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

[iamnotback]

or some alt account

I haven't used any other account in 2017.

If you see any posts on my old accounts in 2017, that is because they've been hacked. I scrambled the passwords, but apparently not well enough. And TPTB_need_war I stopped using it because it was banned but I forgot to scramble the password and it since got hacked into. Archive.org has the historical record of that account before it got hacked. So if they delete or edit it, I can prove it.

And I had no accounts that aren't listed in the link in my signature.

[1715133894]

1715133894

[1715133894]

1715133894

[1715133894]

1715133894

[1715133894]

1715133894

[iamnotback]

Jihan Wu approves of my posts?

I am an ENTP

I am too.

I'm also an Architect archetype, but I can also eagerly switch into Algorithmicist or Sharpshooter mode but I'll burnout of those tangential roles if I remain mired in them too long. Also I can if I want be a Translator especially in a verbal setting because I find writing much too slow, tedious, and non-interactive communication medium. I'm hyper social when I can jam with and perceive the real-time cues of the people around me, but I'll be quickly bored if the social interaction is not stimulating and prefer to either go do sports or solitary mental activity.

P.S. News flash. You've been cited by the villainous noble kingmaker in the HF war of crypto-currency. I'm speculating he may be responding to my posts about the Inverse Commons. Alas, your blog post on the Dark Enlightenment seems to become more relevant every day. I don't think readers yet realize how important this potentially is. I don't think your magnum opus is completed. Or perhaps I am (not!) just off in left field kooky.

Last year, Kevin Pan recommended me a book called The Cathedral and the Bazaar. I got it. We will put lots of money.

I regretted one thing. In China, open source culture is not popular. I did not understand it. We put too less or 0 money into community.

Ahem. Is someone named Jihan reading my posts?

That chart is clearly indicating that Bitcoin can't move higher until Litecoin catches up.

Litecoin's price is undergoing the same technology adoption as Bitcoin and all the rest, it is just that the first hump is very volatile (because silver is more volatile than gold for the reasons I have explained). So this means Litecoin's price is going to $100+:

Jihan replied?

Let me correct a FUD: miners love LN. LN makes bitcoin price higher, and miners love bitcoin sold at high price, hence miners love LN.

[iamnotback]

Besides the shadow elite are apt to love the altcoin I will launch, because they will see it as yet another speculation that falls under Bitcoin's umbrella.

Why would they love a currency that is designed to be truly decentralized? Please be more specific on that.

Because they don't think anything can be. They will view it as another speculation or if necessary something they can capture when needed.

I assume you meant "decentralized". But that leaves us with a dilemma:

a) They think it because they are very smart and proved the impossibility of decentralized currencies before releasing Bitcoin. Though that would mean that your design would turn out as impossible as well. Either because it's impossible as such or because it will finally get captured by them.

b) They didn't prove it and just think (or hope) it. In that case they would be very dumb (and thus cannot be called an "elite") since they must have been aware of the risk that someone would eventually come and fix Bitcoin's flaw of becoming centralized.

@iamnotback: Do you have any thoughts on how to solve that dilemma?

From my deep study of the range of plausible designs for a blockchain consensus system (and I studied much deeper than in than what is contained in that linked thread), I conclude that it is impossible to have a fungible token on a blockchain in which the consensus doesn't become centralized iff the presumption is that the users of the system gain the most value from the system due to its monetary function.

However, I was able to outsmart the global elite, because I realized that if the users of the system gained more value from the system for its non-monetary function and iff that value can't be financed (i.e. its value can be leeched off by control of fungible money), and if I provided a way for the users to provide the Byzantine fault DETECTION as a check-and-balance against the power of the whales and if I provided this in a way that is not democracy and is a crab bucket mentality Nash equilibrium, then I would have defeated the problems with the concept of fungible money.

The elite simply weren't aware of these concepts, because I invented them. Nash didn't know this.

And that is what I intend to launch with BitNet.

Satoshi clearly stated that he intended to have VISA-like transaction volumes on-chain with bitcoin, but that bitcoin would become a semi-centralized served thing.

He lied by not mentioning that isn't his intended use case. He was just responding to a question about if Bitcoin could scale from a bandwidth consideration alone. You can find other cases where he lied by not pointing out how impractical something would be, such as how he claimed some nodes would still be willing to process a transaction for free:

When that runs out, the system can support transaction fees if
needed.  It's based on open market competition, and there will
probably always be nodes willing to process transactions for free.

Duplicity is exactly what you'd expect from secret agents working for the global elite.

I read from Satoshi also that he realized that his system would only be viable in the long term in the hands of an oligarchy of miners.

So why can't you add 2+2?

He knows it will become centralized yet some how he thinks hobbyist nodes will still process for free. Satoshi was a liar.

Btw, John Nash was a prankster and deviant.

I was listening to him in an interview and he said he isn't concerned about helping the poor, because he said they are adjusted to their poverty.

So much for the P2P nature of bitcoin, which was only intended as a bootstrap with useful idiots.  He clearly didn't care about a long-term P2P network, and the importance of decentralized nodes:

Now you are starting to understand.

So why can't you add 2+2?

The block chain was just the ledger that a few oligarchs would share amongst them, hopefully keeping one another in check, to serve as the new centralized VISA backbone to which all users would connect.

However, the way bitcoin is evolving, and was actually designed with the 1 MB limit (and other practical limits), is that on chain transactions will be limited to a few big actors and will not reach large scale, but on the other hand, that most people will be able to download a chain with which they cannot do anything apart from contemplating how big guys are filling it with their expensive transactions.

Bitcoin is "rich sleasy business" OWN private money, NOT to be used by normal people, contrary to what Satoshi initially announced.   Bitcoin IS downloadable by anybody, but not usable ; Satoshi announced bitcoin to be usable by anybody, but not downloadable except for a few miner oligarchs.

And why did it become a rich sleazy business money and not a VISA administered by a few miners ?  Because Satoshi put himself a 1MB limit on the block chain.  If he understood the game structure of bitcoin, he would have known that this limit would become immutable because it was needed to generate fees (which he needed for reasons of his diminishing coin creation scheme in the longer term) but then it couldn't turn into a VISA kind of money and he would deny what he had been proposing from the start  - and if he didn't understand the consequences of him introducing a "temporary" 1 MB limit, then he couldn't foresee that it was going to become a rich-business-only crypto either.

Yup. So why can't you admit the evil genius of Satoshi?


Btw, I think it was necessary to murder John Nash before the blockchain scaling debate reached its boiling point. Because by now even people such as yourself are starting to realize something smells funny.

[alkan]

Thanks for your insights iamnotback!

From my deep study of the range of plausible designs for a blockchain consensus system (and I studied much deeper than in than what is contained in that linked thread), I conclude that it is impossible to have a fungible token on a blockchain in which the consensus doesn't become centralized iff the presumption is that the users of the system gain the most value from the system due to its monetary function.

What do you exactly mean by "monetary function"? The fact that miners receive rewards and fees?

However, I was able to outsmart the global elite, because I realized that if the users of the system gained more value from the system for its non-monetary function and iff that value can't be financed (i.e. its value can be leeched off by control of fungible money), and if I provided a way for the users to provide the Byzantine fault DETECTION as a check-and-balance against the power of the whales and if I provided this in a way that is not democracy and is a crab bucket mentality Nash equilibrium, then I would have defeated the problems with the concept of fungible money.

Do you imply that your system (only) offers non-monetary incentives to miners?

[vlight]

From my deep study of the range of plausible designs for a blockchain consensus system (and I studied much deeper than in than what is contained in that linked thread), I conclude that it is impossible to have a fungible token on a blockchain in which the consensus doesn't become centralized iff the presumption is that the users of the system gain the most value from the system due to its monetary function.

However, I was able to outsmart the global elite, because I realized that if the users of the system gained more value from the system for its non-monetary function and iff that value can't be financed (i.e. its value can be leeched off by control of fungible money), and if I provided a way for the users to provide the Byzantine fault DETECTION as a check-and-balance against the power of the whales and if I provided this in a way that is not democracy and is a crab bucket mentality Nash equilibrium, then I would have defeated the problems with the concept of fungible money.

The elite simply weren't aware of these concepts, because I invented them. Nash didn't know this.

And that is what I intend to launch with BitNet.

Quoting, because this post is too valuable 

[zanzibar]

Didn't realize he was back  . Bitnet is the name of your project? Do you have your whitepaper available?

[iamnotback]

Re: Speculation Rule: sell when others are irrationally optimistic or too exuberant

and it will never be forgotten when you are actually "right" as it won't be forgotten when you are actually "wrong"

Actually the opposite is true, because people always blame their mistakes on someone else. So I get no credit for the numerous times I've been correct, and people invent mirages in their mind of how I was wrong, when it was really their own mistake.

I've found that I can be the first to make a very important correct statement, then it spreads around the forum and suddenly everybody thinks it was their idea and nobody knows who was the original seed.

This is why fungible money can be a useful information tool, because it measures phenomenons that humans can't accurately appraise (measure). He who has the most money was the one who was correct more than anyone else. Bullshit walks, money talks.

Note however that fungible money has some serious drawbacks, such as that it is a winner-take-all power vacuum.

Yes some rating system or just + or - it like youtube. Would be fun

Not fun for those who aren't idiots. It would be a clusterfuck power vacuum of ignorance and politics, just like democracy. As if this forum needs more of that. 

[iamnotback]

Didn't realize he was back  . Bitnet is the name of your project? Do you have your whitepaper available?

I wrote one for the consensus algorithm in Oct/Nov 2016, but I haven't published it yet.

Much work to do yet.

[zanzibar]

Didn't realize he was back  . Bitnet is the name of your project? Do you have your whitepaper available?

I wrote one for the consensus algorithm in Oct/Nov 2016, but I haven't published it yet.

Much work to do yet.

Looking forward to it.

[iamnotback]

There is a serious inconsistency in how UTXO are referred.
On one hand, there is all the work of having a totally ordered consensus of transactions: the block chain.  It would have been extremely simple to refer to a transaction output in a block chain: the block number, the transaction number in the block, and the output number in the transaction uniquely specify the UTXO.  No need for a hash, no need for 256 bit !

Seriously you need to stop pretending you know anything about blockchain design.

This is beginners' egregious error.

Lol you just flunked the most fundamental issue of decentralized systems, which is there is no total order.

Well deep down blockchain are still a decentralized database, who preserve total order

Even if the way the chain will be constructed is not ordered, the system make in sort to garantee total order consistent across the network.

Incorrect. Chain reorganizations can happen at any time. PoW is probabilistically (i.e. never) final, not deterministically final.

Thus referencing by specific chains instead of by hash as @dinofelis suggested would be a DDoS security vulnerability at least and other cascading issues.

@IadixDev, that is why you leave the blockchain design work to me. I am expert. You are not.

[iamnotback]

Besides, if you think bitcoin will be rejected in favor of one or some of the alts out there, that shows you don't understand the shadow elite well enough.

My altcoin project doesn't depend in any way on Bitcoin being evil, perfect, or flawed. My project is about helping us share our knowledge production without being hostage to 3rd parties. It only depends on BTC being available as an exchange mechanism to and from fiat.

I believe any alt, no matter how good or bad, needs the support (financial and non-financial alike) of the shadow elites in order to have a lasting impression in the society (or else they will die out sooner or later).

What makes you think the elite want to be locked together in a mutual self-destruction of NWO and 666.

They think they have no choice, because fungible money is a winner-take-all power vacuum.

My idea may change everything. If the knowledge age ameloriates the power vacuum of fungible money, then the shadow elites may gleefully attack each other and return their former power back to emergent chaos, because they would have no other choice.

Fundamental laws of physics can't be avoided.

I also have a Theory of Everything I hope to publish a summary maybe tomorrow in a blog on Steemit. I will also explain how to do time travel realistically!

[sivaram]

How to find your blog on SteemIt?. Your knowledge is astounding.

[IadixDev]

There is a serious inconsistency in how UTXO are referred.
On one hand, there is all the work of having a totally ordered consensus of transactions: the block chain.  It would have been extremely simple to refer to a transaction output in a block chain: the block number, the transaction number in the block, and the output number in the transaction uniquely specify the UTXO.  No need for a hash, no need for 256 bit !

Seriously you need to stop pretending you know anything about blockchain design.

This is beginners' egregious error.

Lol you just flunked the most fundamental issue of decentralized systems, which is there is no total order.

Well deep down blockchain are still a decentralized database, who preserve total order

Even if the way the chain will be constructed is not ordered, the system make in sort to garantee total order consistent across the network.

Incorrect. Chain reorganizations can happen at any time. PoW is probabilistically (i.e. never) final, not deterministically final.

Thus referencing by specific chains instead of by hash as @dinofelis suggested would be a DDoS security vulnerability at least and other cascading issues.

@IadixDev, that is why you leave the blockchain design work to me. I am expert. You are not.

For the moment im still on the script, it advance good 

I will probably give more news on it in a few days.


It should have everything needed to can create a blockchain with custom block validation algorithm, all the parameters to initialize the node for a specific chain with block reward curve, pos, with event handler for p2p messages, and rpc server + block explorer 

All this in super simple javascript like language, with the module and event queue.

it could probably be compiled to assembler easily, as it's mostly C call to the framework, and it use only base types that the cpu understand like pointer , integers and simd.


For the other discussion if you follow the thread you will see better where I want to get at, and also why in my idea chain ordering could not matter at all.

But again the main point was not even this, but to show pow is not only about solving consencus etc 

[vlight]

I will also explain how to do time travel realistically!

Not sure if...

[iamnotback]

I understand @dinofelis wasn't able to assimilate this information, so I think by putting it all organized concisely in one post will help him and readers to understand. And hopefully he will stop lying.

One last time, I will repeat the rebuttals I made to two of @dinofelis' incorrect claims that Bitcoin has a clunky design thus implying Satoshi's design was not genius. I made other rebuttals upthread, but I will not repeat all of them again.

1.

there's no point in making the hash bigger than 128 bits @dinofelis claims that since it is known that the true security of Bitcoins 256-bit ECDSA (elliptic curve digital signature algorithm, i.e. a form of ECC aka elliptic curve cryptography) is only 128-bits, then if we hash the ECDSA public key, then we only need a 128-bit hash. Thus he claims that Satoshi was wasteful and not genius. Although Satoshi's long-term priorities were not prioritized on not consuming too much block size given 1 MB was deemed more than sufficient for Bitcoin's planned future as block chain for the $billionaires only, Satoshi did minimize the length of the hash function by choosing 160-bit RIPE160 instead of SHA256 for the final hash of Bitcoin addresses (as they appear on the blockchain, but note that publicly distributed addresses also have a checksum for eliminating user typos but afaik this checksum is or could be discarded from what is stored on the blockchain). He did this minimization because it is good design sense, it is sufficient security and collision resistance, it provides an extra layer of protection against any unknown cryptanalysis interaction between SHA256 (or RIPE160) alone and ECDSA, and it helps to market the product to the n00bs as scalable (even though Satoshi was deception in this regard) in Bitcoin's nascent stage. Also SHA256 before RIPE160 provides an extra layer of protection against any unknown cryptanalysis breakage on collisions for RIPE160 alone. For example, SHA256 has a Merkle-Damgard length extension weakness when not doubled with itself or another hash, which tangentially btw would provide someone with a strong hint as to where to look for inventing the AsicBoost to make SHA256 mining 30% more efficient. Agreed it is but collision attacks based on distinguishers, boomerang attacks, and other forms of cryptoanalysis which attempt to reduce the intractability are what concern us. ... You are uninformed. Crypt-analysis breaks on hash functions typically lower the security in bits, but don't lower it to 0 bits. By frustrating crypt-analysis with the prehashing with SHA256, this RIPE160 is deemed to be a perfect balance of compression and brute force collision resistance. Yet @dinofelis is incorrect to claim that 128-bits would have been sufficient for the hash function, because of at least two reasons: a) Reducing 160-bits by 16 bits only saves 10%, and for that miniscule size reduction you are not factoring the exponential loss in randomized collision resistance. Insufficient collision resistance of 128-bits. Even if we assume that all attacks on collision resistance of SHA128 are intractable, even the equation for random chance says that if we generation more than a trillion addresses then we have a near certainty of production one random collision. But that is for an idealized hash function. Whereas in fact hash functions always have more collisions than the perfect randomization of their bit length. Conservatively we would presume on the order of a few bits of redundancy in the permutation engine of the hash function, thus we would expect a random collision with only billions of address. Satohi was prescient in his prudence because since Bitcoin's launch in 2009, a collision attack against SHA128 has been discovered which reduces the collision security to 60-bits which is approaching the realm of tractability. Additionally since the attacker can control the message being signed, birthday attacks generally can reduce collisions to half the bit-length of the hash, which is different from using the birthday problem to attack the ECDSA. b) The hash is intended for long-term security (as it is public for a long time whereas the ECDSA signature and public key is only published for a short-time before it becomes recorded as final and not double-spendable in the blockchain), so it requires greater security. Notwithstanding the long-term security distinction, if the security of both the ECDSA and the hash are the same then cryptanalysis reduction of security in both might be levered in such a way that their weakening is compounded. Also the larger bit length of the hash may also provide competitive economic security compared with the block reward of using the SHA256 resources to mine the blockchain. And as I had pointed out upthread, the 160-bit reduces the collision attack space of the 256-bit ECDSA from 128 to  96 bits.

2.

@dinofelis claims that quantum computing resistance with the hash is futile because if the ECDSA is broken via Shor's algorithm, because he claims the attacker can crack the transaction signature and double-spend it when it is published before the bonafide signature becomes final in the blockchain. I already refuted this argument based on two reasons. If you argue that it doesn't matter if we have the hashes when ECC is broken by quantum computing, because the transactions can be intercepted and cracked by the attacker before they are confirmed in the network, you would not be thinking clearly. Because quantum computing would at its inception (nascent stages) likely be only able to break long-term security but not short-term. So there would be a period to transition as I already stated in the above quote from my prior post. So the day that one finds the "Euclidean division" in an ECC, it is COMPLETELY BROKEN. You are describing future cryptanalysis breakage of the math theoretic security of the intractability of the discrete logarithm over certain fields. But you're analogy does not apply, because Shor's algorithm (a form of cryptanalysis) is already known! It is not a future unknown. Also (and this is a minor point which isn't really necessary for my slamdunk) you are conflating the breakage of discrete logarithm math theoretic security with the security of permutation algorithms of hash functions. I repeat the distinction between the two which you have failed to assimilate: You are uninformed. Crypt-analysis breaks on hash functions typically lower the security in bits, but don't lower it to 0 bits. As I had originally pointed out you are conflating two entirely different systems of security and each can benefit orthogonally from increased bit lengths when we are not concerned about an intractable brute force enumeration attack and instead concerned with math theoretic cryptanalysis breakage. Thus... --> if we assume that ECC will be broken one day, bitcoin's crypto scheme is IN ANY CASE not usable. Not only are you failing to assimilate the fact that Shor's breakage is already known (not a future thing not knowable as you are arguing) which is sufficient slamdunk on why you are incorrect, but you are also claiming that hash functions can typically be entirely broken in one swoop which afaik not the case (and I studied the cryptanalysis history on past SHA submissions from round 1 to final rounds). Now, what is the reason we can allow LOWER security for the exposed public key, than for the long-term address in an output ?  The reason is a priori (and I also fell into that trap - as I told you before, my reason for these discussions is only to improve my proper understanding and here it helped) that the public key needs only to secure the thing between broadcasting and inclusion in the chain.  But as you point out, that can take longer if blocks are full than 10 minutes.  This can be a matter of hours. Now, if we are on a security requirement of days or weeks, then there's essentially not much difference between days or weeks, and centuries.  The factor between them is 10000 or so.  That's 16 bits.  A scheme that is secure for days or weeks, only needs 16 bits of extra security, to be secure for centuries ====>  there is no reason to nitpick on 16 bits if we are talking about 128 bits or so. There is no reason to introduce "short term security" if this is only 16 bits less than the long term security level. You have incorrect conceptualization. The point of long-term security is not the difference in the time it takes to crack with a given level of technology, but rather that over the long-term we can't know when that moment comes that cracking has become sufficiently fast enough. The Bitcoin UTXO from 8 years ago that Satoshi has not spent, could have been under attack for the past 8 years. By having the hash for the long-term security, then we force all attacks to begin only when the UTXO are spent. This enables us to restrict damage to a very few number of transactions and the community will become alarmed and take corrective action. I already told you that if the public key were exposed for a longer (indefinite!) time, so you would need to increase the security of the public key.  But to what level given quantum computing may be coming? And 256-bit was about the upper limit of what was available and well accepted in 2008. I remember seeing that 256-bit was only expected to be recommended security for ECC for only another decade or so. https://www.keylength.com/en/3/ https://www.keylength.com/en/compare/ ... Another reason (in addition to the compression of UTXO) to hash the values on the block chain is because when the use of a quantum computer is detected, we have some protection against chaos and can map out a strategy for burning the values to a new design securely. Hashes are much more likely to be quantum computing resistant. You're advocating reducing to 80 bits, so that means in the future if someone has to computational capacity to break 128-bits in 2.814749767×10¹⁴ / 60*24*365.25 years, then then at your suggested 80 bits they could break it in 1 minute.

[iamnotback]

...

John Nash's Ideal Money stated that to bring about ideal money it would have to be done evolutionarily in an incremental and naturally viral fashion. If you understand game theory, you would understand why the elite can't just announce a new monetary system and expect to not be attacked and undermined.

... Because viral things don't stop growing due to naysayers. The more naysayers, the more a viral thing spreads.

Chapter 6 Why Bitcoin Is a Big Deal in the book Bitcoin for the Befuddled addresses this very well. You can read it online for free with Google books.

Also chapter 7 The Cryptography Behind Bitcoin in the same book, is a very comprehensible explanation of ECC and the ECDSA algorithm employed in Bitcoin. With only knowledge of high school level math one could understand that.

[alkan]

@iamnotback: This newly released paper might be of interest to you as it suggests an incentive-compatible, race-free block DAG model. The model is claimed to be superior to existing approaches such as GHOST, SPECTRE, Bitcoin-NG, Blockchain-free Cryptocurrencies etc.

Tortoise and Hares Consensus: the Meshcash Framework for Incentive-Compatible, Scalable Cryptocurrencies:

Meshcash, is designed to be race-free: there is no “race” to generate the next block, hence
honestly-generated blocks are always rewarded. This property, which we define formally as
a game-theoretic notion, turns out to be useful in analyzing rational miners’ behavior: we
prove (using a generalization of the blockchain mining games of Kiayias et al.) that race-free
blockchain protocols are incentive-compatible and satisfy linearity of rewards (i.e., a party
receives rewards proportional to its computational power).

[iamnotback]

How can they find out I own bitcoin?

You have no secrets from the national security agencies. I don't care how many mixers you use, you have no secrets from them. Find old discussions between @smooth and myself on that topic.

Why doesn't MP dump too? he is a public figure so he will be the first to get trapped by the anti bitcoin government control operation.

He is already one of the $billionaires (will probably be $trillionaire by 2030). He is a member of their shadow elite's club named The Most Serene Republic.

Do you need the evidence. MP alerted the TMSR which controls Wikileaks and this is why Wikileaks destroyed Hillary's campaign. Do some research on the connection between Rothschild and Julian Assange. Btw, Julian was a cyberpunk (the mailing list discussions) before he launched Wikileaks of which so were other players such as Hal Finney and James A. Donald (see my quotes of him in the Dark Enlightenment thread and note he was first person to respond to Satoshi on the metzdown mailing list whet Bitcoin was announced Nov. 1, 2008).

It's harder to trap the small guy that only owns a couple 5-21 BTC, it's not public, uses Tor etc.
If by 2030 I have several million dollars that I cannot enjoy because I can't even cash them out because the fee is higher than the million dollars I have im going to be pissed.

They don't need to trap you. You'll get caught in their regulations because you will get kicked off the blockchain by the exorbitant transaction fees due to the constrained block size.

Also they can create war and other problems for us that cause us to need to spend our BTC sooner than we anticipated.

If by 2030 I have several million dollars that I cannot enjoy because I can't even cash them out because the fee is higher than the million dollars I have im going to be pissed.

You'll be forced to cash out of BTC before that (to some regulated financial system such as Lightning Networks, SEPA, etc) or hold your BTC a regulated exchange.

Or possibly there will be another blockchain choice such as yours truly. Ethereum is also attempting to scale the blockchain. I will make a post comparing Ethereum's technology to mine in Altcoin Discussion soon...

if your basing it on moving 1btc... the answer is naturally when it becomes costly to the point of over 1% (so 0.01btc fee) to move it people will lose preferential desire to hold bitcoin.

I disagree. People will see an incentive to hold bitcoin as long as the price keeps going to the moon. If the fee is 0.01 BTC, but the price of 1 BTC is $10,000 with prospects of going $100,000 BTC, then who is the idiot that doesn't want to hold that?

As long as the price keeps going up and the fees allow you to move your wealth when needed, it will have an incentive to be the holder's coin.

If the fee becomes higher than 99% of people's wealth and only billionaires see a point in using it, well that's a problem, everyone else will have dumped and only a few will be using it (and I don't see how it can survive in this state, since barely any transaction volume would be going on for miners to be worth mining)

You have an incomplete mathematical conceptualization.

You can't just analyze from the perspective of a percentage fee, because the blocksize is constrained.

It can become possible that transacting in morsels as small as 1 BTC is no longer possible.

So let me get this straight.

Even people holding millions of dollars worth of bitcoin, will see their bitcoins trapped because transaction fees will be worth millions of dollars? What fees are we talking about by 2030? (at supposedly around $500k price)

Well we can estimate given that BTC trades 1/100th of its market cap daily. So @ $500k per BTC thus a $10 trillion market cap, thus $100 billion transacted daily. Given 144 blocks per day, that is $600 million per block.

Let's assume that whales will put complex settlement transactions on the blockchain with many inputs and outputs so perhaps only 100 transactions per block. Presuming that whales are willing to pay 0.1% fee for security (i.e. $600,000 per block), that means a minimum transaction fee of $6000. If whales are willing to pay more for security, say 1%, then minimum transaction fee of $60,000.

However, I think whales will end up demanding a kickback from miners for their transaction fees, so that miners can jack up fees on non-whales. Whales can make this demand because they can refuse to send their transactions to miners which won't deal. Yet non-whales can't make a credible threat, because miners who generally offered lower fees would end up losing hashrate relative to those miners who didn't defect from the fee market. Thus I think you will probably see miners colluding to extract the maximum fees that gouge non-whales.

So perhaps 10% fees so $600,000 per transaction. You'll pay it because you have no choice, whereas the whales will have exempted themselves from the fee. So in other words, we will be paying the fees for the whales, eventually the millionaires paying exorbitant fees in order to transact unregulated.

You'll of course be able to avoid that exorbitant fees by going through a regulated option as I explained previously.

So the bottom line is the whales will be free from regulation and we will not. We remain slaves.

No one wants a bitcoin network where they'll have to pay more than 1% of the transaction amount as a fee

The whales do because they will be paying 0% fees, as I explained in my prior post.

And everyone who can afford it, will still want to hodl BTC, because the price is going to the moon.

So it will be a process that as the price rises, more and more riff-raff get priced out of the block chain. But those who remain will hodl because the price is rising logistically.

Really you need to think this out. It works very well economically and Satoshi was an evil genius.

Satoshi did this minimization because it is good design sense, it is sufficient security and collision resistance, it provides an extra layer of protection against any unknown cryptanalysis interaction between SHA256 (or RIPE160) alone and ECDSA, and it helps to market the product to the n00bs as scalable (even though Satoshi was deception in this regard) in Bitcoin's nascent stage. Also SHA256 before RIPE160 provides an extra layer of protection against any unknown cryptanalysis breakage on collisions for RIPE160 alone. For example, SHA256 has a Merkle-Damgard length extension weakness when not doubled with itself or another hash, which tangentially btw would provide someone with a strong hint as to where to look for inventing the AsicBoost to make SHA256 mining 30% more efficient.

Satoshi was so genius that he designed the AsicBoost into the design.

I can say that with great confidence because double-hashing defeats attacks such as AsicBoost, and Satoshi did double-hashing as a precaution every where it could be required in his design except for the proof-of-work.

He managed to think far ahead on the game theory and realized he would need a poison pill to ensure that no one could modify his evil design.

So therefor he created a design that he knew the Chinese ASIC manufacturers would figure out how to make covert AsicBoost and that if it was patented outside of China, then this would be the poison pill against any changes to the protocol (as I have recently explained at @gmaxwell's Redditard discussion).

@dinofelis STFU on your nonsense about Satoshi wasn't genius. I've strongly refuted all of your nonsense technical claims. Stop your lying nonsense.

[iamnotback]

Is rpietila also part of that group? what will happen to him? he seemed like a cool guy.

All his funds (have been and) are being stolen from him, because he tried to compete with Bitcoin.

He is not mistaken that he has been targeted. He is mistaken that he can defeat the forces against him, because for one thing he doesn't even understand the technology he needs to know in order to defeat the TMSR.

Re: PRE-ANN: People's Mark - basic income local currency in Finland - launch Oct2016

- is currently executing Kansanmarkka, a debt-free basic income currency, designed to oust Euro from Finland (and the world) by voluntary choice by the people. Participation in Kansanmarkka is free, you actually get paid.

Centralised DB

This is a technological and political-economic flaw. A Nash equilibrium immutable protocol should be the law, not humans.

A system mutable by humans is a power vacuum.

[iamnotback]

Sell all crypto-currency to fiat IMMEDIATELY. BTC will dive -30%. Altcoins will decline even more. SegWit and scaling has been defeated on both Bitcoin and (at least near-term) also Litecoin. Also there are macroeconomics things going on which will also hit gold and every asset except USD. Store your money in USD or altcoin USDT (dollar peg) temporarily until this dip has concluded

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1663070.msg18594538#msg18594538

Re: Take profits now!

In my opinion, going "all-in" or "all-out" at this very moment is dangerous (only exception: if you are totally satisfied with your profits until now).

The scaling debate still dictates the price movements. In every single moment the following two things could happen:
- some pool jumps to BU and gets it near or over 50%, making hard fork a real risk -> very bearish (target: ~700)
- some pool jumps to Segwit and gets it near or over 50%  -> bullish / sideways (~1200-1350, but perhaps not strong enough for a new ATH)
- UASF gets traction and Segwit approval is very likely -> very bullish (new ATH, target ~2000)
- a compromise solution (EB, Segwit2MB) gets Core and majority miner approval -> also very bullish

That's why I wouldn't take sides still. And I disagree with AnonyMint: I think no side has "won" until now.

None of those are possibilities. 0% chance.

I think no side has "won" until now.

And no side will ever win.

Reading the following threads (not just the linked post) will help you understand:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1857162.msg18526721#msg18526721
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1837136.msg18571238#msg18571238
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1767014.msg18579825#msg18579825
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1867541.msg18570031#msg18570031

The above link to all my points on the Scalepocalypse.

Is BitFUnix and the Tether dollar USDT about to crash the Bitcoin market?

Re: BTC doing good after this big dump

The floor is really around $1050-1100 right now and it's unlikely to break that due to the strong resistance in the market.

We went from $1200 to $1165, it's staying up nicely, so we must hope that we don't go below $1100 and I think we are reasonably ok and good to go for the next $1300 test.

Just like what others said, I don't go for it that it was a big dump. It's only a very small fluctuation compare to what happened from the past like Mt.Gox and with the BTU drama.The price right now is at $1,199 on preev and it will keep on moving and stable at that rate. We'll see that $1,300 very soon.  

as far as I know a correction shouldn't be sharp. it is usually a slower drop. the sharp dips usually show some kind of manipulation and followed by panic sell. mostly starting with the expectation of a drop (in this case the SegWit drama by F2Pool) and then weak hands jump.

Expect some event to serve as a distraction from the Scalepocalyspe reality that we are enslaved by the shadow elite.

This market is flat out fraud.  $30 $41 spread between Finex and Bitstamp.  Since we all know Bitfinex is an insolvent exchange that trades against it's own customers and also steals their money, I'm guessing that spread is also propped up by non-existent money just like Gox.  Why are people willing to put up a $2 million buy wall on Bitfinex but no other exchange to try and prop up price?  Because Bitfinex probably isn't even using real money, just imaginary exchange digits.  

I've been saying BitFinex is the new Gox forever and here it is.  There is no valid price of bitcoin as long as Bitfinex is the market maker.

The current chart looks like shit and is forming a down channel and you got fraudsters on Bitfinex trying to manipulate it up with imaginary money that probably doesn't exist:

BitFUnix has probably been paying off old thefts with new Ponzi money incoming per recent news.

Making excuses about not being able to make wire transfers.

Also note that Tether was involved in that lawsuit, so perhaps USDT token is also not safe to hold:

Court records show that yesterday, lawyers for the plaintiffs – iFinex (the owner and operator of the exchange), its two British Virgin Islands-based subsidiaries and digital asset transfer firm Tether – filed a notice of voluntary dismissal in the US District Court for the Northern District of California.

The reason for the 2 - 3% discrepancy between BitFUnix/Poloniex and Bitstamp is because the former at quoting in USDT, which is the Tether dollar. The market believes the Tether dollar is worth 2 - 3% less than the real US dollar.

You can rest assured that Tether dollars are a private fractional reserve system. The list of those who can redeem USDT for real US dollars is controlled by Tether, so they can prevent a run on the bank. If the market ever senses that the USDT is not backed by anything or is in danger of being regulated non-compliant for exchanges, then all those holding USDT would probably see the value of their USDT go "proof, and it's gone". I am suspecting that the way BitFUnix has remained afloat is by scheming with those who created Tether so they get a kickback for using USDT instead of actual dollars on their exchange. Ditto perhaps Poloniex. The collapse of USDT could cause another flash crash to Bitcoin.