Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion

[billyjoeallen]

While democracy does not directly account for intensity of desire, it has some indirect ways. For example, if the majority chooses laws that are too unfair to some minority, the latter may resort to crime to make ends meet, or to terrorism and other anti-social behavior, in spite of the penal deterrents against such acts.  Then the majority, if it is not too stupid, will usually ease the plight of that minority, enough to keep those reactions down to a tolerable level.

What planet are you living on? In practice, the opposite more often occurs.  The majority who thinks they are morally right will not focus on the injustice suffered by the minority. They will focus on the crimes committed in reaction to that injustice.  Look at how every militant group in the U.S. from the Black Panthers to the KKK are treated.

A voter pays no immediate direct penalty for an uninformed vote. There is not sufficient incentive to become informed. To know this, all you have to do is look at election results throughout history. Why spend hours researching the relevant policy options and politicians when the chance of the election being decided by your one vote is infinitesimal? Voting is more useful for signaling your allegiance to a group.

Recognition of Natural Rights is enshrined in the U.S. Declaration of Independence. This may not be the case for other countries, but here it was used as a justification by the Founding Fathers to rebel against Mother England. If Natural Rights have no legitimacy, then our government is a criminal organization with no legitimacy either.

AngloSaxon law is based on two main concepts:
1. Common law that predates government that did not create it but recognizes it and enforces it.
2. The principle that "Governments derive their just power from the consent of the governed." This concept dates all the way back to 1215 when King John signed the Magna Carta.

Anarcho-capitalists do not want rulers, but that does not at all mean we don't want rules. In fact, we are the only group that consistently can apply Rule of Law because the alternative is a violence monopoly (central government) that creates, selectively interprets and enforces the very Rules that limit its power. That is Rule of Man, not Rule of Law.

Democracy is BY DEFINITION the domination of the minority by the majority. Politics is merely the art of convincing enough people to agree with you so that you can FORCIBLY impose your will on those who don't.

[BitUsher]

And Wang Chun is not aware of Gregs similar posturing? Of course he is.

The ideas have been around long before the blocksize debate as a wish list -- https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=359323.0

We really do not want democratic mob rule voting on the protocol design and centralized miners becoming compromised by states which is the direction we are heading. It is not a threat but a long held concern of ours and the  raison d'être of bitcoin. Part of me welcomes the split so I can dust off the gpu miners and another part of me sees hope in bitfury doing the right thing and selling their ASIC's to the wide public for reasonable fees to reverse the problem of mining centralization and node count drop off.

What scares us is this https://bitcoin.consider.it/

Bitcoin classic is looking like a trojan horse for BIP 101

Thank you! I did not know this website

Yes , it is controlled by the brothers Maintainer of the Bitcoin Classic so do not assume that the votes are impartial as its essentially a voting mechanism and disturbing governance model of Classic.

[tomothy]

sipa  commented 9 hours ago 

I'm willing to consider this due to the unexpected controversy this is causing. I do however think this due to a misunderstanding:
•It's perfectly possible to keep accepting 0-conf transactions, if you believe they are safe for your use case. Opt-in RBF sets a non-maximum nSequence value, which causes many providers to already consider the transaction non-standard for the purpose of accepting 0-conf.
•As a customer, you can choose to set opt-in RBF, and thus lose the ability to get your payment accepted before confirmation, but with the ability to easily change the fee afterwards or combine the transaction with others.
•As a miner, the rational behaviour is to take the transaction with the highest fee (even for non opt-in cases). If you don't, another miner can.

And, no, opt-in RBF is not theft. It's indicating that you're not sure whether what you're submitting is the final form of the transaction. This is the exact semantics that nSequence had since the earliest version of Bitcoin.

Yeah, cause you can surely tell that this satisfied his objection lol. It gets better... (He knows his $$ comes from the users, not the devs...)


wangchun commented 8 hours ago: "@jonasschnelli Could you please tell me which wallet has been ready to warn users for potential RBF transactions? What the average user without much Bitcoin knowledge can do when he/she see this warning?"


wangchun commented 8 hours ago:  "So you admit nobody has yet been ready for opt-in RBF but deploy it in the next release IMHO this is no better than force a hard fork without consensus" (Bolded by my decision)

[CuntChocula]

...
Recognition of Natural Rights is enshrined in the U.S. Declaration of Independence. This may not be the case for other countries, but here it was used as a justification by the Founding Fathers to rebel against Mother England. If Natural Rights have no legitimacy, then our government is a criminal organization with no legitimacy either. ...

  Rats eat cheese.
  Billy Jo eats cheese.
∴Billy Jo is a rat and a criminal, Q.E.D.

[tomothy]

And Wang Chun is not aware of Gregs similar posturing? Of course he is.

The ideas have been around long before the blocksize debate as a wish list -- https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=359323.0

We really do not want democratic mob rule voting on the protocol design and centralized miners becoming compromised by states which is the direction we are heading. It is not a threat but a long held concern of ours and the  raison d'être of bitcoin. Part of me welcomes the split so I can dust off the miners and another part of me sees hope in bitfury doing the right thing and selling their ASIC's to the wide public for reasonable fees to reverse the problem of mining centralization and node count drop off.

What scares us is this https://bitcoin.consider.it/

Bitcoin classic is looking like a trojan horse for BIP 101

Assume for the record that Bitcoin Classic is a coup d'etat, Assume that it is a Trojan Horse for BIP 101...
Isn't that better than having to deal and negotiate with the likes of Peter Todd and LukeJR?

Hey guys, let's just change the POW for Lulz! They might be technologically intelligent, but they have no common sense, no ability to compromise, and no ability to consider economical rampifications of their decisions. The interview With Guy Corem is particularly illuminating. Bitcoin is for cryptopunks/cypherpunks and not for anyone else. Main street users need not apply, asics not allowed, this is a gpu club only, which is absurd because assuming for a moment that you can prevent asics, you would still be left with server farms of gpus whose break even is still based on the geographical cost of electricity, you will not have massive price increases without addressing aml/kyc regulations. If you want anonymity go use anoncoin or this new fangled zerocash which is what their vision of bitcoin is.

Ultimately this all comes down to another battle over the vision of bitcoin. Is it to buy drugs on the dark net or something bigger? Can it be both? Not anymore...

/Rabble rabble. Grabs pitch fork and a torch!

[sAt0sHiFanClub]

And Wang Chun is not aware of Gregs similar posturing? Of course he is.

The ideas have been around long before the blocksize debate as a wish list -- https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=359323.0

We really do not want democratic mob rule voting on the protocol design and centralized miners becoming compromised by states which is the direction we are heading. It is not a threat but a long held concern of ours and the  raison d'être of bitcoin. Part of me welcomes the split so I can dust off the gpu miners and another part of me sees hope in bitfury doing the right thing and selling their ASIC's to the wide public for reasonable fees to reverse the problem of mining centralization and node count drop off.

What scares us is this https://bitcoin.consider.it/

Bitcoin classic is looking like a trojan horse for BIP 101

Thank you! I did not know this website

Yes , it is controlled by the brothers Maintainer of the Bitcoin Classic so do not assume that the votes are impartial as its essentially a voting mechanism and disturbing governance model of Classic.

Shouldn't you be out fixing the roads or something?   

[sAt0sHiFanClub]

sipa  commented 9 hours ago  

I'm willing to consider this due to the unexpected controversy this is causing. I do however think this due to a misunderstanding:
•It's perfectly possible to keep accepting 0-conf transactions, if you believe they are safe for your use case. Opt-in RBF sets a non-maximum nSequence value, which causes many providers to already consider the transaction non-standard for the purpose of accepting 0-conf.
•As a customer, you can choose to set opt-in RBF, and thus lose the ability to get your payment accepted before confirmation, but with the ability to easily change the fee afterwards or combine the transaction with others.
•As a miner, the rational behaviour is to take the transaction with the highest fee (even for non opt-in cases). If you don't, another miner can.

And, no, opt-in RBF is not theft. It's indicating that you're not sure whether what you're submitting is the final form of the transaction. This is the exact semantics that nSequence had since the earliest version of Bitcoin.

Yeah, cause you can surely tell that this satisfied his objection lol. It gets better... (He knows his $$ comes from the users, not the devs...)


wangchun commented 8 hours ago: "@jonasschnelli Could you please tell me which wallet has been ready to warn users for potential RBF transactions? What the average user without much Bitcoin knowledge can do when he/she see this warning?"


wangchun commented 8 hours ago:  "So you admit nobody has yet been ready for opt-in RBF but deploy it in the next release IMHO this is no better than force a hard fork without consensus" (Bolded by my decision)

Wang Chun has gone up in my estimation. He is playing the Coretards for the chumps that they are. Unbelievable. There isn't a single principle among the lot of them.

where's inca's giraffe eating popcorn gif? 
 

[ChartBuddy]

Coin


Explanation

[BitUsher]

Shouldn't you be out fixing the roads or something?  

We pay people with heavy machinery to do that all without coercion and taxes. People like you pay a lot of money to vacation here as well so don't paint my community as some backwards anarchy-primitivist community where we have to build the roads with manual labor.

Assume for the record that Bitcoin Classic is a coup d'etat, Assume that it is a Trojan Horse for BIP 101...
Isn't that better than having to deal and negotiate with the likes of Peter Todd and LukeJR?

Hey guys, let's just change the POW for Lulz! They might be technologically intelligent, but they have no common sense, no ability to compromise, and no ability to consider economical rampifications of their decisions. The interview With Guy Corem is particularly illuminating. Bitcoin is for cryptopunks/cypherpunks and not for anyone else.

I like Peter Todd and LukeJR, as well as many of the developers and supporters of bitcoin classic. Yes, if Bitcoin loses its  cryptopunks/cypherpunks principles than it loses my support. This doesn't mean it cannot go mainstream , merely that we don't need a very inefficient paypal 2.0 that has democratic mob rule deciding on the features. May as well use fiat or Goldman sacks coin if bitcoin becomes to centralized and compromised. 

[CuntChocula]

http://thedailybanter.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/tinfoil-hat-2.jpeg

Shouldn't you be out fixing the roads or something?  

Already shoveled the front walk, Ma! What the hell else do you want?

>People like you pay a lot of money to vacation here
People pay to vocation in ur mom's basement? Don't test the limits of my credulity

[sAt0sHiFanClub]

Shouldn't you be out fixing the roads or something?   

We pay people with heavy machinery to do that all without coercion and taxes. People like you pay a lot of money to vacation here as well so don't paint my community as some backwards anarchy-primitivist community where we have to build the roads with manual labor.

Bah, I'm only fuckin wit ya.

The way things are going I might need to head over to your utopia. Do you have any vacancies for Palm Frond wavers? Keeps ya cool a treat...

[billyjoeallen]

...
Recognition of Natural Rights is enshrined in the U.S. Declaration of Independence. This may not be the case for other countries, but here it was used as a justification by the Founding Fathers to rebel against Mother England. If Natural Rights have no legitimacy, then our government is a criminal organization with no legitimacy either. ...

  Rats eat cheese.
  Billy Jo eats cheese.
∴Billy Jo is a rat and a criminal, Q.E.D.

That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends (securing Natural Rights), it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it  ~U.S. Declaration of Independence July 4, 1776

[BitUsher]

Shouldn't you be out fixing the roads or something?   

We pay people with heavy machinery to do that all without coercion and taxes. People like you pay a lot of money to vacation here as well so don't paint my community as some backwards anarchy-primitivist community where we have to build the roads with manual labor.

Bah, I'm only fuckin wit ya.

The way things are going I might need to head over to your utopia. Do you have any vacancies for Palm Frond wavers? Keeps ya cool a treat...

No hard feelings , You are always welcome comrade.

[billyjoeallen]

Shouldn't you be out fixing the roads or something?  

We pay people with heavy machinery to do that all without coercion and taxes. People like you pay a lot of money to vacation here as well so don't paint my community as some backwards anarchy-primitivist community where we have to build the roads with manual labor.

Assume for the record that Bitcoin Classic is a coup d'etat, Assume that it is a Trojan Horse for BIP 101...
Isn't that better than having to deal and negotiate with the likes of Peter Todd and LukeJR?

Hey guys, let's just change the POW for Lulz! They might be technologically intelligent, but they have no common sense, no ability to compromise, and no ability to consider economical rampifications of their decisions. The interview With Guy Corem is particularly illuminating. Bitcoin is for cryptopunks/cypherpunks and not for anyone else.

I like Peter Todd and LukeJR, as well as many of the developers and supporters of bitcoin classic. Yes, if Bitcoin loses its  cryptopunks/cypherpunks principles than it loses my support. This doesn't mean it cannot go mainstream , merely that we don't need a very inefficient paypal 2.0 that has democratic mob rule deciding on the features. May as well use fiat or Goldman sacks coin if bitcoin becomes to centralized and compromised. 

How does "democratic mob rule" make Bitcoin MORE centralized? That's not really an accurate term, anyway. Bitcoin is market ruled and if it doesn't fulfill the needs and desires of the market, the market will replace it. You can still use it if you want to. MySpace is still online too.

[BitUsher]

How does "democratic mob rule" make Bitcoin MORE centralized? That's not really an accurate term, anyway. Bitcoin is market ruled and if it doesn't fulfill the needs and desires of the market, the market will replace it. You can still use it if you want to. MySpace is still online too.

Democratic mob rule doesn't necessarily make bitcoin more centralized, but does fundamentally break the original governance and design of bitcoin. Will democratic rule make bitcoin more centralized? ... looks that way from the votes -- https://bitcoin.consider.it/ of course that could simply be an inaccurate representation of the mob with a consensus system not able to protect against sybil attacks.

*there is always a possibility that an exponential increase in the blocksize could lead to initial centralization than rapid decentralization with a black swan like event in technology. Possible, but unlikely, knowing what we know about propagation times, hardware and network limitations.

[CuntChocula]

...
Recognition of Natural Rights is enshrined in the U.S. Declaration of Independence. This may not be the case for other countries, but here it was used as a justification by the Founding Fathers to rebel against Mother England. If Natural Rights have no legitimacy, then our government is a criminal organization with no legitimacy either. ...

  Rats eat cheese.
  Billy Jo eats cheese.
∴Billy Jo is a rat and a criminal, Q.E.D.

That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends (securing Natural Rights), it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it  ~U.S. Declaration of Independence July 4, 1776

Billy Joe, if I believe, as a bunch of angsty aristocrats our Founding Fathers did, that Man is God's creation, and it is not, indeed, the case, am I "a criminal [...] with no legitimacy"?

And do you understand what context is, or bombastic, overblown bullshit impassioned oratory?
"I been sayin' that shit for years. And if you ever heard it, it meant your ass. I never gave much thought what it meant. I just thought it was some cold-blooded shit to say to a motherfucker before I popped a cap in his ass.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

TL;DR:
1. If TFF thought that there are "unalienable rights" and indeed there are none, this misunderstanding would not make them "a criminal organization with no legitimacy." Simply means they were dead wrong.
  1a. No suggestion of "unalienable rights" existing outside of TFF's belief in the aforementioned.   

2. Their "unalienable rights" are not your "Natural Rights," different shit.

3. There's bullshit said because it sounds purty, and makes people feel righteous and good about doing ugly shit. It's just bullshit people say, don't take it seriously. Niggers had no "unalienable rights," neither did bitches. That all changed over 2 & a half centuries. Obama ain't George Washington.
Go figure.

[poncho32]

Deomocracy, in the sense of one person one vote for control over pooled resources, is inefficient because there is no way to communicate the intensity of one's preferences. That is one objection.

That is true, and it is one of the reasons why "democracy is the worst form of government there is".  But other methods of reching "consensus"  are not any better in that regard, often much worse; hence the other half of the saying.

While democracy does not directly account for intensity of desire, it has some indirect ways. For example, if the majority chooses laws that are too unfair to some minority, the latter may resort to crime to make ends meet, or to terrorism and other anti-social behavior, in spite of the penal deterrents against such acts.  Then the majority, if it is not too stupid, will usually ease the plight of that minority, enough to keep those reactions down to a tolerable level.

Democracy, like anything else, will function better if most of its citizens have more knowledge (especially of other societies, past and present) and more intelligence (especially the social intelligence I mentioned: awareness of the reactions that other people may have to one's own actions, and to the actions of the government.  The fair treatment of minorities, above, is an example of decision that a majority will take if it has a minimum of those qualities.  

That is one reason, by the way, why even the richest classes should want a good public universal education: because their welfare never depends only on their own qualities and actions, but always depends on the state of the society around them.  

for example, if you don't have the right to take by force from your neighbor because you need his property more than he does, then you don't have that right even if the majority of voters decide that you do.

As I said in another post, "right" is a meaningless word if there is no government to decide who has it.  Property is not a "natural right": you property is what your government thinks it is.  There is no other useful way to define it.  

You grow a crop on the land that is property of someone else: who owns the harvest?  You may have signed a contract giving 90% of the harvest to the landowner, but if the alternative was to sign the contract or die of hunger, is that any different than him taking your harvest by force?  You buy a stolen car without knowing that it was stolen; is it your property, or still the property of the victim? If you trace the history of a land plot back in time, you will almost always find that it was originally taken by force from the previous owner; so, is the present holder really the rightful owner?

In those and many other examples, there is no "natural" answer to the question.  In each case, if the property right is disputed, the laws of the country will give general rules that say who has the property rights; a court would have to decide how to apply those laws to the specific case; and a government will have to forcibly enforce the court's decision, if the affected party refuses to accept it.

In the case where a country is at war the government can commander any private property it wants, and there's nothing the owner can do to stop it. The government can commandeer your house, your car, or the iron railings outside your house to make shells out of. The government decides whether you still own something when it's at war, and will use force to take it off you if you resist.

[billyjoeallen]

...
Recognition of Natural Rights is enshrined in the U.S. Declaration of Independence. This may not be the case for other countries, but here it was used as a justification by the Founding Fathers to rebel against Mother England. If Natural Rights have no legitimacy, then our government is a criminal organization with no legitimacy either. ...

  Rats eat cheese.
  Billy Jo eats cheese.
∴Billy Jo is a rat and a criminal, Q.E.D.

That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends (securing Natural Rights), it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it  ~U.S. Declaration of Independence July 4, 1776

Billy Joe, if I believe, as a bunch of angsty aristocrats our Founding Fathers did, that Man is God's creation, and it is not, indeed, the case, am I "a criminal [...] with no legitimacy"?

And do you understand what context is, or bombastic, overblown bullshit impassioned oratory?
"I been sayin' that shit for years. And if you ever heard it, it meant your ass. I never gave much thought what it meant. I just thought it was some cold-blooded shit to say to a motherfucker before I popped a cap in his ass.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

Jefferson intentionally used the word "Creator" and not "God" because he was a Deist as was Thomas Paine.
You don't have to believe in God to have Natural Rights. We all have those rights because of our humanity regardless of how we acquired that humanity. Regardless, the overt stated claim of the Founding Fathers was that Governments exist for the purpose of securing rights that predated government, Rights that exist independent of the State. According to the Founders, governments do not grant Natural Rights. They either recognize them and secure them or they fail to do so and have no just power.  This is based on Enlightenment philosophy articulated by John Locke, only Lock used the word "property" and not "happiness". 

Look, I'm not going to prove Natural Rights exist with words. I do it with actions, as did the Founding Fathers. We hold those rights to be "self-evident", meaning we are not going to ask anyone to respect them. We will demand that they be respected by what we do.  If we make no such demands, then by default we consent to the government we have. It's not an "ought" argument. It's an "is" argument. You don't have to like it just like you don't have to like the Law of Gravity, but ignore it at your peril.

[AlexGR]

Assume for the record that Bitcoin Classic is a coup d'etat, Assume that it is a Trojan Horse for BIP 101...
Isn't that better than having to deal and negotiate with the likes of Peter Todd and LukeJR?

Fork a multi-billion $$$ currency, shatter confidence in crypto, potentially even destroy lives, because some people don't like some other people - who they don't even know and just read about them in forums, reddit, mailing lists etc? I mean, wtf?

We've gone from the pretense of urgency to ...social disagreements as reasons to destroy bitcoin. Yeah, let's fuck peter todd and lukejr by forking it... that will show them (!) - along with a few million users of BTC. lol?

[CuntChocula]

...
Recognition of Natural Rights is enshrined in the U.S. Declaration of Independence. This may not be the case for other countries, but here it was used as a justification by the Founding Fathers to rebel against Mother England. If Natural Rights have no legitimacy, then our government is a criminal organization with no legitimacy either. ...

  Rats eat cheese.
  Billy Jo eats cheese.
∴Billy Jo is a rat and a criminal, Q.E.D.

That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends (securing Natural Rights), it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it  ~U.S. Declaration of Independence July 4, 1776

Billy Joe, if I believe, as a bunch of angsty aristocrats our Founding Fathers did, that Man is God's creation, and it is not, indeed, the case, am I "a criminal [...] with no legitimacy"?

And do you understand what context is, or bombastic, overblown bullshit impassioned oratory?
"I been sayin' that shit for years. And if you ever heard it, it meant your ass. I never gave much thought what it meant. I just thought it was some cold-blooded shit to say to a motherfucker before I popped a cap in his ass.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

Jefferson intentionally used the word "Creator" and not "God" because he was a Deist as was Thomas Paine.
You don't have to believe in God to have Natural Rights. We all have those rights because of our humanity regardless of how we acquired that humanity. Regardless, the overt stated claim of the Founding Fathers was that Governments exist for the purpose of securing rights that predated government, Rights that exist independent of the State. According to the Founders, governments do not grant Natural Rights. They either recognize them and secure them or they fail to do so and have no just power.  This is based on Enlightenment philosophy articulated by John Locke, only Lock used the word "property" and not "happiness".  

Look, I'm not going to prove Natural Rights exist with words. I do it with actions, as did the Founding Fathers. We hold those rights to be "self-evident", meaning we are not going to ask anyone to respect them. We will demand that they be respected by what we do.  If we make no such demands, then by default we consent to the government we have. It's not an "ought" argument. It's an "is" argument. You don't have to like it just like you don't have to like the Law of Gravity, but ignore it at your peril.

from edit above:
TL;DR:
1. If TFF thought that there are "unalienable rights" and indeed there are none, this misunderstanding would not make them "a criminal organization with no legitimacy." Simply means they were dead wrong.
  1a. No suggestion of "unalienable rights" existing outside of TFF's belief in the aforementioned.  If you hold Natural Rights to be self-evident, and they turn out to be so much bullshit, this would make you neither a liar nor a criminal.

2. Their "unalienable rights" are not your "Natural Rights," different shit.

3. There's bullshit said because it sounds purty, and makes people feel righteous and good about doing ugly shit. It's just bullshit people say, don't take it seriously. Niggers had no "unalienable rights," neither did bitches. That all changed over 2 & a half centuries. Obama ain't George Washington.
Go figure.