Miner cartel, Bankster cartel, or an altcoin? Your choice?

[traincarswreck]

ok lets say there is a number.....um.. 1000
and inflation was 5% every 10 minutes

1050,, right.
but then the next 10 minutes is not an extra 50.. its actually 52.5
1102.5.. right

but then the next 10 minutes is not an extra 50.. its actually 55.125
1157.625.. right

inflation is that the new money INCREASES..

bitcoin however, stays at 50 per ~10mins.. then after ~4 years goes DOWN to 25 then after ~4 years goes DOWN to 12.5

have a nice day

I know you figured out why you are wrong while you were typing this.  It doesn't matter if the additional supply is decreasing.  If you are adding to the money supply its inflation.  The fact that bitcoin is expected to rise in value over time does not defeat such a statement.

[1713548819]

1713548819

[1713548819]

1713548819

[1713548819]

1713548819

[1713548819]

1713548819

[1713548819]

1713548819

[franky1]

I know you figured out why you are wrong while you were typing this.  It doesn't matter if the additional supply is decreasing.  If you are adding to the money supply its inflation.  The fact that bitcoin is expected to rise in value over time does not defeat such a statement.

your "rise in value"

oh please not again.. you referring to value(price)
try getting head out of the sand.

i and many other true bitcoiners that really understand these things and thinking long term, care more about the value(utility) which you have been trying to play mindgames with wording to try convincing that halting value(utility) is good for your beloved value(price).

[traincarswreck]

halting value(utility) is good for your beloved value(price).

gold doesn't get its trillion dollar market value from its utility.

[franky1]

halting value(utility) is good for your beloved value(price).

gold doesn't get its trillion dollar market value from its utility.

bitcoins $16billion market cap has nothing to do with value either.. its an empty bubble number.
i can make a altcoin with 5trillion coins. put  coin on an exchange and sell it to myself for $1 and suddenly the alt has a market cap of $5trillion

golds trillion cap is the same empty bubble number two.

based on the price of a few bars being on the market showing a PRICE. and multiplying that by how many bars exist.

price and market cap mean nothing

utility matters

if you cant do anything with gold, no electronics, no jewellery.. you might aswell be selling ice to eskimo's
selling somthing with no utility value does not mean that it still holds some price value

concentrate on expanding utility and the price will look after itself... not the other way round

[traincarswreck]

bitcoins $16billion market cap has nothing to do with value either.. its an empty bubble number.
i can make a altcoin with 5trillion coins. put  coin on an exchange and sell it to myself for $1 and suddenly the alt has a market cap of $5trillio

if you cant do anything with gold, no electronics, no jewellery.. you might aswell be selling ice to eskimo's
selling somthing with no utility value does not mean that it still holds some price value

bwahahahahahahaa all this^

You don't understand anything you are talking about.

[franky1]

...

go on.
show how bitcoins billions of dollar market cap is calculated

without just taking bitcoins price multiplied by how many coins are in circulation.

go on.
oh a few points
1. not all 16mill coins are on an exchange
2. there are not billions of dollars in bank accounts to back up each bitcoin.

but ill let you try and do the maths
go on

[Fragbait]

one satoshi of newly generated (post-fork) coinbase value is sufficient to poison any amount of pre-fork coins from being valid on the other chain. And once that transaction is made, all the resultant output is available for poisoning more pre-fork value.

How many years it would take to poison all unspent outputs in the small-block chain that is already full of transactions with fees?

[franky1]

one satoshi of newly generated (post-fork) coinbase value is sufficient to poison any amount of pre-fork coins from being valid on the other chain. And once that transaction is made, all the resultant output is available for poisoning more pre-fork value.

How many years it would take to poison all unspent outputs in the small-block chain that is already full of transactions with fees?

depends on the poison used.
EG imagine core changed ECDSA and proclaimed that all old coins using ECDSA were at risk of D-wave attack. and that exchanges should avoid accepting transactions that use ECDSA because it could be some d-wave attacker moving funds.

currently 46million UTXO's could suddenly not be accepted by exchanges, if that 'poison' tactic was ever used

[hv_]

The thing is clear, Shelby. All profitable business will lead to centralization, cartells, unequal wealth distribution.  All written up in that older thread.

 We see this fix point all over in our nature, we just cannot change this. Its like a black hole. So is profitable mining, dammed to tend to centralization finally.

But I still think positive that we might have  kind of an equilibrium point that if the degree of centralisation cannot be driven too high, because of trust will collapse finally and price with it.


Where are we now? Do we see the signs now? Time for first reset and can we see if a new start is coming in with better decentralisation ( multiple dev teams, implementations,..)?

[franky1]

things to help decentralisation

1. pools cannot submit a block again for atleast 20 blocks. thus no pool can easily get 51% alone and only achieve 5%
2. many divrese teams, implementations
3. dynamic blocks to not be reliant on dv team decisions for utility expansion.

how to become centralised

1. threaten PoW nuking if a certain rule isnt followed
2. one team proclaim they are the cor reference and ultimate decision makers of the sheep
3. things only change when a supergod dev says so

[traincarswreck]

...

go on.
show how bitcoins billions of dollar market cap is calculated

without just taking bitcoins price multiplied by how many coins are in circulation.

go on.
oh a few points
1. not all 16mill coins are on an exchange
2. there are not billions of dollars in bank accounts to back up each bitcoin.

but ill let you try and do the maths
go on

Here is your quote again you idiot liar:

i can make a altcoin with 5trillion coins. put  coin on an exchange and sell it to myself for $1 and suddenly the alt has a market cap of $5trillio

Show me you can create a coin with a trillion dollar cap.  Do you know how exchanges work?

[traincarswreck]

The thing is clear, Shelby. All profitable business will lead to centralization, cartells, unequal wealth distribution.  All written up in that older thread.

 We see this fix point all over in our nature, we just cannot change this. Its like a black hole. So is profitable mining, dammed to tend to centralization finally.

Absolutely not.  Cartels are not comparable to equilibrium in nature. Equilibrium are stable, they are decentralized by nature. You have twisted the meanings of these things. Cartels/monopolies do not form in free markets.  They are a product of intervention.

[iamnotback]

Check my logic. Litecoin will be the scaling currency. Bitcoin the settlement currency.

Think of it this way; for your theory to work, would mean a part of the money would have to move from bitcoin's whales to litecoin. BTC already has a civil war, a huge flippening threat from ethereum, and now you're telling me btc whales desperately want ltc segwit to pass and are boarding too with a part of their money ? Can't be, btc whales are not suicidal, they would risk too much. If they wanted to exit, they would have done it by now.
Whales will simply not risk their wealth for something as dumb as this, kill the largest part of their wealth just to move it into another coin lol.

LTC's volume is just a pump. Most of btc's value that moved away from it in fear, moved into ethereum. But know what all these other altcoins had in common ? Each of them had their own shares of pump series, because they all tried to attract the money flow from bitcoin and into making people believe there's where money's moving.

Incorrect logic. Only the disgruntled minnows need to move, and remember (in a Zipf distribution) the minnows do control 33% of the wealth, but they just aren't usually organized and can be manipulated by whales. But there is something else maybe going on, which is that those BTC whales (and/or dolphins) who are on the scaling side of the civil war, now have a way to increase their relative wealth while getting the scaling they want. They can't act within the Bitcoin ecosystem without getting burned. But they can trade.

LTC provides a proxy for the various parties to profit on resolving their differences. Money moves in the direction of the least resistance and that which allocates capital to the most production.

LTC might flag pattern here a bit (pull back a bit) while the market digests whether Bitcoin is really stuck in a stalemate with ever rising fees. But it is very likely going much higher.

Remember silver is the money for the common man. Litecoin is the silver to Bitcoin's gold. Bitcoin is the money for the small blocks with very high fees. Litecoin will be the scaling currency. Of course the smart miners and developers had a plan B. It makes complete sense now in retrospect.

Litecoin will now be known as the scaling currency. Bitcoin will be known as the power broker's settlement currency.

1. other CCs have Segwit
2. Segwit/LN isn't scaling
3. Segwit isn't LN now

Those 2 cents altcoins are irrelevant. Litecoin has the status to be the silver to Bitcoin's gold.

LN will provide scaling but in the form of private banks fractional reserve banking. It is scaling, but semi-centralized with settlement back on the blockchain.

sure but regular man will be able to use ETH DASH... LTC is another Chinaman currency.
Once ETH will adopt LN and stuff like that i don't see LTC becoming that "silver"

Ethereum's Raiden which is a LN clone will likely be ready sooner, but Ethereum doesn't have the same security (due the hacks possible with its scripting and willingness of community to do HFs) as Bitcoin and Litecoin with more mining as it scales up to 1/5 of Bitcoin's marketcap. Ethereum is in a different market of doing more applications with blockchains, not just payments.

There is a reason that Scrypt ASICs were made. This plan for Litecoin has apparently been made a long time ago. Some smart people had foresight.

If i were bag-holder i would sell today 80%

I posit that LTC is changing from weak, tired hands to strong hands who know the real value proposition. Once the weak hands are out, then we continue skyrocketing upwards.

Half of the entire marketcap of LTC was traded today. I've never seen that happen any where.

Those 2 cents altcoins are irrelevant. Litecoin has the status to be the silver to Bitcoin's gold.

you know what if i really want "silver" i would use fucking DOGEcoin much better silver than LTC.

Dogshit isn't silver:



Chihuahua WoW has no SegWit/LN nor quality development.

... but Ethereum doesn't have the same security (due the hacks possible with its scripting and willingness of community to do HFs) as Bitcoin and Litecoin with more mining as it scales up to 1/5 of Bitcoin's marketcap...

Like that would be reason for people to chose LTC over ETH come on.
ETH was attacked multiple times and what they live at 2-5 bilon market cap all  time.

You act like the DAO attack and community HF never happened.

Different security model entirely. Not immutable, more risk given Turing complete scripting. Yet also more experimentation for killer blockchain apps. Ethereum is a different market than what the silver to Bitcoin's gold must be.

I'm still invested in ETH because blockchain applications are going to have utility, and Ethereum is racing ahead faster with developments.

Re: Litecoin has potential. Beyond $50?

There's something else there, look at the volume.

and etc managed volumes well over 100,000 btc, then it went and did nothing for a long, long time when it went back to a fraction of that volume.

Wasn't that due to the DAO attack?

Did you read my analysis  

i am not intelligent enough to take it all in. you know way more than me. i just call it how i see it.

The game theory and economics is such that SegWit softfork (necessary for enabling the scaling of Lightning Networks) can't be enabled on Bitcoin. Stalemate is the indefinite status quo.

Litecoin (at its current market cap and situation at this juncture in time) has different game theory and economics, thus it hypothetically can enable SegWit and get rolling on scaling.

Ostensibly I threw out the hypothesis that the whales and miners have been (as quietly as possible) accumulating (both LTC and Scrypt ASICs) in order to prepare for a massive upward revaluation of Litecoin as the scaling option to Bitcoin's strict small block future.

This is very speculative (and rushed) analysis and lacking thorough due diligence.

[traincarswreck]

Check my logic. Litecoin will be the scaling currency. Bitcoin the settlement currency.

I don't know how much evidence will show litecoin was planned in relation to bitcoin.  But I think Nash gives an explicate argument as to why bitcoin should remain a settlement currency, and that it would bring our factional reserve system into order as bitcoin's market cap grows enough to serve whales/metaplayers.

[jbreher]

Yes lowest relative volatility, and in the future as this changes, we will collective understand that its relative to a conceptual perfectly stable units money. What should we call this unit? The Watt, Celcius, A Newton...?

We covered this last month. We all realize this as a transparently pandering leading question. The uniform answer was that answer for which you were looking. Why re-Nash rehash it?

[traincarswreck]

Yes lowest relative volatility, and in the future as this changes, we will collective understand that its relative to a conceptual perfectly stable units money. What should we call this unit? The Watt, Celcius, A Newton...?

We covered this last month. We all realize this as a transparently pandering leading question. The uniform answer was that answer for which you were looking. Why re-Nash rehash it?

not sure i was aware you were in this thread at that time. Also the dialogue gets easier when there is a collective understanding of a stable unit of value.

[jbreher]

one satoshi of newly generated (post-fork) coinbase value is sufficient to poison any amount of pre-fork coins from being valid on the other chain. And once that transaction is made, all the resultant output is available for poisoning more pre-fork value.

How many years it would take to poison all unspent outputs in the small-block chain that is already full of transactions with fees?

Doesn't matter. Poisoning them on the other chain solves the problem for both.

Well, that, plus the fact that, until a coin is spent on one or other chain, there is no possibility of replay.

[iamnotback]

not sure i was aware you were in this thread at that time. Also the dialogue gets easier when there is a collective understanding of a stable [fungible] unit of value.

Money is an information system which attempts to optimize the allocation of our perception of value, so that production is maximized.

But as I have explained and posited upthread, the demise of fungible endeavors in the knowledge age, is reducing the efficacy of fungible finance. Finance won't die overnight, but I posit an inexorable trend is underway.

[coolmyrig]

About the hardfork,I don't think the people who are threatening to do a hard fork have thought clearly about the implications. This will allow Bitcoin to test all the attacks,IMO.

[iamnotback]

Stay away from shitcoins like Decred.

Waited for the dip, dip happened, got in at 67, now 76, good money so far.  For how long will you hold? It's yet to be seen if we can pass the 80 top.

Regardin miners.. I remember reading some miner claiming how they had enough millions in mining power to attack bitcoin regardless if they changed to scrypt, X11 or any other algo. Not sure if bluffing or serious.

Happy to see you made a move.

Fundamentals are such that we should be going back to $30+ at least (of course nothing is guaranteed, make your own choices). Hang on tight.

It could get volatile so don't set a stop loss too high unless you want to get stopped out too soon. Don't trade unless you are good at trading.

You will understand how good the relative fundamentals of LTC are when you read my upcoming scathing analysis of Decred and PIVX.

There really isn't much in the way of quality altcoins with valuable attributes other than a handful including LTC, ETH, XMR (but in my opinion of the chart, XMR needs to go down to $15 first).