How can they find out I own bitcoin?
You have no secrets from the national security agencies. I don't care how many mixers you use, you have no secrets from them. Find old discussions between @smooth and myself on that topic.
Why doesn't MP dump too? he is a public figure so he will be the first to get trapped by the anti bitcoin government control operation.
He is already one of the $billionaires (will probably be $trillionaire by 2030). He is a member of their shadow elite's club named
The Most Serene Republic.
Do you need
the evidence. MP alerted the TMSR which controls Wikileaks and this is why Wikileaks destroyed Hillary's campaign. Do some research on the connection between Rothschild and Julian Assange. Btw, Julian was a cyberpunk (the mailing list discussions) before he launched Wikileaks of which so were other players such as Hal Finney and James A. Donald (see my quotes of him in the Dark Enlightenment thread and note he was first person to respond to Satoshi on the metzdown mailing list whet Bitcoin was announced Nov. 1, 2008).
It's harder to trap the small guy that only owns a couple 5-21 BTC, it's not public, uses Tor etc.
If by 2030 I have several million dollars that I cannot enjoy because I can't even cash them out because the fee is higher than the million dollars I have im going to be pissed.
They don't need to trap you. You'll get caught in their regulations because you will get kicked off the blockchain by the exorbitant transaction fees due to the constrained block size.
Also they can create war and other problems for us that cause us to need to spend our BTC sooner than we anticipated.
If by 2030 I have several million dollars that I cannot enjoy because I can't even cash them out because the fee is higher than the million dollars I have im going to be pissed.
You'll be forced to cash out of BTC before that (to some regulated financial system such as Lightning Networks, SEPA, etc) or hold your BTC a
regulated exchange.
Or possibly there will be another blockchain choice such as yours truly.
Ethereum is also attempting to scale the blockchain. I will make a post comparing Ethereum's technology to mine in Altcoin Discussion soon...
if your basing it on moving 1btc... the answer is naturally when it becomes costly to the point of over 1% (so 0.01btc fee) to move it people will lose preferential desire to hold bitcoin.
I disagree. People will see an incentive to hold bitcoin as long as the price keeps going to the moon. If the fee is 0.01 BTC, but the price of 1 BTC is $10,000 with prospects of going $100,000 BTC, then who is the idiot that doesn't want to hold that?
As long as the price keeps going up and the fees allow you to move your wealth when needed, it will have an incentive to be the holder's coin.
If the fee becomes higher than 99% of people's wealth and only billionaires see a point in using it, well that's a problem, everyone else will have dumped and only a few will be using it (and I don't see how it can survive in this state, since barely any transaction volume would be going on for miners to be worth mining)
You have an incomplete mathematical conceptualization.
You can't just analyze from the perspective of a percentage fee, because the blocksize is constrained.
It can become possible that transacting in morsels as small as 1 BTC is no longer possible.
So let me get this straight.
Even people holding millions of dollars worth of bitcoin, will see their bitcoins trapped because transaction fees will be worth millions of dollars? What fees are we talking about by 2030? (at supposedly around $500k price)
Well we can estimate given that BTC trades 1/100th of its market cap daily.
So @ $500k per BTC thus a $10 trillion market cap, thus $100 billion transacted daily. Given 144 blocks per day, that is $600 million per block.
Let's assume that whales will put complex settlement transactions on the blockchain with many inputs and outputs so perhaps only 100 transactions per block. Presuming that whales are willing to pay 0.1% fee for security (i.e. $600,000 per block),
that means a minimum transaction fee of $6000. If whales are willing to pay more for security, say 1%, then minimum transaction fee of $60,000.
However, I think whales will end up demanding a kickback from miners for their transaction fees, so that miners can jack up fees on non-whales. Whales can make this demand because they can refuse to send their transactions to miners which won't deal. Yet non-whales can't make a credible threat, because miners who generally offered lower fees would end up losing hashrate relative to those miners who didn't defect from the fee market. Thus I think you will probably see miners colluding to extract the maximum fees that gouge non-whales.
So perhaps 10% fees so $600,000 per transaction. You'll pay it because you have no choice, whereas the whales will have exempted themselves from the fee. So in other words, we will be paying the fees for the whales, eventually the millionaires paying exorbitant fees in order to transact unregulated.
You'll of course be able to avoid that exorbitant fees by going through a regulated option as I explained previously.
So the bottom line is the whales will be free from regulation and we will not. We remain slaves.
No one wants a bitcoin network where they'll have to pay more than 1% of the transaction amount as a fee
The whales do because they will be paying 0% fees, as I explained in my prior post.
And everyone who can afford it, will still want to hodl BTC, because
the price is going to the moon.
So it will be a process that as the price rises, more and more riff-raff get priced out of the block chain. But those who remain will hodl
because the price is rising logistically.
Really you need to think this out. It works very well economically and
Satoshi was an evil genius.
Satoshi did this minimization because it is good design sense, it is sufficient security and collision resistance, it provides an extra layer of protection against any unknown cryptanalysis interaction between SHA256 (or RIPE160) alone and ECDSA, and it helps to market the product to the n00bs as scalable (even though Satoshi was deception in this regard) in Bitcoin's nascent stage. Also SHA256 before RIPE160 provides an extra layer of protection against any
unknown cryptanalysis breakage on collisions for RIPE160 alone. For example,
SHA256 has a Merkle-Damgard length extension weakness when not doubled with itself or another hash,
which tangentially btw would provide someone with a strong hint as to where to look for inventing the AsicBoost to make SHA256 mining 30% more efficient.Satoshi was so genius that he designed the AsicBoost into the design.
I can say that with great confidence because double-hashing defeats attacks such as AsicBoost, and Satoshi
did double-hashing as a precaution every where it could be required in his design except for the proof-of-work.
He managed to think far ahead on the game theory and realized he would need a poison pill to ensure that no one could modify his evil design.
So therefor he created a design that he knew the Chinese ASIC manufacturers would figure out how to make covert AsicBoost and that if it was patented outside of China, then this would be the poison pill against any changes to the protocol (as I have recently explained at @gmaxwell's Redditard discussion).
@dinofelis STFU on your nonsense about Satoshi wasn't genius. I've strongly refuted
all of your nonsense technical claims. Stop your lying nonsense.
