[neㄘcash, ᨇcash, net⚷eys, or viᖚes?] Name AnonyMint's vapor coin?

[sockpuppet1]

I am speaking on behalf of TPTB_need_war aka AnonyMint, who is quoted in the OP, because he is currently banned for 9 more days due to calling theymos and gmaxwell out on their censorship of a potential technical back door in Bitcoin. There is a simpler explanation of Satoshi's obviously intentional technical error. It is obviously intentional because it was quite well known by 2009 that the HMAC formulation is more secure yet Satoshi used the more suspect double hashing everywhere in BitCON.

I will be editing this post and adding answers and rebuttals to the various incorrect posts that litter this thread. Please check back and read this post, because I will not be posting again in this thread, and instead I will edit this post to add new information as others continue to make posts that need to be refuted.

Please quote my post because the mods will probably delete it and ban me again.

"Blockstream implementing their SegWit soft fork Trojan Horse"

Lmao this guy is losing it. The blockstream FUDsters know no limits on their nonsense. The trojan horse was the Bitcoin XT, then Bitcoin Classic hard fork attempts, not segregated witness, segwit is actual advance in scaling Bitcoin. Whatever, it's a waste of time dealing with this shit.

Segregrated Witness is not the problem. The problem is that Blockstream is sneaking in a new soft fork versioning protocol at the same time. This new versioning protocol when combined with collusion with China's oligarchy control over mining, will insure together the elite can change the protocol of Bitcoin at-will any time. Why do you think Blockstream has received $70+ million in investor funding from the financial community. Blockstream has no viable way to make a profit. The company exists as a way to take control over Bitcoin. Note that Classic and XT didn't really solve the centralization problem either, but at least they didn't hand soft fork versioning control to the devil.

They will send their propaganda machine here to discredit me. They always do that. Then they ban me. They don't want you to know the truth. I don't care anymore. You fools are doomed. This is my last post on this matter. I have other programming work to do. It is up to you fools to get organized and stop being useless eaters and cattle for the elite. I can lead you to water, but I can't teach your dumb asses to drink. I tried to teach, but I get drowned out by the trolls and propaganda who are hired to keep the truth from you.

Instead of a tinfoil hat, I swear the guy has an entire tinfoil skull.  The sky is perpetually falling every day and it's always Armageddon forever.  A healthy dose of skepticism is fair enough, but don't take it to extreme, bordeline-crackpot, levels.

Bitcoin is just fine.

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

So how many years from now china will own 98 % of mining power ??

Here is a link to the cryptocoinnews.com article and also an estimate follows in the linked thread. Realize that is just one former cattle farmer who currently mines 50 of the 1200 BTC per day and he plans to increase that to 200 BTC of the 600 mined per day after the halving. Just one cattle farmer will be mining 30% of Bitcoin.

Why would they do anything detrimental to Bitcoin? It would hurt them more than anyone financially.

With an oligarchy in control of the mining, they can choose to increase transaction fees to the maximum the market can bear, not the competitive rate for transaction fees. They could also work together with Blockstream to increase the 21 million coin limit, so they can earn more coins. None of this would hurt Bitcoin, because obviously none of you care. You will suck BitCon's cock because you think it is a "better gold" as Satoshi advertised it to you in the white paper.

Additionally these mega mining farms in China don't attain their loans and nearly free electricity without returning favors to the elite who are in charge. In effect, this means Bitcoin has become just another fiat system. They can KYC identification requirements on it the future and pretty much do what ever they want. And you will lick their balls because you have no other choice. Don't tell me you will switch coins, because no other coin will have the adoption and mining security.

I find it really hilarious how you think you are supporting something that will change the world in a better way, yet it is just more of the same oligarch controlled BS that we've always had.

how is that centralised? there's over a billion chinese 

It is rather good for Bitcoin, if a lot of people in China have some bitcoins

A billion aren't mining, only a few very well connected few. An oligarchy is taking form. The coins are only going to a few oligarchs

why they should destroy their own business? 51% will never happen, with their cheap electricity they are earning a shitload of money...

They want to maximize their profit and be in control of their destiny.

Most of these Chinese mining firms are pools, so like most pools that are extremely big, if they get too big, miners will hop to a different one.

It isn't just the pools that are the problem, but that the mining farms are large and concentrating the 51+% amongst a few oligarchs. This will only grow more centralized over time, because TPTB_need_war explained in his technical analysis, that profitable proof-of-work always accrues over time to maximum economies-of-scale. There are several reasons for that including propagation advantages of being the first to win more blocks, so don't waste hashrate mining on the wrong fork for a short period, which over time gradually depletes the other miners of relative profits. It is more complex than that. You need to read his entire analysis to understand.

I don't care if China controls most of the mining market, if people do care about that, they can purchase the mining power and start mining.

That is an incorrect understanding. As I explained above, the mining hashrate economically accrues to those miners with the greatest economies-of-scale. No one can buy mining equipment to offset that, because the miners in China are ostensibly getting nearly free electricity and nearly 0% interest loans. It is a corruption charged to the collective. Don't you understand how Communism works? We have this system now in the West too. Capitalism is dead. Long live Marxism!

I really don't care because I agree with you and many of us still don't sell our Bitcoins because if it goes mainstream in China or even a little popular, we'll be all rich/millionaires. The whole idealistic anarco utopia many still think Bitcoin is long dead, that's why Ethereum and other cool projects are emerging (even if they end up having the same fate eventually).

Look to be straightforward BTC hasn't been destroyed yet. It is very much living. I would suggest you to not worry about China and mining and focus on making profit with this system now. 

Exactly. You guys don't care whether Bitcoin ends up as a totalitarian digital hell. You only care about making a profit hell or highwater, come what may.

So if China owns a large portion of the system, we're doomed? But what if bitcoins are centralized in America or in Europe? It's going to be an entire story, right? I mean, once again western power has an influence to this point.

Why are you building a strawman argument to deflect the debate away from the important issue. Obviously it doesn't matter where the oligarchy on mining is located. The only thing that matters is that profitable proof-of-work will always end up entirely centralized. TPTB_need_war has explained why this is the case because he an expert on the economics and technology, despite what some trolls might want to mislead you to believe.

BTC will do right when there will be decentralized exchangers.

And that will only happen because of my work to fix the jamming problem that plagued all DE designs. The trolls want to ridicule me, and I don't yet get the recognition. But that is okay. I just want you to know the truth.

.... with their cheap electricity they are earning a shitload of money...

What you mean is they're stealing a shitload of money. 

Taxpayer money converted into electricity by government-owned power utility.

Electricity converted into bitcoin and bitcoin into privatized money by miners.

In China bitcoin mining is essentially just a channel to steal tax money.  The fact that it hasn't been forced to shut down or use non-subsidized electricity by now is probably evidence that someone is taking bribes.  (What a surprise!  That NEVER happens in China!   )

Finally someone with a brain stem! Congrats!

Yeah it is more of charging the expenses to the collective and keeping the profits for themselves. Same as the banksters did with the bailouts.

$1 million of your investor money every day going to those fat cats. And circulating back around as $70 million in grease money for Blockstream to rape you with.

Like the Capitalist West have been doing for years? The Chinese took a opportunity when they saw it and they used it... How can you blame them?

Yeah why care if the banksters keep the profits and charge the bailouts to the people. Love that Communist/Fascism, don't you?

well good for them if they are able to steal unfair and legal scam from government, called tax

Yeah it was great when the banksters stole the bailouts from the government! Excellent logic. 

Good to see you want BitCON to be all about stealing. Nice world you want to promote.

Personally I'd be more worried if the hashrate was under NSA's jurisdiction.

Chinese miners have acted OK so far

You haven't studied the history of oligarchies. They can only act one way. Give it a little time. The collusion is taking form. By the time, you realize it, it will be too late to do anything about it or to change. Bitcoin will be too well established by that time, just like fiat is now. You will bend over and take in your ass, because you didn't think it was a problem when I told you and then when you realize you will have no more choice nor options to pursue.

[Laniakea]

@sockpuppet1

If you happen to be TPTB_need_war please don't post out of the Meta section ASAP,
there is a forum rule concerning this!

[sockpuppet1]

Note I am not referring to a price decline per se, my point is about the other ways a fiat can be used against the people, such as forcing all our transactions to be tracked with digital identification when we sign our transactions. Forcing us to pay a tax to the world government on each transaction we sign, etc.
...
Mining altcoins to exchange value for BTC, does not decentralize the protocol of the Bitcoin block chain. Only the Bitcoin miners control the policies of the protocol.

If 51% of them decide to change the protocol and the Bitcoiners are unable to mount a successful political campaign to organize a fork, then the oligarchy wins. And if they do fork, they would need to change the hash algorithm, otherwise the oligarchy could simply take over the fork as well. The delusion about forking is the the Bitcoiners can't agree on anything, so they certainly couldn't agree on a new proof-of-work hash algorithm. Besides, no one cares. Everybody only cares about profit and using what is already popular. No one here has a clue about how to organize to make something widely adopted and popular. The elite are in control. Now get down on your knees and pray to the elite, because they own you.

@sockpuppet1

If you happen to be TPTB_need_war please don't post out of the Meta section ASAP,
there is a forum rule concerning this!

One of the journey's towards being a man is learning to not be afraid.

Well gleb gamow and SebastianJu both got temp banned too for similar reasons not too long ago.   At least the forum rules are being enforced somewhat fairly.

Which similar reasons?

Tisk tisk. Keep your posts in Meta or ...

"Tsk. Tsk" are the words I expect to hear from your grandmother calling you to have your daily scolding. I don't cowtail to theymos' delusions, technical incompetence, and censorship.

If I may express some frustration w.r.t. to desire to troll and censor, "Fuck you and theymos too". TPTB_need_war doesn't care. He can always subvert any ban.

Any way, TPTB_need_war is too busy programming. He has provided a public service.

And yes he was banned for revealing a potential back door in Bitcoin[1]. Just goes to show how theymos and gmaxwell are protecting you.

And yourself, how about you grow up and learn to tolerate open dialogue.

P.S. permanently banning TPTB_need_war is perfect for his plans. I hope theymos has the balls and the technical knowledge to attempt it.

Also I didn't start this thread. I didn't ask for this thread. I wasn't intending to post in this subforum at this time. Blame the person who created this thread. I read so much misunderstanding and slander of TPTB_need_war that required clarification and correction.


[1] In the ban message and in theymos's private message which is quoted by TPTP_need_war, theymos indicated the reason for the ban in addition to his incorrect claim of spouting technical nonsense, he also alleged spamming of messages in several threads and the ad hominem attacks against others. Theymos appears to be protecting Foxpop who hurled ad hominemfirst, and CIYAM who also hurled ad hominem first. TPTB_need_war had stated that the reason for posting in numerous threads, is because the mods allowed people to make numerous duplicate threads on the same topic about Craig Wright claiming to be Satoshi Nakamoto. Do take note that at the time he was having the debate with CIYAM, he had thought that Craig's signature had matched the hash of the Sartre text because he was misled by sloppy reporting and sloppy writing of those who did the technical analysis. It was only later that he learned that was not the case. And after all, his alleged back door in Bitcoin remains potentially true. You don't ban people for these incorrect reasons and expect to remain respected and expect others to not want to overcome inappropriate use of influence. There is too much ignonymous influence in Bitcoin.

...absolutely petrifying.   

You did it to yourselves. Now you will reap what you have sown.

I am an American who doesn't share your looney European Marxism. Last time it was a million in the gas chambers. Let's see how it goes this round.

Shut up and get back to work on building your copy-leftist clusterfuck.

I don't associate with scum like you. I compete and overcome. Bye. Unless that is you want to say those words about my kids to my face. Otherwise we have nothing more to discuss. Enjoy your life.

[sockpuppet1]

More crapcoin spam on the front page than usual now.  I keep seeing some lunatic post claiming "Rimbit" is going to defeat BTC LOL.

Alts used to pump on legit news not so long ago. Now the only movement up is on P&D scams like the recent EXE action on Poloniex.

I believe the Anonymizer and smoooooth have decided to let the "get rich quick with my lunch money" crowd run wild without retort. A P&D circus is what the gamblers want.

I do believe there exists a significant quantity of readers (100s?) on these forums that want to invest and support an altcoin which has serious potential to solve the problem that, Bitcoin IS basically DESTROYED. I also believe if ever such an altcoin arrived and it was gaining serious levels of user adoption (e.g. millions of users of the currency), then number of serious readers and investors would increase to the 1000s. I believe all of us are conditioned to think that no such altcoin will be forthcoming because developments thus far have been so underwhelming, scammy, vaporware, and/or slower than a snail's pace. Monero and Z.cash for example appear to be serious projects plodding forward at a reasonable pace, but neither of them really solve the "to the billions" scaling problems and they'd argue that such a scaling goal isn't required or possible for now or even ever. Does anyone agree or disagree with this presumption of mine?

I am speaking on behalf of TPTB_need_war aka AnonyMint, who is quoted in the OP, because he is currently banned for 9 more days due to calling theymos and gmaxwell out on their censorship of a potential technical back door in Bitcoin. There is a simpler explanation of Satoshi's obviously intentional technical error. It is obviously intentional because it was quite well known by 2009 that the HMAC formulation is more secure yet Satoshi used the more suspect double hashing everywhere in BitCON.

I wrote two longish posts upthread with many rebuttals and explanations:

1. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1465136.msg14789764#msg14789764
2. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1465136.msg14793818#msg14793818

The community's posts that have followed are indicative that most people are naive and easily duped. It boggles my mind how readers have misconstrued the situation.

Let me try again to unravel all your egregious misunderstandings.

• Geographical Location Is Irrelevant: please stop making the inane disingenuous strawman alleging this thread is concerned about where the concentration of hashing power is located. The problem is that the economies-of-scale of profitable proof-of-work forces the concentration the mining control into a few ASIC mining farms. I explained why this is technically and economically inexorable and unavoidable in my prior two posts, which are linked for you above. The only relevance of China, is that China has the right Communist corruption to facilitate building these ASIC mining farms with much lower cost, because the electricity is likely subsidized at near 0 cost to the miner by the State. For example, the $billions spent by the taxpayers to construct the environmental disaster Three Gorges Dam (actually in China the tax is the low interest rate paid on savings accounts offered by State controlled banking which the LGUs then borrow at near 0%). The ostensible fact that China is a totalitarian/fascist command economy is relevant in the sense that it means the owners of the mining farms are necessarily beholden to the Communist Party leaders and their commands.
• Bitcoin Has Already Been 51% Attacked: to argue that the oligarchy of miners and mining pools in China won't abuse their control is disingenuous because they already have! They blocked Bitcoin Classic and XT and appear to be deciding for the us that SegWit is the protocol hard fork that will be forced on all of us. And there is not a damn thing any of us can or will do about it. Note the Great Firewall (GFW) of China is not a valid argument to be against larger blocks, because the pool server could be located outside and only the hash of the block needs to be sent across the GFW. So please stop the inane argument that they won't 51% attack BitCON when they have already done so. Ostensibly the reason they are supporting SegWit is because what the miners want is the ability to constrict the block size so that they can maximize transaction fees at the maximum level the market will bear, i.e. maximize the equation: (fees per transaction) × (transaction rate). They obviously won't allow transaction fees to go so high that no one uses BitCON any more, i.e. they will allow block size to increase in a constricted controlled increase in order to maximize the aforementioned equation, but they also will make sure they extract more than the $1million a day they are extracting from our pockets now. Through their bankster friends system, I posit they effectively bought off Blockstream by indirectly providing Blockstream's $70 million in vulture capital funding, in order to insure the necessary control over BitCON's protocol. It's a "I'll scratch your back, if you scratch mine" network often referred to colloquially as The Bilderberg Group. We tinfoil hats complain about how the government steals from us with fiat inflation, yet then we don't complain when the oligarchy of miners are doing the same thing! We are so gullible and stoopid, it is not surprising that the-powers-that-be think we are useless eaters and cattle fodder.
• Segregrated Witness Includes A Diabolical Trojan Horse: the technology for scaling in SegWit is dubious, but that is not the major issue of concern with it. Instead of issuing SegWit has a normal hard fork which miners can vote on by which protocol they mine, Blockstream (Bitcoin core devs) is changing the Bitcoin protocol in such a way that in the future they can introduced versioned "soft fork" changes to the protocol. This is actually very diabolical if you think carefully about it. What this means is that there can exist transactions on the block chain which can only be handled by a miner who supports the version of the protocol which that transaction was signed to. So while they label this as a "soft fork", meaning that it is optional for miners, in reality it is a very insidious way of forcing a hard fork on all miners because little-by-little new transactions are written to the new version of the protocol and then miners who don't switch to the new version can't process the newer transactions. So in effect this puts Blockstream in control of the protocol of Bitcoin and we the users basically lose our power to rally a political decision about a hard fork. Why? Because insidious changes are very difficult for people to rally a group to defend against. This is a very clever paradigm of divide-and-conquer that was employed by the Rothschilds and Rockefellers. They always want to destroy you insidiously while you are not aware. And I believe my criticism is the underlying real reason that Gregory Maxwell is nuking my posts and fighting me. Apparently theymos is also corrupt, or has been hoodwinked by the Gman.
• Decentralization Is The Only Difference From Fiat: those who argue that decentralization is not that important, are in effect arguing that fiat is acceptable. Those who argue that "Satoshi" intended Bitcoin to centralize over time are probably correct. "Satoshi" may have even intentionally put a back door in BitCON. I also argue that "Satoshi Nakamoto" is the House of Morgan's creation, he is not one person but rather a diabolical group, and BitCON was designed to con those tinfoil hat geeks who want "a better gold". Did you not read the Bitcoin white paper carefully where it seems to attack the existing system of financial institutions for internet transactions in the first page and then in distribution section it pitches BitCON as a better gold. The white paper wasn't an academic only paper, but also a very well targeted marketing advertisement. That you all idolize Satoshi as giving us some great technological gift is all the more hilarious, because obviously "Satoshi" did not solve the Byzantine Generals Problem, and he gave us a profitable proof-of-work design which MUST centralize. However there is another wrinkle to this. The design Satoshi gave us, leads TPTB_need_war to a new design which is UNprofitable proof-of-work, and that design may not centralize (so easily). So it is possible that while I believe "Satoshi Nakamoto" was a secret group formed by the-powers-that-be to siphon $1 million a day from the tinfoil hat crowd, it is possible that one of those intelligent men working in that group actually expected that maybe someone would be resourceful enough to figure out how to fix the design. So in that way, maybe the good spirit of human kind is still in play.
  
  AnonyMint warned you all about this when he first joined this forum in March 2013. The-powers-that-be have a golden rule by which they abide. They always warn you of their plans, and this is so you sheep have your free will. They know damn well that you sheep are too asleep and disorganized to do anything to stop them.
• Bitcoin Can't Be Fixed: those who are deluded into thinking that Bitcoin could somehow morph and be fixed from its current design and circumstance, are dumber than horse shit. Do I really need to explain.   Fixing Bitcoin with all the ingrained inertia and vested interests is equivalent to those who argue that the governments can be fixed and that world won't collapse into a horrific global debt implosion Minsky Moment roughly 2018. These are the same type of people who don't put plywood on their windows when a hurricane is approaching and then blame for FEMA for not rescuing them.

Thanks for your interesting posts in this thread

1)  Geographical Location is Irrelevant.  

Thank you!  We can just stop there with that statement and move on.  Personally I just got back from another trip to the capitalist and haven known as China, and have my own opinions about various different dialects, ethnic groups, provinces, competing powers, projects, firewalls, etc.  As you said it's irrelevant.  The only reason to mention a nation further in this kind of discussion other than as an identifier is to let people know you are immature and can easily be ignored.  I mean what is this, an appeal to racism?  Lol.

Incorrect. You are ignoring part of the logic as to why the fascist command economy in China is facilitating the bitCON:

The only relevance of China, is that China has the right Communist corruption to facilitate building these ASIC mining farms with much lower cost, because the electricity is likely subsidized at near 0 cost to the miner by the State. For example, the $billions spent by the taxpayers to construct the environmental disaster Three Gorges Dam (actually in China the tax is the low interest rate paid on savings accounts offered by State controlled banking which the LGUs then borrow at near 0%). The ostensible fact that China is a totalitarian/fascist command economy is relevant in the sense that it means the owners of the mining farms are necessarily beholden to the Communist Party leaders and their commands.

[...]

They blocked Bitcoin Classic and XT and appear to be deciding for the us that SegWit is the protocol hard fork that will be forced on all of us. And there is not a damn thing any of us can or will do about it. Note the Great Firewall (GFW) of China is not a valid argument to be against larger blocks, because the pool server could be located outside and only the hash of the block needs to be sent across the GFW.

Don't forget how the Chinese mining cartel lied to us and claimed the GFW was their excuse for blocking Bitcoin XT and Classic.

2)   Segregated Witness Includes a Diablocal Trojan Horse.  

Color me unfrightened by blockstream's trojan horse here.  Perhaps I haven't seen what they are going to release yet, but hey - if it's not open source and understood only fools will run it.  Let them push whatever nonsense if that's what they are up to.  Sure, I share your skepticism and conservatism but not your fear.  I can always run another wallet and request my TX in whatever form I like.

Running another wallet won't help you. Your inaction and lack of understanding means they can put the Trojan Horse in and then there is nothing more we can do about it. We are screwed. You are very much a sheep and I hope you remain a sheep for the rest of your life. I won't be able to stop the fact that the masses like you are dumber than horse shit. That is why the-powers-that-be don't care if I warn you all here. They know you readers are sheep and will always be sheep. They laugh. I am starting to laugh at you all too. I tried my best to explain to you all, and instead I get these inane replies. Sorry if my reply is ad hominem. I really prefer to not think you are dumber than horse shit. I really do. You don't afford me that opportunity. I am frustrated. I give up. I will not talk to you fools any more. Have it your way.

3)  Decentralization is the only difference from Fiat

Wow, I could scarcely disagree more here.  WTEF?  Fiat is a privately released dimensionless token!!  Bitcoin is a public coin!!  The money supply is public and every unit is tied to an expenditure of energy.  Public money!!  Publicly verified transactions!!  How can you say this is anything like privately issued dimensionless corporate scrip, where nobody ever knows how much is being issued and no transactions are ever verified?  Making an apple slightly more rough and round doesn't make it an orange.

BitCON is also a privately issued corporate scrip issued to a few owners of mining farms. The electricity is charged to the taxpayer, not to the-powers-that-be which defacto "own" these mining farms.

There is not difference. It is just an ideological obfuscation to make you wet your geek-fanboys pants.

4) Bitcoin can't be fixed

The thing continues to work as advertised 8 years ago with almost no changes.  What are you trying to fix?  My guess is that your car broke down and you are blaming "the wheel".  And btw you are wrong about altcoins too.  They also work as advertised and do very much have enough security and traction for use as exchange commodities.  

I mean it can't be fixed to not be a centralized fascist tool.

Of course it will function. Fiat functions also.

Enjoy your 1984. It is rapidly approaching.

I posted this over a year ago when someone else was soiling themselves about a potential Chinese takeover and I'm pretty sure the same applies here:

Just because they happen to reside in the same arbitrary borders, doesn't mean they're some sort of hive-mind colluding to take over.  Stop jumping at shadows.  Also slightly disgusted with the double standard that no one cared when it was any other country with the largest hash rate (since there's obviously always going to be one with a higher hash rate than the others), but now just because it's China we should sound the alarm?  Are you trying to come across as racists or something?

The paid propagandists such as DooMAD will come here and try to appeal to the angst that non-Americans feel towards being bullied around by America, and in general the angst that oppressed people feel which is often labeled "racism" even when the oppression is not associated with race but rather other factors.

So the game DooMAD is playing with your minds, is he wants to switch off your pre-frontal cortex by spiking your cortisol to sway your attention away from the facts I presented, by inciting you to focus on your hate of oppression.

What he doesn't tell you is that China's fascist command economy is oppressing its own people! And has been since at least the time of Mao in the 1950s wherein 57 million Chinese peasants were slaughtered to make way for the globalist funded Communism.

We are always being turned against each other and take our eyes off the true source of the our problems.

DooMAD I don't know how you can look at yourself in the mirror.

[KLONE]

I am speaking on behalf of TPTB_need_war aka AnonyMint, who is quoted in the OP, because he is currently banned for 9 more days due to calling theymos and gmaxwell out on their censorship of a potential technical back door in Bitcoin. There is a simpler explanation of Satoshi's obviously intentional technical error. It is obviously intentional because it was quite well known by 2009 that the HMAC formulation is more secure yet Satoshi used the more suspect double hashing everywhere in BitCON.

I will be editing this post and adding answers and rebuttals to the various incorrect posts that litter this thread. Please check back and read this post, because I will not be posting again in this thread, and instead I will edit this post to add new information as others continue to make posts that need to be refuted.

Please quote my post because the mods will probably delete it and ban me again.

"Blockstream implementing their SegWit soft fork Trojan Horse"

Lmao this guy is losing it. The blockstream FUDsters know no limits on their nonsense. The trojan horse was the Bitcoin XT, then Bitcoin Classic hard fork attempts, not segregated witness, segwit is actual advance in scaling Bitcoin. Whatever, it's a waste of time dealing with this shit.

Segregrated Witness is not the problem. The problem is that Blockstream is sneaking in a new soft fork versioning protocol at the same time. This new versioning protocol when combined with collusion with China's oligarchy control over mining, will insure together the elite can change the protocol of Bitcoin at-will any time. Why do you think Blockstream has received $70+ million in investor funding from the financial community. Blockstream has no viable way to make a profit. The company exists as a way to take control over Bitcoin. Note that Classic and XT didn't really solve the centralization problem either, but at least they didn't hand soft fork versioning control to the devil.

They will send their propaganda machine here to discredit me. They always do that. Then they ban me. They don't want you to know the truth. I don't care anymore. You fools are doomed. This is my last post on this matter. I have other programming work to do. It is up to you fools to get organized and stop being useless eaters and cattle for the elite. I can lead you to water, but I can't teach your dumb asses to drink. I tried to teach, but I get drowned out by the trolls and propaganda who are hired to keep the truth from you.

Instead of a tinfoil hat, I swear the guy has an entire tinfoil skull.  The sky is perpetually falling every day and it's always Armageddon forever.  A healthy dose of skepticism is fair enough, but don't take it to extreme, bordeline-crackpot, levels.

Bitcoin is just fine.

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

So how many years from now china will own 98 % of mining power ??

Here is a link to the cryptocoinnews.com article and also an estimate follows in the linked thread. Realize that is just one former cattle farmer who currently mines 50 of the 1200 BTC per day and he plans to increase that to 200 BTC of the 600 mined per day after the halving. Just one cattle farmer will be mining 30% of Bitcoin.

Why would they do anything detrimental to Bitcoin? It would hurt them more than anyone financially.

With an oligarchy in control of the mining, they can choose to increase transaction fees to the maximum the market can bear, not the competitive rate for transaction fees. They could also work together with Blockstream to increase the 21 million coin limit, so they can earn more coins. None of this would hurt Bitcoin, because obviously none of you care. You will suck BitCon's cock because you think it is a "better gold" as Satoshi advertised it to you in the white paper.

Additionally these mega mining farms in China don't attain their loans and nearly free electricity without returning favors to the elite who are in charge. In effect, this means Bitcoin has become just another fiat system. They can KYC identification requirements on it the future and pretty much do what ever they want. And you will lick their balls because you have no other choice. Don't tell me you will switch coins, because no other coin will have the adoption and mining security.

I find it really hilarious how you think you are supporting something that will change the world in a better way, yet it is just more of the same oligarch controlled BS that we've always had.

how is that centralised? there's over a billion chinese 

It is rather good for Bitcoin, if a lot of people in China have some bitcoins

A billion aren't mining, only a few very well connected few. An oligarchy is taking form. The coins are only going to a few oligarchs

why they should destroy their own business? 51% will never happen, with their cheap electricity they are earning a shitload of money...

They want to maximize their profit and be in control of their destiny.

Most of these Chinese mining firms are pools, so like most pools that are extremely big, if they get too big, miners will hop to a different one.

It isn't just the pools that are the problem, but that the mining farms are large and concentrating the 51+% amongst a few oligarchs. This will only grow more centralized over time, because TPTB_need_war explained in his technical analysis, that profitable proof-of-work always accrues over time to maximum economies-of-scale. There are several reasons for that including propagation advantages of being the first to win more blocks, so don't waste hashrate mining on the wrong fork for a short period, which over time gradually depletes the other miners of relative profits. It is more complex than that. You need to read his entire analysis to understand.

I don't care if China controls most of the mining market, if people do care about that, they can purchase the mining power and start mining.

That is an incorrect understanding. As I explained above, the mining hashrate economically accrues to those miners with the greatest economies-of-scale. No one can buy mining equipment to offset that, because the miners in China are ostensibly getting nearly free electricity and nearly 0% interest loans. It is a corruption charged to the collective. Don't you understand how Communism works? We have this system now in the West too. Capitalism is dead. Long live Marxism!

I really don't care because I agree with you and many of us still don't sell our Bitcoins because if it goes mainstream in China or even a little popular, we'll be all rich/millionaires. The whole idealistic anarco utopia many still think Bitcoin is long dead, that's why Ethereum and other cool projects are emerging (even if they end up having the same fate eventually).

Look to be straightforward BTC hasn't been destroyed yet. It is very much living. I would suggest you to not worry about China and mining and focus on making profit with this system now. 

Exactly. You guys don't care whether Bitcoin ends up as a totalitarian digital hell. You only care about making a profit hell or highwater, come what may.

So if China owns a large portion of the system, we're doomed? But what if bitcoins are centralized in America or in Europe? It's going to be an entire story, right? I mean, once again western power has an influence to this point.

Why are you building a strawman argument to deflect the debate away from the important issue. Obviously it doesn't matter where the oligarchy on mining is located. The only thing that matters is that profitable proof-of-work will always end up entirely centralized. TPTB_need_war has explained why this is the case because he an expert on the economics and technology, despite what some trolls might want to mislead you to believe.

BTC will do right when there will be decentralized exchangers.

And that will only happen because of my work to fix the jamming problem that plagued all DE designs. The trolls want to ridicule me, and I don't yet get the recognition. But that is okay. I just want you to know the truth.

.... with their cheap electricity they are earning a shitload of money...

What you mean is they're stealing a shitload of money. 

Taxpayer money converted into electricity by government-owned power utility.

Electricity converted into bitcoin and bitcoin into privatized money by miners.

In China bitcoin mining is essentially just a channel to steal tax money.  The fact that it hasn't been forced to shut down or use non-subsidized electricity by now is probably evidence that someone is taking bribes.  (What a surprise!  That NEVER happens in China!   )

Finally someone with a brain stem! Congrats!

Yeah it is more of charging the expenses to the collective and keeping the profits for themselves. Same as the banksters did with the bailouts.

$1 million of your investor money every day going to those fat cats. And circulating back around as $70 million in grease money for Blockstream to rape you with.

Like the Capitalist West have been doing for years? The Chinese took a opportunity when they saw it and they used it... How can you blame them?

Yeah why care if the banksters keep the profits and charge the bailouts to the people. Love that Communist/Fascism, don't you?

well good for them if they are able to steal unfair and legal scam from government, called tax

Yeah it was great when the banksters stole the bailouts from the government! Excellent logic. 

Good to see you want BitCON to be all about stealing. Nice world you want to promote.

Personally I'd be more worried if the hashrate was under NSA's jurisdiction.

Chinese miners have acted OK so far

You haven't studied the history of oligarchies. They can only act one way. Give it a little time. The collusion is taking form. By the time, you realize it, it will be too late to do anything about it or to change. Bitcoin will be too well established by that time, just like fiat is now. You will bend over and take in your ass, because you didn't think it was a problem when I told you and then when you realize you will have no more choice nor options to pursue.

I'll quote ya Bro! Your stuff is great toilet reading (where I do my best thinking)

[sockpuppet1]

http://i64.tinypic.com/14mb7fo.jpghttp://i67.tinypic.com/j7rqz6.jpg

Likewise, the 51% fear is overblown.

Chinese Miner A: We have hundreds of millions of dollars invested in bitcoin mining. Let's form a cartel to execute 51% attacks!
Chinese Miner B: Yes! We'll be able to double-spend whenever we want! People will be helpless as we rip off other bitcoin users with our control of 51% of the network!
Chinese Miner C: Yes! And won't it be a wonderful thing when disillusioned and panicking bitcoin users all dump their coins in response to our attacks!

The type of 51% attack that the Chinese mining cartel has ALREADY done on Bitcoin is they are making the decision what the protocol changes will be for the block chain, thus as I had explained in my prior comments upthread, they can constrict the block size so that we pay through the nose in higher transaction fees. So they can extract more from the Bitcoin ecosystem than the $1 million per day they are already stealing from us with "creating coins out-of-thin air".

It amazes me how fucking stupid you guys are.

How has bitcoin been destroyed? I think that bitcoin is still up and running and that there is nothing wrong with it yet.

Why is saying everyone that the bitcoin is going to be destroyed that's such a bullshit. Don't think
he will ever be destroyed there are always people who want's to use him. So don't say to many
bullshit.

The point of the OP is not that Bitcoin will stop functioning or that the price will decline. The point is that Bitcoin is destroyed in the sense of is not a fix for all the bad things that fiat does to society, because a centralized Bitcoin will have all the same evils as fiat.

Please review my prior comments upthread which provided more detail on this, which you can find linked below after my rebuttal to fuckenidiot.

Incorrect. You are ignoring part of the logic as to why the fascist command economy in China is facilitating the bitCON:

The only relevance of China, is that China has the right Communist corruption to facilitate building these ASIC mining farms with much lower cost, because the electricity is likely subsidized at near 0 cost to the miner by the State. For example, the $billions spent by the taxpayers to construct the environmental disaster Three Gorges Dam (actually in China the tax is the low interest rate paid on savings accounts offered by State controlled banking which the LGUs then borrow at near 0%). The ostensible fact that China is a totalitarian/fascist command economy is relevant in the sense that it means the owners of the mining farms are necessarily beholden to the Communist Party leaders and their commands.

[...]

  Replace "China" with "USA" and Three Gorges with Hoover.  Notice nothing changes, except of course your claims of "fascism" and central control ring much more true in the police state.  Fiat and fascism leave misery and environmental destruction in their wake but that is neither here nor there for this discussion.

I never argued that the centralization wouldn't be a problem if it was occurring in the USA.

I specifically stated that geographic location is irrelevant. I've requoted my prior comments for you at the bottom of this message to refresh your memory.

They blocked Bitcoin Classic and XT and appear to be deciding for the us that SegWit is the protocol hard fork that will be forced on all of us. And there is not a damn thing any of us can or will do about it. Note the Great Firewall (GFW) of China is not a valid argument to be against larger blocks, because the pool server could be located outside and only the hash of the block needs to be sent across the GFW.

"They" didn't decide anything apart from what software "they" would run, for any value of "they".

The Chinese mining cartel was instrumental in deciding what size blocks we will have in Bitcoin and when. The Chinese mining cartel is thus controlling the protocol changes in Bitcoin.

Running another wallet won't help you. Your inaction and lack of understanding means they can put the Trojan Horse in and then there is nothing more we can do about it. We are screwed. You are very much a sheep and I hope you remain a sheep for the rest of your life. I won't be able to stop the fact that the masses like you are dumber than horse shit. That is why the-powers-that-be don't care if I warn you all here. They know you readers are sheep and will always be sheep. They laugh. I am starting to laugh at you all too. I tried my best to explain to you all, and instead I get these inane replies. Sorry if my reply is ad hominem. I really prefer to not think you are dumber than horse shit. I really do. You don't afford me that opportunity. I am frustrated. I give up. I will not talk to you fools any more. Have it your way.

LOLK.  They can put a trojan horse in what exactly now?  If nobody runs their software, who cares what's in it?

The versioned fork goes into the protocol of the block chain. You can't avoid it by running another wallet, because you are at the mercy of the protocol that the 51% decide to honor since they can ban any blocks from the 49%. You are ignorant of the technological issues involved here. Please go take a Bitcoin 101 class.

BitCON is also a privately issued corporate scrip issued to a few owners of mining farms. The electricity is charged to the taxpayer, not to the-powers-that-be which defacto "own" these mining farms.

Dude I have a list of every coinfiat ever mined.  You have access to that list as well.  That's what public coinfiat means.  What the everliving fuck?  Privately issued???!??  The public coinfiat known as BTC runs on excess free electricitydigits as it always has.

ftfy, dufus.

I am speaking on behalf of TPTB_need_war aka AnonyMint, who is quoted in the OP, because he is currently banned for 9 more days due to calling theymos and gmaxwell out on their censorship of a potential technical back door in Bitcoin. There is a simpler explanation of Satoshi's obviously intentional technical error. It is obviously intentional because it was quite well known by 2009 that the HMAC formulation is more secure yet Satoshi used the more suspect double hashing everywhere in BitCON.

I wrote two longish posts upthread with many rebuttals and explanations:

1. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1465136.msg14789764#msg14789764
2. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1465136.msg14793818#msg14793818

The community's posts that have followed are indicative that most people are naive and easily duped. It boggles my mind how readers have misconstrued the situation.

Let me try again to unravel all your egregious misunderstandings.

• Geographical Location Is Irrelevant: please stop making the inane disingenuous strawman alleging this thread is concerned about where the concentration of hashing power is located. The problem is that the economies-of-scale of profitable proof-of-work forces the concentration the mining control into a few ASIC mining farms. I explained why this is technically and economically inexorable and unavoidable in my prior two posts, which are linked for you above. The only relevance of China, is that China has the right Communist corruption to facilitate building these ASIC mining farms with much lower cost, because the electricity is likely subsidized at near 0 cost to the miner by the State. For example, the $billions spent by the taxpayers to construct the environmental disaster Three Gorges Dam (actually in China the tax is the low interest rate paid on savings accounts offered by State controlled banking which the LGUs then borrow at near 0%). The ostensible fact that China is a totalitarian/fascist command economy is relevant in the sense that it means the owners of the mining farms are necessarily beholden to the Communist Party leaders and their commands.
• Bitcoin Has Already Been 51% Attacked: to argue that the oligarchy of miners and mining pools in China won't abuse their control is disingenuous because they already have! They blocked Bitcoin Classic and XT and appear to be deciding for the us that SegWit is the protocol hard fork that will be forced on all of us. And there is not a damn thing any of us can or will do about it. Note the Great Firewall (GFW) of China is not a valid argument to be against larger blocks, because the pool server could be located outside and only the hash of the block needs to be sent across the GFW. So please stop the inane argument that they won't 51% attack BitCON when they have already done so. Ostensibly the reason they are supporting SegWit is because what the miners want is the ability to constrict the block size so that they can maximize transaction fees at the maximum level the market will bear, i.e. maximize the equation: (fees per transaction) × (transaction rate). They obviously won't allow transaction fees to go so high that no one uses BitCON any more, i.e. they will allow block size to increase in a constricted controlled increase in order to maximize the aforementioned equation, but they also will make sure they extract more than the $1million a day they are extracting from our pockets now. Through their bankster friends system, I posit they effectively bought off Blockstream by indirectly providing Blockstream's $70 million in vulture capital funding, in order to insure the necessary control over BitCON's protocol. It's a "I'll scratch your back, if you scratch mine" network often referred to colloquially as The Bilderberg Group. We tinfoil hats complain about how the government steals from us with fiat inflation, yet then we don't complain when the oligarchy of miners are doing the same thing! We are so gullible and stoopid, it is not surprising that the-powers-that-be think we are useless eaters and cattle fodder.
• Segregrated Witness Includes A Diabolical Trojan Horse: the technology for scaling in SegWit is dubious, but that is not the major issue of concern with it. Instead of issuing SegWit has a normal hard fork which miners can vote on by which protocol they mine, Blockstream (Bitcoin core devs) is changing the Bitcoin protocol in such a way that in the future they can introduced versioned "soft fork" changes to the protocol. This is actually very diabolical if you think carefully about it. What this means is that there can exist transactions on the block chain which can only be handled by a miner who supports the version of the protocol which that transaction was signed to. So while they label this as a "soft fork", meaning that it is optional for miners, in reality it is a very insidious way of forcing a hard fork on all miners because little-by-little new transactions are written to the new version of the protocol and then miners who don't switch to the new version can't process the newer transactions. So in effect this puts Blockstream in control of the protocol of Bitcoin and we the users basically lose our power to rally a political decision about a hard fork. Why? Because insidious changes are very difficult for people to rally a group to defend against. This is a very clever paradigm of divide-and-conquer that was employed by the Rothschilds and Rockefellers. They always want to destroy you insidiously while you are not aware. And I believe my criticism is the underlying real reason that Gregory Maxwell is nuking my posts and fighting me. Apparently theymos is also corrupt, or has been hoodwinked by the Gman.
• Decentralization Is The Only Difference From Fiat: those who argue that decentralization is not that important, are in effect arguing that fiat is acceptable. Those who argue that "Satoshi" intended Bitcoin to centralize over time are probably correct. "Satoshi" may have even intentionally put a back door in BitCON. I also argue that "Satoshi Nakamoto" is the House of Morgan's creation, he is not one person but rather a diabolical group, and BitCON was designed to con those tinfoil hat geeks who want "a better gold". Did you not read the Bitcoin white paper carefully where it seems to attack the existing system of financial institutions for internet transactions in the first page and then in distribution section it pitches BitCON as a better gold. The white paper wasn't an academic only paper, but also a very well targeted marketing advertisement. That you all idolize Satoshi as giving us some great technological gift is all the more hilarious, because obviously "Satoshi" did not solve the Byzantine Generals Problem, and he gave us a profitable proof-of-work design which MUST centralize. However there is another wrinkle to this. The design Satoshi gave us, leads TPTB_need_war to a new design which is UNprofitable proof-of-work, and that design may not centralize (so easily). So it is possible that while I believe "Satoshi Nakamoto" was a secret group formed by the-powers-that-be to siphon $1 million a day from the tinfoil hat crowd, it is possible that one of those intelligent men working in that group actually expected that maybe someone would be resourceful enough to figure out how to fix the design. So in that way, maybe the good spirit of human kind is still in play.
  
  AnonyMint warned you all about this when he first joined this forum in March 2013. The-powers-that-be have a golden rule by which they abide. They always warn you of their plans, and this is so you sheep have your free will. They know damn well that you sheep are too asleep and disorganized to do anything to stop them.
• Bitcoin Can't Be Fixed: those who are deluded into thinking that Bitcoin could somehow morph and be fixed from its current design and circumstance, are dumber than horse shit. Do I really need to explain.  Fixing Bitcoin with all the ingrained inertia and vested interests is equivalent to those who argue that the governments can be fixed and that world won't collapse into a horrific global debt implosion Minsky Moment roughly 2018. These are the same type of people who don't put plywood on their windows when a hurricane is approaching and then blame for FEMA for not rescuing them.

[sockpuppet1]

Does anyone agree or disagree with this presumption of mine?

Of course I disagree with it, otherwise I wouldn't own any Bitcoin.  The marginal cost over time of Bitcoin shows an ever increasing percent being energy costs.  This means sha256d will likely be commoditized.  There is no Chinese monopoly after that happens.

r0ach I like you, but you wrote nonsense.

Amazing to me that you still don't understand why Satoshi's design will always centralize.

One crucial point you are not getting your mind wrapped around, is that the need to set a block size to control the level of transaction fees earned, is a power vacuum that forces an oligarchy to take control over the mining. ArticMine and I had explained that in great detail. I also I summarized that point again in the "Bitcoin IS basically DESTROYED" thread.

Orthogonal to the prior paragraph, you also don't seem to understand that commoditization and leveling the access to ASICs can't stop the centralization and concentration of Bitcoin mining into an eventual oligarchy of a dozen or so ASIC mining farms. Even if we assume that ASIC mining farms in China don't enjoy an unfair advantage due to ostensibly receiving State subsidized cheap (or free) electricity due to corruption, the centralization of Satoshi's profitable proof-of-work design remains inexorable and unavoidable (and regardless of geographical location of its occurrence). I had already explained why in great technical detail in the my decentralization and your "Satoshi didn't solve the BGP" threads, and here follows an incomplete summary quoted from the "Bitcoin IS basically DESTROYED" thread:

Most of these Chinese mining firms are pools, so like most pools that are extremely big, if they get too big, miners will hop to a different one.

It isn't just the pools that are the problem, but that the mining farms are large and concentrating the 51+% amongst a few oligarchs. This will only grow more centralized over time, because TPTB_need_war explained in his technical analysis, that profitable proof-of-work always accrues over time to maximum economies-of-scale. There are several reasons for that including propagation advantages of being the first to win more blocks, so don't waste hashrate mining on the wrong fork for a short period, which over time gradually depletes the other miners of relative profits. It is more complex than that. You need to read his entire analysis to understand.

From the beginning, this has always been a possibility: A banker who can effectively create unlimited fiat money can easily acquire all the mining infrastructure and control the network hash power (Of course he don't need to do so through one single entity, it will look like that many people control the mining infrastructure, but when a vote happens people will discover that over 90% of hash power is controlled by a few entity and can go against majority of people's will)

PoW method is vulnerable to large capital taking over. This is the nature of PoW, so some people have suggested to use a PoW+PoS hybrid model for the future mining, but without major hash power, how do you implement this change into the network? Why miners should give up their dominance power today? It seems only a fork or re-design of a new coin can start afresh

There are several technical factors you need to take into account. For example, the greater the hashrate (of the pool if not solo mining), the more often the miner is mining on the block that won't be orphaned. The propagation delay of block announcements (or any group with 33+% of the hashrate colluding to delay block announcements, which was explained the research paper Majority is not Enough: Bitcoin Mining is Vulnerable), means that those with more hashrate are more profitable given the same unitized hardware and electricity costs. Ditto that every miner (or pool) has the same cost of validation regardless of their hashrate. This means that even if everything is fair and equal, naturally over time the mining will centralize to an oligarchy. This is a property of profitable proof-of-work and there is nothing that can be done to fix it. TPTB_need_war made an entire thread about this to discuss it in detail. The flaws of proof-of-stake are also discussed in that thread and I urge Minecache and others not to turn this thread into a PoS vs. PoW discussion. Bring the PoS vs. PoW debate over to that other thread, other such thread if you want to debate that.

What TPTB_need_war concluded is that the only design that can remain economically decentralized is UNprofitable proof-of-work. This means that every spender would send some PoW share with each transaction. The details are complex and it can't work the same as Satoshi's design. Most of the details are already explained in various posts that TPTB_need_war has made spread out over many different threads. But he is not implementing this design right now, because he is busy on the other programming priorities I mentioned.

Any way, there is no solution to that will remain immune to the fact that humans are manipulated like a herd when it comes to politics. And they are lazy. And they are easily duped by the elite. So even if TPTB_need_war implements his solution, it is likely that the people will still end up sending their PoW shares to an oligarchy of "pools" even though unprofitable PoW means no one gains by using a pool. People are just dumb. But we might have a fighting chance with this redesign of Satoshi's flawed design. Many people have criticized this UNprofitable PoW thinking it won't work because there is not the proper incentives and Nash equilibirum. TPTB_need_war says they are wrong and he will eventually publish a whitepaper to better explain all the details.

I don't know where we will end up with all this. But my guess is the elite will win and the people will lose. But some people are working on hard. Please don't disrespect TPTB_need_war. His is working as furiously as he can, and no one helps him. Maybe one day he will get some assistance and be recognized for his efforts. But he doesn't care! He is doing what he is doing as a labor of love and because he loves the challenge.

Of course, China being the top producers of Bitcoin isn't even a Bitcoin problem in the first place.  It's a symptom of China controlling manufacturing for everything on earth as corporations use their slaves for global labor arbitrage.

China being the current location of the centralization and concentration of Bitcoin mining is irrelevant to the point that profitable proof-of-work will always centralize into an oligarchy and thus offers us no long-term advantage to remove the evils and risks we normally have with fiat. The powers-that-be will be able to enforce capital controls even more effectively on Bitcoin transactions with the oligarchy control over mining, as compared to cash fiat transactions. So don't assume your Bitcoin can't be confiscated by the government. With control over the protocol with the oligarchy on mining, the powers-that-be can do what ever they wish. If the masses who are using Bitcoin don't stop using Bitcoin, then no one will be able to stop the-powers-that-be from doing what they want to Bitcoin's protocol given the oligarchy control over mining. No rational person is arguing that Bitcoin will stop functioning or that the price will collapse to 0 (although the chance of that happen does exist but quite small chance), but rather we are saying that Bitcoin as a decentralized asset which could be relied on as being impervious to control by any one, is "basically destroyed". All the clueless n00bs (or disingenuous trolls) who build strawmen arguments accusing of us saying that Bitcoin is destroyed and won't function, are just inane arguments which deflect the focus away from our factual point about the aspect of Bitcoin that is actually destroyed.

What Europe typically did in the past was cancel the fiat currency quite often, as way to force the existing cash under mattresses to come back to the banks for exchanging to the newly issued currency, wherein the State could confiscate most of it. At least we always had gold as a money that the government couldn't cancel, but now the pervasive "Big T false flag" police state spreading all over the globe means one can't even transport gold any more without it at great risk of being confiscated under the false allegation of money laundering or terrorism.

We are headed into a clusterfucked world. I sure hope you all stop deluding yourselves.

[sockpuppet1]

the putrified nature of any forum, comes from abusive, divisive, and threatening individuals like you.

Quoting that because I don't want it to be lost in the future when historians and the press are documenting the man who built an altcoin that displaced Bitcoin.

[sockpuppet1]

I am very happy to report that sublingual oregano oil appears to be normalizing my health gradually. I am starting to get back some of my "macho" feeling from time-to-time.

I find it best to take high dosage at night before I sleep. Otherwise it makes me drowsy throughout the day.

(I am dissolving capsules with the correct wild variant of oregano oil until my tongue with the oregano oil diluted in olive oil to minimize the sting)

I've had some very good breakthroughs on the Rust forum. Making great progress. Full speed ahead.

[bitfish]

I am very happy to report that sublingual oregano oil appears to be normalizing my health gradually. I am starting to get back some of my "macho" feeling from time-to-time.

I find it best to take high dosage at night before I sleep. Otherwise it makes me drowsy throughout the day.

(I am dissolving capsules with the correct wild variant of oregano oil until my tongue with the oregano oil diluted in olive oil to minimize the sting)

I've had some very good breakthroughs on the Rust forum. Making great progress. Full speed ahead.

I really doubt that "sublingual oregano oil" will do the healing what would be needed in this special case...

[sockpuppet1]

I am very happy to report that sublingual oregano oil appears to be normalizing my health gradually. I am starting to get back some of my "macho" feeling from time-to-time.

I find it best to take high dosage at night before I sleep. Otherwise it makes me drowsy throughout the day.

(I am dissolving capsules with the correct wild variant of oregano oil until my tongue with the oregano oil diluted in olive oil to minimize the sting)

I've had some very good breakthroughs on the Rust forum. Making great progress. Full speed ahead.

I really doubt that "sublingual oregano oil" will do the healing what would be needed in this special case...

How can you doubt the results I am getting?

I am finally productive again after 4 years of acute decline. I am sleeping very well at night and waking up refreshed for the first time in years.

Or were you making an ad hominem attack implying that my personality won't be changed by it?

[Thenoticer]

What wild variant of oregano are you using? My girlfriend takes oregano oil when she feels sick.

I am very happy to report that sublingual oregano oil appears to be normalizing my health gradually. I am starting to get back some of my "macho" feeling from time-to-time.

I find it best to take high dosage at night before I sleep. Otherwise it makes me drowsy throughout the day.

(I am dissolving capsules with the correct wild variant of oregano oil until my tongue with the oregano oil diluted in olive oil to minimize the sting)

I've had some very good breakthroughs on the Rust forum. Making great progress. Full speed ahead.

[sockpuppet1]

What wild variant of oregano are you using? My girlfriend takes oregano oil when she feels sick.

Origanum vulgare

[sockpuppet1]

Like clockwork, the truth is normally found at neither extreme but somewhere in the middle. I agree about doing nothing is not a solution.

Having said that, that the war is already started, doing nothing is not a solution.  Even if you actually believe this Armstrong guy is right, not everyone is a day trader.  It doesn't matter about chasing money left on the table.  All that matters is making sure you have something that has some type of fundamentals which isn't going to zero the day the great reset happens.  You know that day is coming soon.  You also know that Bitcoin will likely function perfectly fine when the day comes. 

1. I agree doing nothing is not a solution. I am trying to do something, but my design requires that there be very significant transactions since the unprofitable proof-of-work share (not a block solution!) is sent with each transaction. So if I launch the thing with nearly no adoption and just HODLers, then it can be easily attacked by botnets. Thus before I can make the CC, I need to first create something that could drive a lot of demand for the use of the CC. That is why I conceived JAMBOX. But then I realized that the concept of JAMBOX (which basically means replacing the web browser with a mobile app browser) is actually a better career choice for me to work on than a CC. It also enables me to work on creating a new programming language, which will bring me great respect+admiration amongst my peers and will also secure my finances at the tail end of my career (which I desperately need is some stability in my life at 51 and trying to recover from a 10 year illness which REKTed my life/career, 4 years acute and as well I need to pay back my meager angel investors with some gains for them if I don't create a CC or let them take investment share in JAMBOX corporation). Btw, @keean who I met recently at the Rust forum (and is now in my contacts list at my LinkedIn, so you can view his CV) is discussing with me in private collaborating on a new programming language. He has published research papers with the famous FP guru Oleg. He already has a prototype of a language he had designed and maybe we could reuse some of that for the 10 programming language features I have concisely enumerated as crucial for the next popular programming language that will eat all the others to a great extent in terms of popularity. That is an amazing accomplishment for me that a person as accomplished and well connected (in the UK!) has agreed with me that the features I listed are very much needed and not offered by any other programming language on earth. He also approves of my recent invention to solve the major computer science problem known as the Expression Problem. We agreed the best strategy is open source it and hope others will join to help us, which we think is likely given his pedigree and also the features we are targeting. So I am on a major positive upswing in my career (and also apparently/hopefully health), but this is still far away from implementing JAMBOX and then after that a CC.

2. The reason I don't want to accelerate by jumping straight to the implementation of a CC, is because:

• I'm hedging my bets in terms of where I place my effort and thus my risks of failure.
• We have time, the collapse in earnest is not until 2018. Bitcoin will continue to function and not likely be regulated with capital controls before that, although 2018 will come very fast if measured in programmer man-hours needed to complete such ambitious projects.
• I don't want to put myself in a desperate position where I need to P&D in order to be financially stable.
• The LOC required will be immense over time, and I don't want to code it all the crappy languages we have now. It is like I am restarting or resetting my career, so it is time to do it right and with the right programming language.
• If I do a CC, I want it to be something truly different and adopted by millions and hopefully a billion users. My ambitions are very high. To match those ambitions, I need to do this development in a very high quality way and draw in these extremely smart people who are outside of CC.
• Smooth can't help me as much as someone who has a high, visible pedigree because he is anonymous (note I have my eye on Paul Phillips whom I have exchange some cordial messages on mailing lists in the past and because he wants to create the "perfect" programming language and he has the kind of extrovert personality that I love, as well as probably being raw IQ smarter than myself!). Also because he will consume most of the funding because his rate is very high. it doesn't help as much to raise more money in a crowdfund if the co-developer is anonymous. And fluffypony et al are already consumed/committed to their projects. There are so many talented developers out there, but most of them see no point in working in CC; whereas, with my programming language and app browser initiatives I may be able to pull in top developers from outside of CC. The @keean result is my first confirmation of my strategy. He also a very amicable person, as well as being extremely knowledgeable about programming, design patterns, and PL design.

3. About monsterer's criticisms of my unprofitable proof-of-work design, the salient refutations are there in the last few pages of the decentralization thread where I specifically rebutted him on his point about there being no proper incentives. I am too rushed (overloaded with tasks) to go dig up the link, you all can find it if you are really interested. Essentially monsterer's argument was that the profit from mining has to be greater than the potential profit from double-spending with a 51% attack. My refutation was that a) there is no level of maximum profit from double-spending attack, because there is no limit to the value that can be transacted in a block; and b) that motivation to supply the honest proof-of-work isn't driven by profit in my design but rather because it is mandatory. And btw, did monsterer disappear? The possible weakness in my design is that the spender will merely offload the computation of the proof-of-work to a server and thus the mining hashrate becomes concentrated. But even so there is a major distinction in the control and economics of that, which I will detail in a white paper. The problem with IOTA is not that the PoW is unprofitable, but rather that the structure of a DAG does not enable a single longest chain of truth, thus afaics the only way to force convergence to consensus is to use centralized servers and checkpoints. I will explain better the mathematical criticism of Iota in the future. I don't have time for the meticulous diversions right now.

[smooth]

There are so many talented developers out there, but most of them see no point in working in CC

True, CC is a backwater.

whereas, with my programming language and app browser initiatives I may be able to pull in top developers from outside of CC

Yes, but most likely not without a lot of funding. You seem more interested in doing it cheaply, as you have in the past developing a successful product living a nipa hut. Few top developers will go there these days. Even in the past, people who built major successes pre-funding (at least got them off the ground) have tended to be very young and inexperienced. They may be very talented "top developers" in a sense, but you will have extreme trouble finding and connecting with them. Close to literally impossible.

Possibly, you find and connect very strongly with someone who is an identifiable top developer and it becomes their passion as much as it is yours, and they share your vision of building it on a low budget.

Otherwise, you will likely just have to build to point of relative maturity yourself, then bring in others (and still, some sort of funding). I have a feeling that does not discourage you, which is good.

[sockpuppet1]

whereas, with my programming language and app browser initiatives I may be able to pull in top developers from outside of CC

Yes, but most likely not without a lot of funding. You seem more interested in doing it cheaply, as you have in the past developing a successful product living a nipa hut.

My thinking is that if I can just show enough to reach crowdfunding, then can use that to fund high priced devs to reach Seedr IPO for a JAMBOX corporation (not for CC), and yes of course pay $200,000+ salaries ($100,000+ if junior) plus stock options. I didn't given up on trying to recruit you and others, but I first have to get the snowball rolling downhill.

Once there is momentum, funding should pour in and should be possible to hire the best. And not be in this huge man-power deficit I am currently in.

What I don't think is wise is to take a lot of funding at the angel stage (nor presell illegal unregistered securities tokens as Ethereum and Synereo did), and sell out the company at the nascent stage. It is much easier to raise money at a fairer percentage of the equity if already have something tangible to show with momentum. Also because I can't even predict at that early stage what the project will really morph into exactly, as evident by how much my plans changed since we last spoke somewhat seriously afair in May 2015.

So for example if @keean and I do proceed and manage to release a first alpha of a compiler, then that helps me a lot when doing the crowdfund for JAMBOX, because then I can say to everyone that here is my recent open source accomplishment. Then yes of course expend copious funding into the open source projects of which there were be 3 open sourced: the language, the JAMBOX decentralized protocol and platform, and the CC.

I am trying to get rolling faster. The programming language discussions are very meticulous but I'm nearing the point where I have it all wrapped in my head and can start coding furiously. And my health is cooperating.

Few top developers will go there these days. Even in the past, people who built major successes pre-funding (at least got them off the ground) have tended to be very young and inexperienced. They may be very talented "top developers" in a sense, but you will have extreme trouble finding and connecting with them. Close to literally impossible.

Yeah that era is gone mostly. And also because projects now are much more complex and require much more man-hours, because we are competing against the inertia of open source and lots of man hours.

But I still have the "launched in my garage" bug inside me and it won't die until I do, lol.

I definitely want to raise funding asap, but I need to have something to show for it first. Can't go with hat in hand empty and expect to be taken seriously by the market of crowdfund contributors.

Possibly, you find and connect very strongly with someone who is an identifiable top developer and it becomes their passion as much as it is yours, and they share your vision of building it on a low budget.

@keean and I both need this language. He can't give full time to it, but I can. And he has a lot of knowledge which can help me.

Just need to reach alpha asap, if that is doable. I am digging into the details now with him to see if it is doable. I have a lot of learning and reading to do right now.

Otherwise, you will likely just have to build to point of relative maturity yourself, then bring in others (and still, some sort of funding). I have a feeling that does not discourage you, which is good.

No that will be slower than molasses. I am going for funding. It is just about the timing. For the crowdfunding, I can't really use your name to help raise funds, because your reputation is invisible. After the funding, if you are available, then I hope we can talk again.

[sockpuppet1]

Aint nobody going to fund your bullshit.

You're anti social.

Keep dreaming sore loser and also your fellow scam promoter of the Synereo AMPS scam. We all know that Synereo's Greg Meredith is also intimately involved with the Ethereum's Casper consensus algorithm debacle.

Please stay to your own thread. I don't have more time for your noisy trolling. I did not respond to your brother-in-scams (DecentralizedEconomics') latest nonsense in the Synereo thread. So stay out of my thread also please.

Last interaction I remember with you was when you told the readers not to pay attention to my ETH price predictions and then I reminded you that you said that also when I called the top at $15 and predicted in advance the bounce on $7 (and my recent posts predicting it may rise again for a double-top). You had STFU after that so I thought we were done communicating.

You and your brothers-in-scams I know prefer to sell illegal tokens to raise funds by stealing from n00b gamblers:

What I don't think is wise is to take a lot of funding at the angel stage (nor presell illegal unregistered securities tokens as Ethereum and Synereo did),...

So it is not surprising that you are trolling my serious reply to smooth.

[stoat]

Aint nobody going to fund your bullshit.

You're anti social.

Keep dreaming sore loser and scam promoter of the Synereo AMPS scam.

Sorry bro i have no idea what you're even talking about.

[sockpuppet1]

I'm guessing I might lose @keean's interest to collaborate. I think perhaps I've concluded we can't use any part of his prior programming language design, but I await his reply for clarifications. It sucks to have to shoot down the ideas and work of others. I don't relish the role, but I have to make the correct decisions.

We need a public record of this so I'll stick this here in my thread.

Apology I was beyond too sleepy yesterday to really think clearly. Then I got sidetracked most of the day today on discussions in my former community of Bitcoin (trying to reduce my involvement there, but have some lingering communication obligations that are gradually pruning down).

1. I've just glanced at your cited references and of course reminded that System F isn't generally decidable for principle typings inference. If I understand correctly, all your concern with first-class unions and intersections is due to the need to have principle typings inference. If we annotate all free standing function declarations (lambdas in function argument expressions excepted), then the concern would be vanquished. Correct?

2. You are concerned that function annotations could become very noisy because for example intersections of trait bounds could become quite large. For example, a function needs certain trait bounds for the operations it performs in the function body, plus it needs to require all the trait bounds for any functions it calls. I have an idea for a solution to this if we (or I) were to decide to abandon principle typings inference. We could have each function only declare the trait bounds that it needs in its function body, and the additional trait bounds required by functions called within the function body, would be inferred onto the calling function's trait bounds. Since those called functions explicitly declare their trait bounds, then this is decidable. It is a tree structure.

3. Afaics, the ability to exclude certain traits is inherent in my complete solution to the Expression Problem, because the dictionaries are supplied to the function orthogonal to the objects that contain the data types; thus it is impossible to cast a polymorphic data type downstream to any trait bound that wasn't annotated on the function declaration. Thus to specify NoIORead, then simply don't declare an IORead trait bound on the function. But you wanted to infer the function's types, because of #2 above. Apparently one of the reasons you think the intersection of types would be so large, is because you want to infer the fully generality of the principle typings, thus you allow for a larger set than the function even desires, e.g. if the `append` method is employed within the function, you would infer any trait bounds with any `append` method. But this seems too dangerous. I prefer for the programmer to be explicit about his/her semantics. So if the programmer must constrain the `append` method, then he might as well just write that constraint as a trait bound annotation on the function signature. So really I am failing to see the benefit of principle typings inference?

4. The interaction of HRT (and I presume HKT) with first class intersections and unions complicates principle typings inference, and likely makes it undecidable if not just incredibly complicated. Another reason to abandon principle typings inference, because first-class unions and intersections are essential from my perspective in order to make the code more elegant and less boilerplate.

5. You have an idea to enable callers to allocate on the stack all the memory used by the tree of functions called, so as to optimize allocation and deallocation of memory. Of course this can only be useful in limited circumstances and not in general, because it is undecidable how much memory is consumed by the tree of computation in a Turing complete language. I can imagine many common scenarios where this becomes unwieldy and turns the elegance inside-out. For example, you call a function that filters some collection based on some other computation it does and creates another collection as a result. There is no way for the caller to know how much memory the called function needs for the built collection. Trying to shoehorn all computation into a stack allocation model is the same mistake that Rust made with their borrowing. Algorithms don't in general conform to a tree. So although that could be used in some circumstances, I am also doubting the value of it, because a very fast and well optimized GC can do essentially the same optimization by keeping allocations well localized together and then freeing them in by simply incrementing a pointer and then reusing the same memory. The memory won't become fragmented if we use power-of-2 chunk size pools, so that we always allocate and free a constant power-of-2 chunk size. This is what Google's V8 JavaScript VM is already doing, so we will get that for free if we compile to JavaScript. I'd rather spend more effort optimizing GC years later than clutter the language now with inflexible special case attempts at premature optimization. I view this as the same category of design mistake Rust made. Apology but I need to be frank and honest, because I want to design a popular programming language. So I have to stick to those key design principles that are sort of embodied by the quotes of Paul Graham I provided on the forum.

6. If we proceed much further, I suggest we have discussions in a public thread on GitHub, so our design decisions will be open sourced for public record.

[smooth]

You make an interesting comment at that linked post:

We know Haskell won't be preferred by many programmers, because it has been around a long time and is still stuck at 0.5% market share

The language popularity results have become quite a mess. While Java and C have slowly fallen out of favor and C++ popularity has collapsed, it isn't clear what is replacing them other than a lot of fragmentation.

It might be interesting to survey the top, say, 30 or 50 languages and reslice the data by features (and combos of features) to see what programmers want that way rather than looking at specific languages. As you say, anything (and by this I mean features or collections of features) that has been around for a long time and is not gaining in popularity is probably not a good bet any time soon.