blockchain bloating but still allows the limit to slowly grow with the time if necessary. Transaction size does not need to be limited explicitly. It is bounded by the size of the block."
ftfy Why a company and not the Network? |
|
|
|
blah, blah, blah from the Monero pumper. btw, i see you cleaned up your sig to hide that fact  Did you see the point of the sig? If one were to follow, "I could not agree more that developers should not be in charge of the network rules. Which is why - in my opinion - hard forks cannot be controversial things. A controversial change to the software, forced to be adopted by the public because the only alternative is a permanent chain fork, is a use of power that developers (or anyone) should not have, and an incredibly dangerous precedent for other changes that only a subset of participants would want." one might find that, "A decentralized payment system must not depend on a single person's decisions, even if this person is a core developer. Hard constants and magic numbers in the code deter the system's evolution and therefore should be eliminated (or at least be cut down to the minimum). Every crucial limit (like max block size or min fee amount) should be re-calculated based on the system's previous state. Therefore, it always changes adaptively and independently, allowing the network to develop on it's own. CryptoNote has the following parameters which adjust automatically for each new block: 1) Difficulty. The general idea of our algorithm is to sum all the work that nodes have performed during the last 720 blocks and divide it by the time they have spent to accomplish it. The measure of the work is the corresponding difficulty value for each of the blocks. The time is calculated as follows: sort all the 720 timestamps and cut-off 20% of the outliers. The range of the rest 600 values is the time which was spent for 80% of the corresponding blocks. 2) Max block size. Let MN be the median value of the last N blocks sizes. Then the "hard-limit" for the size of accepting blocks is 2*MN. It averts blockchain bloating but still allows the limit to slowly grow with the time if necessary. Transaction size does not need to be limited explicitly. It is bounded by the size of the block." |
|
|
|
hey, i'm just following the Chief Scientist. he's telling me to upgrade to XT. no one's forcing you to follow this thread. 
Also I do not like the leaderless paradigm of Monero. I don't believe that is how innovative design in open source gets done. Open source is superior at refining existing things (e.g. Cryptonote), but it usually sucks at radical innovation. For that, you need a leader. And leaders don't work for free. They work for equity in the creation of their babies.
Here are some of my considerations: When you have actors out there (i.e. TPTB) that can work more efficiently to influence individuals versus groups, I see not what you term "the leaderless paradigm" but rather, a distributed leadership that checks/provides redundancy against this sort of vulnerability. For instance, a common law enforcement tactic is separating suspects and interrogating them alone, as individual power is often more easily influenced versus shared. If Gavin Andressen is perceived as the most trustworthy leader on Bitcoin given the nature of his connection with Satoshi, then logically it'd make most sense to influence him first to influence the group. This is an inherent weakness in pyramid structures. Time for collaboration/communication is how innovative open source gets done, whether it's between the neural structures in Ur brain or through a fractalized Internet. A flexible development structure leaves room for 'leaders' to contribute their worth while the system does not have to depend upon any one chokepoint so as to cause detriment to the overall effort. With the possible achievable values in equities of stake in meritorious decentralized projects, the best developers realize that they don't need overbearing ownership in equity for that equity to be worth more than they might efficiently know how to employ in their lifetimes. |
|
|
|
Hi guise, how's the slow-mo trainwreck going in here? everyone happy? good Notice how it went off the rails when you started crappin all over the devs? Try to keep it in your trousers, remember who's piloting this plane, who's the passengers and stop trying to grab the stick, KK? Ta, tally ho. TPTB dev goes down with a whimper and right on time, MOA dev shows up throwing hand grenades. anyone see the pattern i've already pointed out? but it's ok, there are plenty of excellent devs with the right vision. What, the "if they're not with me, then they're against me" reality pattern? |
|
|
|
every attribute you seem to have, he seems to have. every attribute he seems to have, you seem to have.
His left eye was losing vision. My right eye is 90% blinded. Whoops. This is really comical. Are you under stress because of the court case? You are acting strange. I suggested you get on Skype so you can see me on web cam. But you refused. pm'd Next day. I will sleep. i'm not interested in talking. one quick glance to verify you're not Armstrong. I don't have Skype installed at this location. I have to travel to other location. I believe you are interested in constructing evidence to build some civil suit against me. "i need to sleep", whimper, whimper. "i need to travel to another location", whimper, whimper. ROFLMAO! what a jackass. TPTB_need_war, he may be able to check out your eye |
|
|
|
Game over, Frap.doc. Thus Saith The LORD. Amen! of course not. as long as you continue to constrain it to 1MB. Cypherdoc is correct. Nick Szabo and Oleg Andreev are both wrong. I don't care what their credentials are, in this matter they are not thinking clearly. If Bitcoin does not compete with Paypal and Visa then it will NEVER compete with gold and central banks.The reason is that physical presence matters. Gold is physical and has only two serious rival metals: platinum and silver. CB fiat is made physical by government power: legal tender for printed cash and debt-money backed by taxation and guns (although through incompetence, fiat is proving a failed experiment). Bitcoin also has a physical presence: its ecosystem of users, companies, on-line services and large mining network. Take those away and it becomes just another Worldcoin, Yacoin, Litecoin or Auroracoin. Bitcoin, the software can be copied many times, and its principles can be adapted in new ways e.g. NXT and Monero. There is no scarcity for digital currency unless that scarcity is backed by a physical presence, an ecosystem. Capping the Bitcoin network at 1MB blocks is an assumption that enough of an ecosystem has been established that this particular instance of digital currency cannot be overtaken by a larger ecosystem, a larger physical presence, by one of the alternatives. This is a huge assumption which is not viable because the Bitcoin ecosystem footprint in the world economy is miniscule. Only when volumes approach Visa-scale can people sit back and consider that Bitcoin is seriously competing with gold and central banks. Even then, it can't remain standing still. How does velocity of money in gold and between central banks compare to the velocity of money with PayPal and Visa, either in volume or transactional bandwidth? |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
