Smart, though Govts probably have deep water subs digging for the owners of that treasure lost in all those boating accidents!
Governments don't explore deep sea anymore, they are interested in space, like the moon, mars and the Sun maybe.
For sure deep sea seems more tangible than deep space - even though there are aspect of each that are likely helpful to know or try to know/understand.
Saylor predicts that Bitcoin can make it to 21$ million in next 21 years while BitMine Chairman Tom Lee said that in long run Bitcoin can rise to 1.6 - 2 million USD.
Saylor said one bitcoin will be equal to $21 million. It can be possible, but I have a lot of questions but for starters, there is not that much money in the whole world like what is the current M2 or M3 figure, or global money.
If you are limiting bitcoin's addressable market to M1, M2 and M3, then you are lacking a lot of understanding of what bitcoin is and what bitcoin is doing and/or capable of doing.
It seems to be that you need to think about bitcoin's addressable market in terms of all places that monetary value is held, so for example even if we look at a house, the house has utility value and various use cases, yet surplus value is monetary value. Similar to debt, antique cars, art, various kinds of stocks, bonds commodities. Think about gold. Many folks refer to various utiliy values that gold has had over the years for its jewlery and industrial aspects, yet gold also has monetary value that has largely been taken from it over the years, since gold is hardly used as money anymore, even though surely in the past year-ish, gold has had some resurgence in its monetary value.
Bitcoin is likely to have an addressable market that is well over $1 quadrillion - it could even be in the arena of $10 quadrillion or more if we might be thinking about sometimes the ways that value is calculated can increase with the advent of new inventions, so think about electricity, refrigeration, the automobile, the airplane, computer technology, the internet. Various aspects of the whole world's value and/or potential for value increased when certain kinds of technologies and/or ways of doing things were discovered and/or invented.. which bitcoin is a paradigm shifting technology and many folks consider AI in similar ways, so that value can be increased and we are not sure about all of the the ways that value will increase due to some technological inventions/discoveries.
You can look at
Jesse Myers's discussion of the topic, and others have also built upon Meyers (including Saylor had referenced some of Meyer's previous works).
Saylor is predicting a long trajectory that maybe he won't live to see due to the age factor, but I like his optimism.
Of course, Saylor is Mortal and is close to 60, so he could keel over any day or he might last another 40-ish years... perhaps?, best case scenario of 40 more years... yet why does it matter? Guys can still make predictions and even have successors in place, and aspects of the world change with different people at the heads of different projects, but so what? we adapt with changes in circumstances.. so influential people are ongoingly changing, even though some of their ideas and even their influences may well could have had historical impacts and/or impacts on various kinds of future trajectories.
You are devolving even worse. Are you trying to be purposeful in your denigration in order to derail the subject matter? I am having difficulties seeing the point of being purposefully denigrating, even if you might have had identified some areas that cAPSLOCK is wrong, I doubt that they rise to the level of purposefully uninformative.. .
Actually I saw this in one of your posts, you agree that people should be called stupid if they are being stupid in regards Bitcoin. Something in those lines. Don't make me look for it, you have too many posts but it is fairly recent. Rules for others but not for us? I hope this is not another feature of independent thinking.
You don't need to look for where I may have said such a thing, even if you might be exaggerating or putting me into some kind of a wrong context.
Essentially, as you suggest, I don't have a problem with the idea of calling someone stupid or even sometimes engaging in personal attacks in order to make a point, especially when dealing with someone who seems to be disingenuine in points that he is making. I doubt that cAPSLOCK reaches anything close to level of disingenuineness that you seem to implying of him, and sure of course, you are free to have differing judgement in regards to what constitutes disingenuineness, misleading, deceptions and/or lies, yet it still seems to me that extraordinary claims like that require extraordinary evidence.... or at least better evidence than what you have been providing, which seems to come close to none. At least you seem to come off as someone who works towards beating the fuck out of others merely because they disagree with you instead of even trying to engage in somewhat less distracting dialogue.. and sure many of us might not be as technically informed as you are proclaiming yourself to be.. and yeah so in the area of beating up on people rather than beating up on their ideas, I think that such tactics are better employed when they are more strategic and limitedly used rather than an ongoing delugement of personal rather than substantive attacks that seems to be coming out of your keyboard..
Yeah, of course, it is up to our discretion to figure out the extent in which such personally attacking tactics are used, and I am largely proclaiming that you are coming off as a bit outrageous in your usage of such tactics.
In your assertion of my own supposed independent thinking (as if it were an insult), there seems to be quite a bit of value in some amount of independent thinking and/or critical thinking, yet surely at the same time, as you seem to be suggesting such supposed "independent thinking" needs to be tethered to some aspects of reality rather than thrown out there as if independent thinking was valuable in itself in the event that it were untethered, and yeah, independent thinking is going to be problematic if it is not sufficiently tethered to some kind of materially relevant reality... I doubt that you are even close to prevailing in assertions that cAPSLOCK is too much detached from reality in his various so far expressed criticisms and concerns.
**Note:I see that Hueristic already responded and used the word hypocrite, and maybe that is a bit more accurate, even if it does come off as a bit strong, even though he (Hueristic) did seem to explain what he meant by the use of such stronger language. His response is wrong. I've already explained it. Policy rules are magic developer numbers, they can put whatever they want and they should not need to justify these decisions to the wider community.
You seem to be ongoingly proclaiming the Version 30 changes are not controversial or even significantly material enough in terms of what appears to be your own proclamation that Version 30 supporters (perhaps core developers?) do not have any obligation to justify such changes (or the non-changes as you seem to characterize them to be). And, yeah it seems to be that their ongoing strong assertions in that direction is causing more concern and outrage, and not all of the opposition are merely stupid or not worthy of being addressed... At least it seems problematic to me for the various version 30 supporters to be somewhat coordinated in taking such a strong position in their supposed non-obligation to justify the various changes (non-changes as you call them) that were made in version 30.
Futhermore:
1) Nobody can force a change on you, you can run the old client.
2) Nobody can force a change on you, you can run the new client and patch the rule yourself if you want.
Sure. It seems like a decent number of folks are engaged in such running of old client, running of alternative client and looking into the development of additional alternative clients (not only knots - even though some are choosing to run knots since they might consider it to be a better alternative and/or sending a statement kind of alternative - as seems to be part of cAPSLOCK's rationale for running knots) while complaining at the same time, since there were some thoughts that Core developers were benevolent players, but then now they are seeming to have some possible evil underpinnings, so even if Core is being "misunderstood," some of their being misunderstood seems to be of their own making and some of the seemingly combative stance of various spokesperson on their side, including uie pooie who seems to have taken on such a spokesperson role, too.
There is no reason to be hyperbolic, and whenever some user engages in the discussion like that it makes the developer wants to listen even less to them. Why should they listen? Whether you believe truly that you are correct or whether you are exaggerating on purpose does not matter -- it is not worth their time.
I understand that time is limited, yet I read that there are likely more obligations to communicate and/or not to execute controversial changes without some level of clarification and/or rebutting of the opposition, and yeah, sure maybe you are correct, and the opposition are just a bunch of fringe nutjobs who have gotten a lot of folks riled up over nothing, yet there is still an impression that has been sent, and even a lot of skepticism about core if there are so many pieces of evidence of not seeming to allow for the presentation of alternative ideas, even if in the end Version 30 still were to get implemented,
...so in some sense it just seems to a lot of folks (yeah perhaps the non-technical dummies like me and that dummy cAPSLOCK) that version 30 was unnecessarily rushed into place, when there does not seem to have had been any emergency and also which seems to send bad precedent - like what seems to me to be the opposite outcome of the 2017 block wars. In the 2017 blocksize wars, the no change camp ended up prevailing, and in this case the change for the mere sake of change camp seems to have had ended up prevailing.. and that seems to be the impression of a decent number of folks on the street who are likely not all blind nut jobs know-nothings merely because they are concerned about the seeming unjustified rush job to make changes to bitcoin that are likely more material than you are making them out to be.
By the way, there are quite a few guys on this forum that tend to trust your judgement on various matters, yet there could be cases where we might consider that maybe you are wrong in regards to the extent to which some change, such as version 30, might have had gotten through by influences of bad actors and/or that the changes that were made were either not justified or they were rushed and put into bitcoin when they were not needed. I am not claiming that I would know, even though surely some guys (including yours truly) become skeptical when we get senses that changes might be being made and/or rushed through.. so then some of us might get the sense that if the changes are not really urgent, then why is there an appearance that they are being rushed through.
Furthermore, gmaxwell has nothing to do with this. He doesn't really contribute code to Core which is something that you guys should know?
Greg is still a trusted voice in bitcoin circles, and a person with quite a bit of technical knowledge in terms of various aspects of the code and other aspects of bitcoin, and even someone who chimes in on topics like this and explains them from time to time
I'm sure that everyone involved has thought more than twice about this because a lot of time was lost over nothing. If they decided still to go ahead after so many discussions, does that not tell you the answer?
Mostly I see that you are proclaming that there was some need for version 30 to go through, yet there wasn't any need for core developers to either explain and/or to allow some vetting progress to take place, and sure you seem to be suggesting that the anti-version 30 folks were muddying the water so much and perhaps creating an urgency for 30 to be passed... and a lot of it is not really making sense to me, even though I don't even claim to know details, even though your own story in regards to the situation does not make a whole lot of sense... while at the same time, you are saying that you have no obligation to make sense, except maybe to just ongoingly trivialize and character attack any opposition.
Whether historical bitcoiners are technically correct or not in regards to the changes that are being made, there still can be anxiety in regards to whether the changes were justified and if the process for their getting adopted and accepted was sufficiently open and/or justifiable as being more necessary than not.. or whatever might be the standard for making such changes, when there seems to be so much vocal opposition and concerns about the changes being made and the justifications (if suffiicient?) for making them.
For consensus rules, forks, and major changes to how Bitcoin works definitely, but not for this. You don't get to provide input on any specific thing that you feel like you should. They have no duty to listen to you, and you can't make them either. All people can do is make things worse for everyone because they can't accept this fact.
Sure. You might be correct that supporters of version 30 (perhaps Core developers?) had already sufficiently and adequately communicated their non-change change.
Should LN developers ask for your input in regards to specific mitigations that they are deploying for certain type of attacks that not even 1% of users here know exist (let alone understand)? Really? THIS is the argument that you would make?
I am not arguing that, since I don't have enough information to know. As far as I know, lightning network is a layer that works and interacts with bitcoin, and I am pretty sure that it is open source, but yeah, I sill don't even know how to describe matters, so if there was something controversial in regards to some change that they were making, then I suppose folks would chime in, and I understand that there are a few implementations of lightning network, so there sometimes had been some controversy regarding the implementations, yet I am not in a position to really know, beyond having an understanding that lightning network works on top of and in coordination with 1st layers like bitcoin, and no new coins are created, even though there have been certain questions in regards to some of the recognition of sub-satoshi units down three more decimal places.. .but yeah what do I know?
Anyway, by supporting Knots you are supporting the establishment of a
transaction review committee that will review transaction data for CSAM. Totally not creepy or suspicious at all.
That does not sound like a fair characterization of the repercussion of supporting knots or some other alternative client..
Poll
