Do you think "iamnotback" really has the" Bitcoin killer"?

[HadiHussain]

I didn't take the time to read all 16 pages, but regarding the financial elite turning off financial transfers in a doomsday scenario, thus forcing miners to turn off their machines, why wouldn't the electric provider accept Bitcoin or litecoin as payment for their service?

[1714228927]

1714228927

[iamnotback]

I didn't take the time to read all 16 pages, but regarding the financial elite turning off financial transfers in a doomsday scenario, thus forcing miners to turn off their machines, why wouldn't the electric provider accept Bitcoin or litecoin as payment for their service?

I'd rather not focus on that upthread diversion. It wasn't a particularly strong point. That is not the main problem with Bitcoin.

The intended point was simply that if we didn't have to rely on PoW (and its numerous disadvantages), it would be better (assuming all of PoW's positive attributes were retained).

[iamnotback]

As btc nears gold parity the gold bugs have come out against btc hard.

The so called "gold bugs" have been right all along, just none of those guys know enough about bitcoin to articulate why.  The fact is, bitcoin does NOT function as a store of value, period.  The way bitcoin is designed pigeonholes it into acting as a settlement layer, and what is the #1 attribute needed for being a settlement layer?  ...being a store of value.  This makes it kind of inherently designed to fail at what it's supposed to do because bitcoin does not exist in a vacuum, it has to compete against the noble metals.  The noble metals are orders of magnitude better in anti-fragility, store of value, and even decentralization than bitcoin is.

As I said before:

A settlement layer has to compete with or beat gold as a store of value.  Bitcoin cannot accomplish that task so it has to do something else besides being a settlement layer or there is no point!

This means bitcoin's value has to be floated by raw transaction flow instead of people hoarding it for no reason as a store of value.  It is my estimate that you would need something like 5000 TPS in order for bitcoin to function as a raw transaction handler instead of a store of value.  And the following post explains why bitcoin isn't a store of value in the first place:

https://steemit.com/bitcoin/@r0achtheunsavory/the-r0ach-report-vol-7-bitcoin-is-not-an-actual-store-of-value-because-there-is-no-real-price-floor-or-inelastic-demand

I actually agree that you need very high adoption and TPS to achieve any lasting system with crypto. What do you think I am working on!

[Mr.Charlie]

Our OpenShare project now has one facet of its mission statement and raison d'être.

are you saying that dev shouldnt make any money ? dont you remember that even smooth makes money from steem ?
honestly i dont care how much Evan earn. as long as the product work as advertised, i buy it.

No. Yes. But doing in a way that violates SEC regulations isn't going to end well. (btw, I think you may be correct and I may have mischaracterized Steem on the Coinbase Securities Law test and I will go check that now)

My issue with it is that if it is true that it is not an aggregate market, then it can in theory be manipulated such that n00bs are fooled into buying not based on rational free markets.

And that would mean a project is extracting disproportionate capital from the ecosystem relative to its real contribution to benefits for the ecosystem.

I don't want to make money cheating people. I want to make money helping people. I want to compete in a meritocracy. It is a fundamental difference. A society of fraud collapses into MadMax destruction.

go buy a laptop loser.

again, look in the mirror and say out loud...

eye wee todd did

[iamnotback]

go buy a laptop loser.

again, look in the mirror and say out loud...

eye wee todd did

The powerful logic of those who like ICOs and centralization.

[adolf512]

One argument against PoW is that it require inflation to secure the network but actually it is not an issue with a proper distribution model the issue with btc is that the blockreward decreases exponentially with time which isn't even needed for limited supply, does not really matter anyway since bitcoin is likely to have been replaced way before that becomes an issue.

Asic farms securing the network has both disadvantages and advantages, but maybe we will have to accept that it is impossible to have a cryptocurrency that remqins centralized. Mining farms have unlike GPU miners invested into decuring the network and would thus lose money from killing the coin.

DPOS does offer fast transaction time and good scalability, but there must be a better solution.

[iamnotback]

but there must be a better solution.

There is.

[dinofelis]

@mining1:

Thanks for your cordial post. My counter argument is the following essay by Nicholas Taleb:

<rant>
Before you read this, please read Surgeons Should Not Look Like Surgeons by Nicholas Taleb, the progenitor of antifragility.

Hahaha  The problem with that statement is that you get an unsolvable game-theoretic recursion.

If, to be *recognized* as a successful surgeon, you have to look like a lumberjack, then the smoothest of actors will of course adapt to this perception, and most scammer-fake-surgeon charlatans will look like lumberjacks, to adhere to the image that the best surgeons "don't look like a surgeon"...

Yeah I thought of that too, but by that implication he was intending that you will use no criteria at all to predict that which can't be predicted and the great failures cost of groupthink instead of decentralized annealing. But you may be missing Taleb's point as you are apparently reading it too literally and not focusing on the generative essence he is trying to convey. His point (as evident in the opening where he writes "Business plans are for suckers — Donaldo Hiring practitioners –the glory of bureaucracy") is that we can't know creativity and fitness a priori. He is making the point that IQ tests are abused "on the other side" of the mean as you (correctly) stated.

Past performance and well scoped plans of mice and men are not the predictors of success in the game of unknowable creative discovery and achievement. For more than a decade after my successes of WordUp and CoolPage, I produced only flops (aka lemons).

This is why speculators should not buy an ICO and instead buy that which is already launched and clearly a successful divergent paradigm-shift.

It also means that after 3 years of waiting for Ethereum to gain millions of adoption, its established inertia is not necessarily indicative of future success. Inertia tends to metastasize and rot. Saplings grow to oak trees, but aging oak trees don't grow to the moon. The early adopter exponential phase of Ethereum's growth is over. Just like Bitcoin, the dynamic headroom of what it can be is already baked into its inertia. ETH and BTC have one more 10 bagger (up to and less than 100X) run in them (per the technology adoption curve since they passed the first hump already), but that is all. Ditto Monero and Dash.

Speculators are attempting to know what is impossible to know too early. And thus they are being taken in by 100s of ICOs and going to end up in an ICO graveyard.

It used to be that speculators could perhaps gauge which ICOs had a superior level of hype and marketing, so they could speculate not on actuated creative technological achievement, but on the ICO being the actual launch of the manipulation of the minds of speculators (aka "mining the speculators"). But now we are entering a new phase where there will be an an oversupply (market saturation) of ICOs which have copied that "the ICO is the launch of the reality distortion field" paradigm. Ethereum is spawning offspring (i.e. smart contract) copycats of its own reality distortion field business model, which may cannabalize ETH itself.

I entirely agree.  This is always the same law: predictions are difficult if they concern the future.  It is the crypto equivalent of Malkiel's thesis, that there's no "smart investor" that *systematically* can outsmart the market, and that in the long run, monkeys playing on the stock market do just as well as hedge fund managers.
 
But of course, on every time slice, there are lottery winners, who think they have something special.

[thejaytiesto]

Any takes on why in the fuck is freaking Dash skyrocketing?

Im happy that I didn't buy any altcoins and decided to stay all in on bitcoin as I predicted it was going to keep climbing.

On the other hand, im more interested in making more BTC rather han making more USD, and im mad that im not holding Dash, but then again, of all the altcoins.. who would have known Dash would fly?

Did they make any advancements in the technology or this the mere result of agressive marketing thanks to Amanda B Jonhson plastered all over Youtube? In that case, I expect a big ass dump.

[iamnotback]

Any takes on why in the fuck is freaking Dash skyrocketing?

Roger Ver promoted it on Casey Research. Given the tiny actual float of Dash (i.e. most of the market cap is locked up in masternodes and otherwise controlled by "Evan Inc"), this has been sufficient to create a situation of demand far outstripping supply of liquid tokens.

I want to stop writing about Dash, because I don't believe it is a trustless blockchain. I believe (or let's say it is alleged with strong corroborating circumstantial evidence) it is controlled by "Evan Inc".

[iamnotback]

I entirely agree.  This is always the same law: predictions are difficult if they concern the future.  It is the crypto equivalent of Malkiel's thesis, that there's no "smart investor" that *systematically* can outsmart the market, and that in the long run, monkeys playing on the stock market do just as well as hedge fund managers.
 
But of course, on every time slice, there are lottery winners, who think they have something special.

Well not in the small of uniqueness, but as I presume you know, there are ordered repeating patterns in chaos on the large aggregate perspective, i.e. the Sun rises every day and humans have on the average a consistent lifespan and age of maturation. I believe Martin Armstrong taps into this order to increase his odds of being correct about the future macro environment.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attractor#Strange_attractor

[iamnotback]

You may click this quote to read the entire discussion:

@r0ach, @OROBTC, @STT, and @tabnloz, regarding the recent discussion...

In short, the value of money is the public CONFIDENCE or expectation of the ability that others find it valuable as a store-of-value and/or unit-of-exchange. Bitcoin's confidence current derives primarily from expectations of its future utility, not its current utility. Although Bitcoin's volume is only 1/30,000th of the SWIFT system, it provides enormous utility as value transfer system of greater degrees-of-freedom in that it is unimpeded by top-down barriers, such as nation-state borders and different legal regimes. But the confidence in Bitcoin is limited to those who are smart enough to understand that utility, which is under appreciated by the masses and Bitcoin doesn't have the ability to scale to something that the masses could experience first hand. Yet I can tell you that I already know how to improve blockchains so they can fulfill their destiny. The necessary design is already sitting in an unpublished whitepaper already stored online for safe keeping. Thus @r0ach's complaints against crypto-currency are historic perspectives not forward looking.

Whereas, the confidence of goldbugs in gold is actually a historic perspective which is probably overconfident. The future of gold as a reliable settlement vehicle is dismal.

[rokkyroad]

On the other hand, im more interested in making more BTC rather han making more USD, and im mad that im not holding Dash, but then again, of all the altcoins.. who would have known Dash would fly?

You have to fight FOMO. You know if you buy now it will drop like a rock ... lol.

[iamnotback]

On the other hand, im more interested in making more BTC rather han making more USD, and im mad that im not holding Dash, but then again, of all the altcoins.. who would have known Dash would fly?

You have to fight FOMO. You know if you buy now it will drop like a rock ... lol.

Hopefully this is the last point I want to make about that.

I think it is time for me to stop worrying about the speculator markets.

Value can be proven by real adoption. I think that will drive solid investment, not just speculation. Any way, let's attempt it and find out.

[iamnotback]

I am not enthralled with bumping this thread so much, yet I am just responding to the criticisms or points raised by others:

I want to acknowledge that @Skalpell has a valid point about needing to accelerate by getting others involved.

I also agree with him that if open sourced too early, then the momentum can be diluted by copycats. However once a clear lead, economies-of-scale, and ecosystem adoption are achieved, open source is best. There is a hen-egg dilemma to overcome and @Skalpell's point about capital driven momentum is a valid one to consider. Then again, if one isn't concerned about exclusivity and only about the maximization of the idea, then open source is probably best, but this possibly may also cause an idea's development to suffer via fractious power vacuum of competing offerings which may open the door for a top-down controlling strongman.

At the moment, I am trying to get off this forum and get back to coding and technical work. And I am trying to get the cobwebs out of my brain from several years of suffering a chronic illness (apparently disseminated TB) which had the symptoms of autoimmune disease and even some of those mimicking multiple sclerosis. So at this moment, I don't YET always have the energy I need to assimilate as much information as I would like to. I am not really rolling yet where I have enough momentum to know where and how to efficiently deploy a large amount of capital.

I think at the nascent stage, a very tightly wound focus is best. I need to focus on the core concepts which are unique in the work I am doing and since only I am intimate with my ideas, it is more efficiently for me to develop from those concepts into something that others could concretely appreciate. For me to try to bring other developers up to speed (i.e personalized hand holding) would be inefficient at this point. Later when those initial concepts have become concrete in some code, then others can autonomously bring themselves up to speed (decentralized competition of open source will filter out who can and who can't without a requirement for my hand holding).

Regarding ICOs, one of the aims of my project that is different from Ethereum is that via the distribution model, I intend (i.e. hope to) provide a way for the derivative "smart contract" (or apps) projects to monetize their business model without creating a useless token and ICO lie. I am attempting to change the entire paradigm to not only a legal but also a viable one. @Skalpell although you make reasonable arguments in some respects, you seem to have a blindspot on the fact that these ICO tokens are completely unrealistic in that the world won't be using 100s of colored coins with a separate coin for each "smart contract" or app. The world will rally around one or at most a few leading units-of-exchange and units-of-account. The ICO model is not viable long-term. It is a FOMO delusion that works for now because speculators haven't yet learned that 100s of tokens isn't going to work.

I don't know if I can achieve this. I go forward step-by-step, just as I did when I thought I had no good health future over the past years of being ill. I just went step-by-step and worked my way towards a solution. In hindsight, if I had known to get a TB test 4.5 years ago, then I would not have lost 4 years. So if there is some analogous insight which could help accelerate my plans now, then I hope I am able to realize it as the recurrent fatigue and cognitive deficiencies clear out (16 more days to go on the 4-drug medication, then 16 more weeks on the 2-drug regimen).

[iamnotback]

@qwizzie I want to not mention Dash, but if you try to steal my marketing concept ("Bitcoin Killer"), then you force me to tell the truth about Dash:

@qwizzie, I can't keep my side of the truce, if Dash doesn't keep its side. The lies which attempt to steal my market concept force me to respond as follows:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1739268.msg18048987#msg18048987

@charleshoskinson, you of all people should be aware of the EXTENSIVE research which shows that all fungible resources become power-law or exponentially distributed. Why on God's earth would it be different in the case of Dash, especially starting from the admitted instamine "bug" (and using their control over the money supply to vote not to restart the launch without the bug). Surely you understand the power of ROI compounding w.r.t. to insider control over voting and masternode revenue (and also there were I heard instances where only a minority of vote was necessary to form a quorum on budget proposals). Also you should know that democracy is a Tragedy of the Commons power vacuum which is always filled by a strongman:

http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=984

Are you naive? Oh come on now, are you trying to pretend also? Your statement is incredulous as if you are naive 5 year old, which you obviously are not.

I know you've been working towards decentralized governance as one of themes of interest at your IOHK, but decentralized governance is impossible. The absence of governance is what we want for a blockchain.

The real Bitcoin Killer will have checkmarks on every item below, plus many more...

Re: Rumours That Dash Will Kill Bitcoin

Since everyone else is too lazy to do this, I will:

	Bitcoin	Dash
Controlled by a decentralized blockchain	✔ (coming centralized)	✘
Distributed worldwide nodes controlling network (distributed ≠ decentralized)	✔	✔
Protocol doesn't pay the money supply to insiders	✔	✘
Doesn't require corrupt lie of governance (democracy is always a power vacuum)	✔	✘
Doesn't have Two-tied network corruption (c.f. prior 2 line items)	✔	✘
Doesn't have steal funding from the money supply (c.f. prior 3 line items)	✔	✘
Scalable, secure subsecond payments (5 seconds much too slow for interactivity needed for microtransactions)	✘	✘
Technically sound anonymity	✘	✘

[Spoetnik]

@iamnotback / Shelby

This was a survey of sorts i think for the users here.. not you.

It's like if guys posted a topic here asking about me (like they have many times before)
There is only so much you can do to control / influence the opinions of the crowd here.

My advice would be to say your piece and let it go.
This topic was best i can tell not FOR YOU Shelby.
It was for the users here to reply to and give their thoughts.

Problem i have is your typical behavior here..
You demanded this be locked.. why ?
Because you don't want anyone else replying anymore ?
Because you don't like what they are saying ?

Ya know this is typical behavior from you.. something is not right with you bud.
There is a part of your brain that is broken or some shit man.

Apparently you are not lucid and coherent enough to get what i said (with out it being explained to you several times)

Bottom Line is all these people are fully entitled to their opinions on your bold grandiose claims.
If you don't like the response maybe ignore it ?

Like i already said you got more than anyone else would.. the benefit of the doubt.
You should be grateful you got so much support here.
Anyone else parading around here with Bitcoin killer claims in early 2017 would be laughed out of here LOL

Someone typed in RED and i get the last word in and your all on ignore now.. lock this topic now !

[iamnotback]

I've been excerpting from my whitepaper rough draft over the past few months. Here is another tidbit:

Re: Roger Ver - bitcoin jesus going off the rails?? have you been rogered?

Roger Ver doesn't seem to comprehend the consensus technology of blockchains. For example, he doesn't seem to understand that CPFP is the natural incentive for miners given a large enough fee incentive, regardless if the optional RBF wasn't selected for the transaction. Also he doesn't seem to understand that as the block reward declines and transaction fees become a larger portion of the block reward, then the incentive for miners to autonomously adopt CPFP increases.

7.6.1 PoW Zero Confirmation Transactions

These payment channel transactions are even faster and more secure than Bitcoin’s “zero confirmation” transactions because from the moment the signed transaction is received by the payee, it isn’t required to even immediately propagate it across the network to prevent a double-spend. Bitcoin’s “zero confirmation” transactions rely on the somewhat dubious security of the preponderance of systemic hashrate reporting having seen the unconfirmed transaction first and stored it in their memory pools. But even when the transaction is marked to not use Opt-in Replace-by-Fee (aka “RBF”),^{[^RBF]} if the miner policy of Child Pays For Parent (aka “CPFP”)^{[^CPFP]} selfishly favors replacing the first seen with the transaction having the most fees, double-spends of unconfirmed transactions would become trivially easily in Bitcoin.^{[^0-conf-security]} As transactions fees become a greater proportion of block reward as the rate of minted tokens decline for Bitcoin, the selfish policy is economically more incentivized― any way in general PoW with declining minted rewards is eventually incentives incompatible and consensus diverges.

^{[^RBF]} Opt-in RBF FAQ. Bitcoin Core, §What is opt-in RBF?, Feb 1, 2016.

^{[^CPFP]} maservant. Replace-by-Fee vs Child-pays-for-Parent?. Bitcoin.stackexchange.com, Nov 18, 2016.

^{[^0-conf-security]} Ariel Horwitz. Conspiracy against “instant” Bitcoin transactions: RBF, CPFP and Scorched Earth. 99bitcoins.com, §Child-Pays-For-Parent (CPFP) vs. Replace-By-Fee (RBF), Sep 8, 2015.

Listening more to this specific 39 min point (he mentions Monero):

https://youtu.be/JarEszFY1WY?t=2321

I am thinking the Roger Ver's promotion of Dash may be intended to put pressure on Bitcoin community to move faster on progress. He may be in effect sending the message, "if we don't get our act together, maybe shitcoins can become relevant". He may just be using Dash as a disposable proxy in his political battles in the Bitcoin community.

He also states at the 35 min point that he seems to be willing to sacrifice decentralization because his #1 priority is to scale Bitcoin as fast as possible:

https://youtu.be/JarEszFY1WY?t=2100

Roger reiterates his disgust with Bitcoin core at the 5:35 min point in different video:

https://youtu.be/XdyIJ-BUPaU?t=339

[thejaytiesto]

On the other hand, im more interested in making more BTC rather han making more USD, and im mad that im not holding Dash, but then again, of all the altcoins.. who would have known Dash would fly?

You have to fight FOMO. You know if you buy now it will drop like a rock ... lol.

That is what I did. I researched, but nobody was able to tell me a real justification of such big pump, so I didn't buy, it was obviously going to correct, people wants to go BTC before the ETF deadline just in case it gets passed and we see a massive price increase.

Anyway Dash related...: what do you think about incentive to people running nodes? Should people running nodes do it in an altruistic fashion (ultimately they are getting "rewarded" by making their holdings stronger, since they are strengthening the network) or should people running nodes get paid directly too like miners?

Can this create some gameable scenarios? Im sure satoshi thought about it but decided to not give people running nodes money for doing so for a reason.
 In bitcoin, what would happen if people running nodes got paid some % based on something? (I don't know how this could be done, specially once all coins ever are mined, without turning it into an inflationary currency, since nodes don't process transactions). I hope this makes sense.

[iamnotback]

Proof-of-Non-existence is still in the design:

Re: Superior off-chain anonymity?

And the programming language:

Operation ShitCODE Cleanout.

Enough of these C++ coins.

All coins not coded in Brainfuck are hereby on notice of their imminent demise.

Only one of the above quotes is serious.


Edit:

Edit: for the small community anonymity wherein you trust your community but not the State, then much better you never send your transactions to the blockchain, only the hash. Then even if the State has your IP address or a powerful quantum computer it won't help them.