And I view that example as a failure of US economic policy. Instead of the banks accepting those US customers and spying on them as originally intended, those foreign banks are doing the opposite of what the USG wants. It's rejecting those customers outright which makes their actions go dark as they figure out work arounds.
In effect, the USG is losing its influence abroad.
How does forcing its own citizens into a corral correlate with USG losing its influence? Clearly the policy was intended to shut off the escape routes for the citizens to escape tracking by the State, thus the refusal to accept US citizens is exactly what was intended. The DEEP STATE in charge of the global NWO plan are squeezing the people of every nation between a Troika of powers, USA, China, and Russia. And you are included in that squeeze. If you think they cut out a special deal for you, then you will learn how they turn on you when they done using you. The Spanish police are crazy...
There are lots of stories of blatant criminal activity, the craziest being about the British guy who had his brand new range rover towed, went to pay the fine and was told it was the judge’s decision on whether the car would be returned to him – nothing to do with the police at all.. a year or so later with the fines fully paid and an expensive court case going nowhere, the car was photographed driving down the street decked out with full police markings.. they didn’t even bother to change the license plate.. I’m not sure if he ever got it back.
REPLY: Yes, the stories about the police in Spain are over the top. They are hunting money like crazy. Governments are turning against their own people, defeating the very purpose of civilization. We did not agree to this arrangement; we are collapsing precisely as did Rome. Once government employees begin sacking their own cities, the end of times is near. They are stupid. They will not reform and cannot see that people will not tolerate this forever. The more aggressive they become, the higher the probability of revolutions erupting around the globe. Do not count on the media reporting the truth this time – they are on the wrong side of the fence.
ANSWER: Interesting question, I seem to get this a lot. It is all a question of perspective and opinion. People who argue on opinion and refuse to listen go down in flames. I was trained by my father on how to see the world, and by my clients as to how it functions.
I am a product of my environment. My father was an aid to General Patton who defeated the southern Swabian German General Erwin Rommel (1891–1944) who was highly regarded as having been a humane and professional officer. Rommel wrote a manual for officer instruction in infantry training, and in his personal time he wrote his book “Infanterie greift an” (“Infantry Attacks”), a description of the various actions he was involved with in the Great War, along with his observations. Patton read Rommel’s book and anticipated what he would do, which enable him to win the battle. My father always taught me to avoid opinion and keep an open mind for it is NOT what you think that matters; it is what your opponent believes. In my case, it is history. If they have done it before, they will do it again because human intellect produces the same series of solutions to the very reasoning that caused the event.
Having offices around the world and clients everywhere has forged me into what I am today, in that furnace of experience. You will see that in Socrates for you will have to select your currency and the recommendations and strategy MUST be based upon your perspective – not mine. Telling you the Dow will rise 25% but the dollar will fall 50% means nothing to an American and everything to a foreign investor.
So, the most valuable lesson I have learned is to LISTEN and try to see the world through the eyes of everyone else. That is the only way to function. It is like terrorists who truly believe they will be rewarded. You must understand it is not your opinion that matters.
This is why I say I will distinguish between my OPINION and what the computer projects. OPINION is not reliable. Until you learn that lesson, good luck in life. The WEC will be critical to surviving what comes next, not just a single day. The crazy period we face is 2015.75 into 2017.90.
We have been warning that we may see a Phase Transition in equities BEGIN with the 2015.75 and the FALSE MOVE. But this should be the PEAK in government – NOT the peak in markets outside of interest rates.
No. PeterR asked you this: And then you need to control the nodes of the bitcoin companies, power users, and government agencies across the world. How are you going to do it, Anonymint?
No, see bolded. Instead, you have him an answer where you thought the USG was successfully controlling gvts across the world but in fact had failed at doing so. These gvts instead rejected USG policy by turning away US customers. |
|
|
|
And then you need to control the nodes of the bitcoin companies, power users, and government agencies across the world. How are you going to do it, Anonymint?
I can give you a specific example where they have done that. Btw, how come every bank I visit any where in the world (or at least the super-majority of them) say, "sorry we can't open an account for you because you are a US citizen", or they otherwise comply with the USA's FATCA law reporting requirements? And you say that TPTB can't foist a global law yet they already have. Also as smooth said, TPTB only need to control 51%.  And I view that example as a failure of US economic policy. Instead of the banks accepting those US customers and spying on them as originally intended, those foreign banks are doing the opposite of what the USG wants. It's rejecting those customers outright which makes their actions go dark as they figure out work arounds. In effect, the USG is losing its influence abroad. |
|
|
|
It sounds be obvious TPTB_need_war is desperately trying to discourage Bitcoin use.
Nope. Go ahead. Make my day. Sorry dude, it isn't working and we're coiling for the next move.
Me too... to < $150 (after a move to $315). Then I will prepare for the recoil to new all time highs in 2017. In the meantime, I will be holding a coin that doesn't yet exist and besting BTC's ROI. Good mornight aka I'm signing out. ZOMG, I thought the world was ending with the NWO? But my coin will save us all! Lol! |
|
|
|
|
It should be obvious TPTB_need_war is desperately trying to discourage Bitcoin use.
Sorry dude, it isn't working and we're coiling for the next move.
|
|
|
|
That's OK. Then we just cut back.
I'd rather try than not try at all.
Doubling block size every 2 years is cancer. A closer match to SV40A medical doctor who never understood the exponential function. On the Nth day the Lily pads covered 50% of the pond, so Cypherdoc proclaimed we had time to cut back, then we woke up and the pond was smothered. WTF? The exponential function. And the only way he can keep that promise is to become a dictator. We'll at least their intentions are now mathematically inviolable. And TPTB_NEED_WAR, a loud mouth disinformation agent who hides his face after being called out on it. Skype address please. |
|
|
|
I can't see a future with less than a thousand or so nodes.
I don't buy the "centralization" fears related to increased blocksize.
Because you don't factor in the government's ease of regulating 1000 permanently sited nodes compared to zillions of ephemeral nodes in a truly decentralized system. Imagine that every major research university runs a full node. If you were this "scary, monolithic government" that you seem to fear, how would you go about controlling the software that scientists are running in their cryptocurrency labs? I'm sure you could introduce several rouge nodes, but that wouldn't matter. You have to control them all. And then you need to control the nodes of the bitcoin companies, power users, and government agencies across the world. How are you going to do it, Anonymint? Secondly, the ~1000 node scenario is not what I suspect will play out; it's just that even if that scenario does play out, the network could still be more decentralized than it is now. Did he bother to watch that video of the Chinese mine I posted earlier today? He's a disinformation agent. |
|
|
|
More facepalm
Let's implant doubling-cancer into bitcoin. I'm sure that more politicians will join( eat) us. Concur. Voted yes to the new poll, but would much rather see a dynamic size increase when the blocks get to a certain transaction density/time. Doubling can't occur unless 75%of miners concur. |
|
|
|
According to the "high growth rate" curve in the graph above, the blockchain will be 10,000x as large in 2035. Here's a quick estimate of some of the costs to run a node twenty years from now, assuming no change in the cost of disk space or Internet bandwidth for 20 years.
Nice work Peter R. I often find your presentations compelling and this is no exception. One quibble. You gloss over the distinction between miners and nodes: Even under these (a) optimistic growth rates, and (b) extremely pessimistic cost improvements for disk space and bandwidth, the cost is still not so prohibitive that there would only be "5 big miners left." For example, I'd image that all major research universities, bitcoin corporations, various branches of governments, and power users (whales) would still run nodes (1000+ nodes). The network could actually be more decentralized than it is now. Although IBLT or something like it could considerably narrow that difference. |
|
|
|
Instead of putting the entire Bitcoin protocol at risk for your speculative endeavors, why don't you just have the balls to build those businesses that accept BTC?
I'm not putting the entire Bitcoin protocol at risk for my speculative endeavors. ... lol, do you think I have the power to build all new businesses that will accept all BTCs ? ... do you think I will rule ALL THE WORD ? -> You are WRONG I will NOT and at the same time I will not let you to rule my word. Its not you I'm worried about. It's your ideas. |
|
|
|
- 99% of your transaction are located in your town (quarter).
Incorrect. Nevertheless the idea of partitioning payment systems by some sort of natural (if fuzzy) boundaries is reasonable. I still prefer off-chain (possibly partitioned) payment systems with a single settlement chain though. Not sold on merged mining at all. ok, if you do not like "natural boundaries" we can create corporate chains. :-) a) local-Tesco-Sidechain b) or you can use Coca-Cola-Sidechain c) or use Free-Wifi-Geaks-Sidechain d) ... some local drug dealer chain I do not know exactly how to build TREE OF CHAINS what will serve all people needs .. but I know that it is possible and free market will choose what is important and what is not Instead of putting the entire Bitcoin protocol at risk for your speculative endeavors, why don't you just have the balls to build those businesses that accept BTC? |
|
|
|
- 99% of your transaction are located in your town (quarter).
Incorrect. Nevertheless the idea of partitioning payment systems by some sort of natural (if fuzzy) boundaries is reasonable. I still prefer off-chain (possibly partitioned) payment systems with a single settlement chain though. Not sold on merged mining at all. Merge mining, the hidden requested SC subsidy. |
|
|
|
Please let us know how well Elements is working. I honestly want to know.
Go to hell. You can stand by and find out whether Maxwell and company's stuff pans out better than your assumptions that technology will keep up with exponential growth and Bitcoin will be unmolested by TPTB as it takes over for fiat. You could piddle around with gmax's cli while you wait if you want since the stuff is already in released alpha it seems. Confidential Transactions -> it is another excellent project from gmaxwell Confidential Transactions is enabled in Elements and used by default by all ordinary transactions. and ...
Just wow. I lacked the ability and interest to think up such stuff. I was negative about all the bells and whistles being added to the native Bitcoin protocol over the years. Because I was by and large to lazy to follow the commits and technical discussions, I took my impression of the technical capabilities as the core team as a group from my impression of Gavin and his talking-paperclip class nonsense and nearly complete disregard/misunderstanding of the salient risk factors more than I should have. This made me feel that there was great risk to putting almost anything into Core since it could be sufficient as a backing store in it's very primitive form. Now I'm starting to see the genius of what some of these less visible players were shooting for in some of their work over the years. My hat is off to them! There really is a significant risk, I think, that what is evolving is simply so powerful that it will have to be stopped by TPTB by any and all means possible. I've long held that this battle would be best to happen earlier than later. My only hope was that it would start up before the likes of Hearn managed to contaminate the existing blockchain whereupon the value I have within it would ultimately be significantly reduced. my, such anger. |
|
|
|
And that's precisely why we need to keep all those TX's on the mainchain.
Why ? If we split same amount of transactions into 10,000 chains then a) you can mine all 10,000 chains (it will cost you same resources as 1 BIG chain) -> big corporation b) you can mine/verify only 1-3 small chains on your phone -> 99.9% ordinary people i pointed out upthread how that will lead to tremendous centralization of mining as small miners with poor connectivity would be crushed trying to deal with 10000 chains at once in terms of resources, maintenance, coding reqs, etc. not good. It isn't really clear whether one chain 10000x as large is better or worse for small miners than 10000 separate chains. In the latter case at least a smaller miner could drop some of the least important/valuable chains. You can't drop part of blocks. It is even more important if you are not miner. With 10,000x as large chain ordinary user cannot verify if block is valid. If there are only last 5 big miners left then they can start to produce fake block. b/c there is nobody (except 5 miners) who has enough resources to verify all blocks. Edit: Everyone must verify everything is bad design. => this will collapse. More facepalm |
|
|
|
Not increasing block size will enable to start transaction's fee discovery and it creates environment for innovations. This innovations will reduce fees and move transaction to SC. BItcoin will stay decentralized and more powerful.
Facepalm. The debate has evolved considerably since last October. A debate does not 'evolve' by one guy (no matter what his impression of himself) or group re-stating the same flawed assertions over and over again. I and most others on my side of the philosophical debate are entirely unimpressed (and somewhat perplexed) at your activities, but oh well. Please let us know how well Elements is working. I honestly want to know. |
|
|
|
...
The key element if IBLT would be a structured ordering of transactions within a block. My personal feeling is that this is like the difference in handling ability between water in liquid form and water in solid form. An ice cube is much more flexible to transport, and much easier to match to a mold (e.g., an identifiable ice tray configuration), but it is also more brittle. An ice cube is also much easier to catch in a strainer than it's liquid counterpart.
that is the intent. Of course. It vastly expands the attack surface. perhaps. then a different solution will be made. key thing about Bitcoin is that there are legions of smart, talented ppl working on it now with even more to come. if we can surgically dissect out the financially conflicted cancer, then core dev can advance in a healthy manner. Bitcoin has evolved to that of a public good. we should want that dissection to occur. Doubling block size every 2 years is cancer. That's OK. Then we just cut back. I'd rather try than not try at all. Not increasing block size will enable to start transaction's fee discovery and it creates environment for innovations. This innovations will reduce fees and move transaction to SC. BItcoin will stay decentralized and more powerful. Facepalm. The debate has evolved considerably since last October. |
|
|
|
Saw that. Not sure why he would be so flippant about increasing the hard cap. Maybe because he's a TBI? |
|
|
|
...
The key element if IBLT would be a structured ordering of transactions within a block. My personal feeling is that this is like the difference in handling ability between water in liquid form and water in solid form. An ice cube is much more flexible to transport, and much easier to match to a mold (e.g., an identifiable ice tray configuration), but it is also more brittle. An ice cube is also much easier to catch in a strainer than it's liquid counterpart.
that is the intent. Of course. It vastly expands the attack surface. perhaps. then a different solution will be made. key thing about Bitcoin is that there are legions of smart, talented ppl working on it now with even more to come. if we can surgically dissect out the financially conflicted cancer, then core dev can advance in a healthy manner. Bitcoin has evolved to that of a public good. we should want that dissection to occur. Doubling block size every 2 years is cancer. That's OK. Then we just cut back. I'd rather try than not try at all. |
|
|
|
...
The key element if IBLT would be a structured ordering of transactions within a block. My personal feeling is that this is like the difference in handling ability between water in liquid form and water in solid form. An ice cube is much more flexible to transport, and much easier to match to a mold (e.g., an identifiable ice tray configuration), but it is also more brittle. An ice cube is also much easier to catch in a strainer than it's liquid counterpart.
that is the intent. Of course. It vastly expands the attack surface. perhaps. then a different solution will be made. key thing about Bitcoin is that there are legions of smart, talented ppl working on it now with even more to come. if we can surgically dissect out the financially conflicted cancer, then core dev can advance in a healthy manner. Bitcoin has evolved to that of a public good. we should want that dissection to occur. |
|
|
|
This is the right time to buy, after this downtrend period we are about to rise and reach again the $300 value.
i fully agree. if Bitcoin were to have failed, it would have done it by now. instead, what XT is going to offer is hope for Bitcoin's long awaited and promised growth. as this percolates thru the mkt place, we will reverse the 90% downtrend and start to climb probably accelerating thru next July's block halving. i'm hoping for the next 10x ramp as we've seen several times in past years. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
