this bounce looks about done:  |
|
|
|
goin' UP!  |
|
|
|
Voila! To summarize autoprune: this adds a -prune=N option to bitcoind, which if set to N>0 will enable autoprune. When autopruning is enabled, block and undo files will be deleted to try to keep total space used by those files to below the prune target (N, in MB) specified by the user, subject to some constraints:
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/5863 |
|
|
|
I hope everybody is getting familiar with the informal economy now, before access to the informal economy becomes a matter of survival: http://www.thefallingdarkness.com/2015/04/22/the-cashless-society-is-going-to-backfire-for-the-establishment/They should also consider what will happen if every single transaction causes you to lose money. If just having money means losing money. This will make it profitable for the black market reach into every facet of the economy. Think prohibition, but applied to buying groceries and paying your rent. Everything that can be done informally, will be. This will in time, pave the way for an economy that is separate from the one we currently operate in. It will create a viable alternative to the system we’ve been forced to endure.
Perhaps, this is difficult for us imagine because we’ve never experienced it. But in most cases the black market always finds a way, because the black market goes by another name: the free market. And the free market can’t be stifled in the long run. It will always produce an alternative to any law or regulation.
Money has become intrinsically connected to everything we want, need, and do, so by removing cash and creative negative interest rates, they’re placing a tax on every day life. And if the black market does what the black market does best, it will create an underground alternative to everything we want and need. And I mean everything.
The same situation occurred in the final days of the Soviet Union. Their dysfunctional system produced one of the most virulent and extensive black markets in history, and one could find just about any product or service there. There’s no reason why it can’t happen here. If they succeed in eliminating cash, their system will fade while the black market thrives. They’re too stupid and hubristic to realize that they’re fueling alternatives to their vision of the world, and sealing their own doom. i don't think they can afford to let it get this bad. |
|
|
|
what does that video really have to do with MIT students? Can you read? MIT graduates cannot power a light bulb with a battery. can you process? do you really think that headline is reflective or some indictment on MIT education?  my point is, that's a stupid video. so what if they dumbfounded a few MIT students about how to power a light bulb. we don't even know if they ARE MIT students. and if they are, they probably cherry picked those who couldn't to try and make a predetermined point. one wonders how many students they had to edit out who could light the bulb. iow, i wouldn't throw the whole institution under the bus just b/c of this video. it is strange to me you understand the truth of sound money yet do not grok the reality I apparently have to lead you to. it's like you only have one eye open. these guys are slowly trying to co-opt Bitcoin to the government and its establishments and you can't see it just look at the list of the Media Lab "sponsors" : https://www.media.mit.edu/sponsorship/sponsor-listBrian Forde, former White House senior advisor for mobile and data innovation, has joined the MIT Media Lab as director of digital currency.
https://newsoffice.mit.edu/2015/brian-forde-media-lab-director-digital-currency-0415Get a grip. I'm not saying this will kill Bitcoin but this is certainly no less "bad" than what the folks are Blockstream are privately funding, whether they are for profit or not is irrelevant really. i already addressed all your concerns above in my first answer to you. if you'd rather look at the negatives around MIT and ignore the for-profit incentives of Blockstream, i can't help you. |
|
|
|
what does that video really have to do with MIT students? Can you read? MIT graduates cannot power a light bulb with a battery. can you process? do you really think that headline is reflective or some indictment on MIT education? my point is, that's a stupid video. so what if they dumbfounded a few MIT students about how to power a light bulb. we don't even know if they ARE MIT students. and if they are, they probably cherry picked those who couldn't to try and make a predetermined point. one wonders how many students they had to edit out who could light the bulb. iow, i wouldn't throw the whole institution under the bus just b/c of this video. |
|
|
|
what does that video really have to do with MIT students? Can you read? MIT graduates cannot power a light bulb with a battery. can you process? do you really think that headline is reflective or some indictment on MIT education? |
|
|
|
what does that video really have to do with MIT students? |
|
|
|
as far as Gavin, Wlad, & Cory are concerned, they all were under the BF's roof all along before. they have just moved over to MIT now which in theory is not a for profit afaik and doesn't exist for political reasons. i'm only now getting a sense from some of you about concerns regarding MIT's past behaviors. all i know about Aaron Swartz is that they didn't support him in his gvt struggles, is that right? i think he was attacking/releasing some of their paywall informational archives, wasn't he? if that's the case, then it seems understandable that their would be some tension btwn them.
i read Joi Ito's statement on the Media Labs intention and so far we should give him the benefit of the doubt. of course, time will tell. i did read that article this morning about Forde. he's definitely someone worth keeping an eye on. i would not like it if he ends up trying to steer core dev direction to a significant degree away from our ideal goals that we've espoused ad nauseum here in this thread. one thing that did occur to me is that Gavin, et al won't be moving to MIT under the direct roof of the Media Lab, i'm sure. they will continue to work remotely which helps shield them to a degree. but yeah, accepting pay can be influential for sure. somehow though, from what i've seen of MIT's overall contributions to tech, they seem to have libertarian leanings supportive of the Bitcoin culture and open source. and the fact that it is a research institution is comforting. do you have any evidence that it is an NSA "antechamber"?
tl;dr: i don't see it as a problem right now; in fact, i see it as a positive that those 3 are going to continue to be paid. but yeah, we have to keep an eye out.
About Aaron Swartz see here. : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vXr-2hwTk58i've watched that whole video. so very sad. if you read the entire article you'll see that the institutions stance on issues of freedom are diverse; Daniel Ellsberg, Noam Chomsky, Bradley Manning supporters, Matthew Green of Zerocash, the MIT Bitcoin Club and Bitcoin Drop, Theodore Postol all came from MIT. bad link |
|
|
|
"One division at Deutsche Bank had a culture of generating profits without proper regard to the integrity of the market. This wasn't limited to a few individuals but, on certain desks, it appeared deeply ingrained."
"Deutsche Bank's failings were compounded by them repeatedly misleading us. The bank took far too long to produce vital documents and it moved far too slowly to fix relevant systems and controls," she said.
The FCA said that in one instance, Deutsche in error destroyed 482 tapes of telephone calls that should have been kept. "Deutsche Bank also provided inaccurate information to the regulator about whether other records existed," the FCA said.
The misconduct involved at least 29 Deutsche Bank individuals, including managers and traders, mainly based in London but also in Frankfurt, Tokyo and New York. It took place between 2005 and 2009."
http://www.bbc.com/news/business-32430710
|
|
|
|
Cypherdoc, seeing as you were so much against 3 core developers working under the same hood at Blockstream do you have any comments about Gavin & co. setting up shop in NSA's antechamber working under a previous White House senior advisor?
i see it as a different situation. Blockstream is a for-profit started by gmax himself in which they have equity shares which stand to appreciate enormously if SC's are successful and have specifically solicited numerous deep pocketed investors, many of whom have been anti-Bitcoin historically. not only that, i specifically have admitted to having suspicions about gmax and Luke Jr's political views and shown examples of how they have mishandled community issues in the past. plus, i don't like the entire concept of SC's in general as i don't believe moving BTC to a scBTC is a good economic idea for several reasons especially in regards to disrupting an equilibrium balanced mining industry. as far as Gavin, Wlad, & Cory are concerned, they all were under the BF's roof all along before. they have just moved over to MIT now which in theory is not a for profit afaik and doesn't exist for political reasons. i'm only now getting a sense from some of you about concerns regarding MIT's past behaviors. all i know about Aaron Swartz is that they didn't support him in his gvt struggles, is that right? i think he was attacking/releasing some of their paywall informational archives, wasn't he? if that's the case, then it seems understandable that their would be some tension btwn them. i read Joi Ito's statement on the Media Labs intention and so far we should give him the benefit of the doubt. of course, time will tell. i did read that article this morning about Forde. he's definitely someone worth keeping an eye on. i would not like it if he ends up trying to steer core dev direction to a significant degree away from our ideal goals that we've espoused ad nauseum here in this thread. one thing that did occur to me is that Gavin, et al won't be moving to MIT under the direct roof of the Media Lab, i'm sure. they will continue to work remotely which helps shield them to a degree. but yeah, accepting pay can be influential for sure. somehow though, from what i've seen of MIT's overall contributions to tech, they seem to have libertarian leanings supportive of the Bitcoin culture and open source. and the fact that it is a research institution is comforting. do you have any evidence that it is an NSA "antechamber"? tl;dr: i don't see it as a problem right now; in fact, i see it as a positive that those 3 are going to continue to be paid. but yeah, we have to keep an eye out. |
|
|
|
Apparently he was putting up fake sell "walls" to drive the price down! Who even knew that was illegal, let alone 20 years worth. I put something up for sale, then flake out at the last second ... how is that illegal? Its ludicrous. Anyone who's stared at a level 2 trading screen sees HFT 100 lot orders constantly flashing in and out within milliseconds continuously baiting you . And that the state thinks it should take a view on trading tactics between grown adults in the totemic heart of the free world. I think it's indicative of their weakness. Would they have spent 5 years hunting someone who caused a spike up? That reminded me of 2008 when Wall Street got all pissed off at the shorts and actually succeeded in banning all shorts on financial institutions. What a crooked game they run: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/here-what-happened-when-sec-banned-shorting-financial-companies-2008https://www.sec.gov/news/press/2008/2008-211.htm |
|
|
|
Apparently he was putting up fake sell "walls" to drive the price down! Who even knew that was illegal, let alone 20 years worth. I put something up for sale, then flake out at the last second ... how is that illegal? Its ludicrous. Anyone who's stared at a level 2 trading screen sees HFT 100 lot orders constantly flashing in and out within milliseconds continuously baiting you . |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
