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

[iamnotback]

Would you argue the internet is a malicious plan to enslave the people by the US intelligence that created it?  I doubt it could be true!  No such agency would purposefully break the monopoly on money and believe it would help them control the people.

I know exactly how the Internet we have today was created.

Nash sent an encryption conjecture to the Nsa in 1955 and a description of a highly parallel computing solution that is still further advanced than the internet to rand.  Ideal Money is an idea from that time.

So its observably evident that the idea of bitcoin floated around these agencies for many years prior to bitcoin.

There is no way to break the bubble, the monopoly, without losing the power.

Don't conflate the agencies and nation-states with the globalists who sit above and orthogonal. Those elitists would need only the private keys to Satoshi's mined stash. And I bet they are using those Bitcoins now to implicitly back the SDRs so that they can value their reserves accurately and accumulate all the world's wealth to themselves, as they collapse the old financial system with the Basel rounds.

Bitcoin whales cannot control the system, if they do it will fork.

It will not fork when there is only one whale who controls it. The protocol can change at Rothschild's will (i.e. manipulated and breaking the ideal money stability), but there will be no forks if one entity controls all the wealth (which is of course is complete destruction of humankind).

And a malevolent Satoshi cannot exist, the project requires incredible OBJECTIVELY to be birthed.  Such objectively does not exist in malevolent persons.

A flawed project doesn't require objectivity. Bitcoin is fundamentally and insolubly flawed in the most absolute, worst, and most evil possible way. But luckily I think the economy will bifurcate into fungible finance and non-fungible knowledge creation trade. So I think the planned evil of Bitcoin will be defeated. As you say, a conflict on a higher-order.

The person who funded Bitcoin's creation doesn't understand that he enabled and unleashed me ... why would he even care about some loud mouth on the Internet (whereas the scientists and programmers who did the work may have realized they were fooling their masters). Just like DARPA didn't understand they were being lied to (see my link above).

As you pointed out, Bitcoin can just be a step along the way. The worst outcome possibly with Bitcoin can be possible averted, because humans compete and partake of opportunities enabled by new technologies.

[1713575566]

1713575566

[traincarswreck]

bitcoin isn't flawed and it was created from objectivity. 

You cannot create something more secure, it's not possible.  Those that held the world's wealth before bitcoin would not have funded it, just like any controlling government would not purposefully and knowingly unleash the internet on a people it wished to control.  Evolution finds a way as it moves to a higher order.

Once you see this as your basis everything else makes sense.

[iamnotback]

You've made mutually conflicting statements. You agree that all the Bitcoins would eventually get concentrated into one entity and then you claim Bitcoin is objective. Lol.

[traincarswreck]

You've made mutually conflicting statements. You agree that all the Bitcoins would eventually get concentrated into one entity and then you claim Bitcoin is objective. Lol.

It's silly to think bitcoin's would concentrate to one entity, just like its silly to try to corner silver.  And I talked about how it was BORN from objective perspective. Bitcoin was born from sincere philosophic contemplation-objectivism.

[rpietila]

You have to be careful, that an individual cannot solve a problem that only the collective can address.

Ascertaining whether the problem is of the former or of the latter nature, is a key to unlimited wealth (at least now with M pumping).

[iamnotback]

You've made mutually conflicting statements. You agree that all the Bitcoins would eventually get concentrated into one entity and then you claim Bitcoin is objective. Lol.

It's silly to think bitcoin's would concentrate to one entity, just like its silly to try to corner silver.  And I talked about how it was BORN from objective perspective. Bitcoin was born from sincere philosophic contemplation-objectivism.

Not very objective, because if the stable value metric is indeed absolutely true, then who ever holds more reserves will always accumulate more reserves risk free. That is a fundamental equation of finance. Thus one whale will end up holding all the wealth eventually if Bitcoin is an absolute stable fungible value.

The reason one can't corner silver is because silver is not absolutely stable and non-manipulable. One fallacy of Nash's entire thesis is that if a store-of-value was fungible and absolutely stable, then contrary to Nash's thesis, it would have to be the only one. Because non-manipulated and relativistic are an impossible combination unless the various values are entirely non-fungible. I am surprised Nash didn't realize it, as he was very close to that realization given the paper of his I cited above.

Bitcoin is immutable except in the long-tail game where the single whale aggregates all the Bitcoins and controls the entire thing. Then he can do whatever he wants. And all of us will be his slaves at that point.

[traincarswreck]

Roger ver will lose his power/wealth through intellectual disease/inferiority.

[traincarswreck]

Not very objective, because if the stable value metric is indeed absolutely true, then who ever holds more reserves will always accumulate more reserves risk free. That is a fundamental equation of finance.

The reason one can't corner silver is because silver is not absolutely stable. One fallacy of Nash's entire thesis is that if a store-of-value was fungible and absolutely stable, then contrary to Nash's thesis, it would have to be the only one. Because non-manipulated and relativistic are an impossible combination unless the various values are entirely non-fungible. I am surprised Nash didn't realize it, as he was very close to that realization given the paper of his I cited above.

No fallacy exists in his thinking or thesis.  Don't start from a conclusion, which you clearly are.

Tell me how the kilogram, the newton, the second, the degree, the watt, etc. are manipulated politically...?

[iamnotback]

Tell me how the kilogram, the newton, the second, the degree, the watt, etc. are manipulated politically...?

Lol. You are a pretender. Just as I thought. Do you really need me to explain that to you?

[iamnotback]

Rothschild is playing you all for fools. He outsmarted you all again. But he didn't outsmart me.

His modus operandi is to hide the corruption into long range failure. So I can see perfectly well how he has fooled you. It has his fingerprints all over it. He hijacked a flaw in Nash's thesis to fool you.

[traincarswreck]

Lol. You are a pretender. Just as I thought. Do you really need me to explain that to you?

You think laughing is valuable?  Fucking rights, tell me how they are corrupted.  How does someone control the mass of a kilo?

[traincarswreck]

Rothschild is playing you all for fools. He outsmarted you all again. But he didn't outsmart me.

His modus operandi is to hide the corruption into long range failure. So I can see perfectly well how he has fooled you. It has his fingerprints all over it. He hijacked a flaw in Nash's thesis to fool you.

No one believes you.

[iamnotback]

@traincarswreck there is no such thing as a stable fungible value. It can't exist as it violates the laws of physics. That is Nash's error. And there is no such thing as a plurality of asymptotically fungible stable values. That is a fantasy in the mind of a crazy, brilliant man who didn't quite figure out his error. His mistake was not realizing that his ideal would only be plausible in the non-fungible case. He was close to realizing that.

Nash was on the right track though. We can have an asymptotic plurality of stable values, when they are all non-fungible. And my project will bring that theory into existence.

Bitcoin will be destroyed. Mankind will prosper. And I will prove you are wrong. But it won't happen overnight. It will take a while yet.

Fungible money will die. Slowly but it will wither away.

That is what my Rise of Knowledge, Demise of Finance points out. Yeah atoms are heavily but they don't get heavier. Relative value will decline (the absolute value will always have mass but that is irrelevant as I had pointed about to Eric Raymond on his blog, c.f. the Dark Enlightenment thread).

There are no stable values in a relativistic universe. But this is a good thing, otherwise we would not exist because the past and the future would collapse into indistinguishable (the light cones of relativity would overlap) if there could be any absolute reference point because relativism wouldn't exist.

End of story.

I am tired of talking. The discussion is redundant. I will reply to @dinofelis' other errors then end my participation in this thread. Adios amigos.

P.S. thanks to all for the discussion.

No one believes you.

Any one who whoreships fungible value can never believe me, for their entire thesis is destroyed. So they will just have to be destroyed. It is their destiny.

Love of money, is the root of all evil.

Love of knowledge and production is glorious and fruitful.

I am a true capitalist. The financiers (especially the whale-most of all financiers) are leeches and parasites.

[iamnotback]

No asymptotic ideal money means that one money that follows some principles that allow for higher transfer utility will be accepted by yhe market but we will never reach the perfect money because you cant have perfectly stable and infinite transfer utility and thus you will get better versions over time in that if one is a paradaigm shift over another it may have a chance at being a better asymptotically ideal money. Fiat with rate targeting replaced gold standard and we posit cryptocurrency with stable supply may be a big enough shift to create that paradaign shift because it removes greed of central bankers. I think he meant ideal would be a rate targetted money based on an auditable economic metric but that may not be possible without greedy centralized entities.

Agreed. The only asymptotically improving concept of money is to actually destroy fungible money and find a way to exchange non-fungible knowledge in an Inverse Commons.

Fungible money always devolves to a winner-take-all scorched earth. Sometimes it takes up to 309 years to reach its horrific end, but it always ends up there. There will be no exceptions, because fungible finance is fundamentally a fraud, because it is fundamentally at odds with non-fungible diversity. Fungible finance was a necessarily evil along humankind's evolution from cave dwellers to industrialized, but now the Internet has changed everything and the transactional cost for direct knowledge exchange has become so low that we increasingly don't need the Theory of the Firm and instead do self-organize in Inverse Commons where fungible money has no relevance.

[iamnotback]

2) If LTC is the LN activated system, what would keep up the market price of bitcoin ?  Right now, that market price is kept up by greater-fool theory and the belief in moon.  Bitcoin's economic value at this moment must be less than $10,- per coin (that is, if the only demand for it were given by the need to obtain them to buy goods and services for it - Fisher's formula).

Finally getting back to this.

I already answered that here:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1851296.msg18425425#msg18425425

As I've been arguing to @traincarswreck, that with fungible money the system with the greatest value is the one where the power brokers do their settlement. So Bitcoin (just like gold) will take perhaps 9/10ths of the value created on Litecoin. Finance is a leech. Finance parasites on the actual activity in the economy.

Not very objective, because if the stable value metric is indeed absolutely true, then who ever holds more reserves will always accumulate more reserves risk free. That is a fundamental equation of finance. Thus one whale will end up holding all the wealth eventually if Bitcoin is an absolute stable fungible value.

The reason one can't corner silver is because silver is not absolutely stable and non-manipulable. One fallacy of Nash's entire thesis is that if a store-of-value was fungible and absolutely stable, then contrary to Nash's thesis, it would have to be the only one. Because non-manipulated and relativistic are an impossible combination unless the various values are entirely non-fungible. I am surprised Nash didn't realize it, as he was very close to that realization given the paper of his I cited above.

Bitcoin is immutable except in the long-tail game where the single whale aggregates all the Bitcoins and controls the entire thing. Then he can do whatever he wants. And all of us will be his slaves at that point.

It is just math guys.

[iamnotback]

You have to be careful, that an individual cannot solve a problem that only the collective can address.

Ascertaining whether the problem is of the former or of the latter nature, is a key to unlimited wealth (at least now with M pumping).

Risto in all due respect my friend, I don't understand. I believe in direct knowledge exchange in an Inverse Commons. What is your fundamental thesis?

[iamnotback]

Farting shot:

Re: It doesnt matter how good of a programer you are, if you get the economics wrong

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_jN9M4XxPJA

Lol. So true.

@dinofelis, I cited our upthread discussion in the Litecoin community. I also explained there that as a PoW coin matures it becomes much more intractable to gain consensus for significant protocol changes. Bitcoin being the dominant reserve could finance the change to the protocol of a lesser chain, if the quorum whales of Bitcoin who have any vested interest have a consensus to do such an attack. So I guess that is a clarification of my upthread claim that only the dominant PoW could be immutable. The lesser PoW chains are less immutable but the immutability game theory is still somewhat favorable.

The generative essence is that politics is a clusterfuck of inaction when it requires agreement on a single action. The only way politics functions is via debt and giving everyone everything at the same time, with no actual consensus. This was Satoshi's clever insight on how to attain immutability.

[sidhujag]

@traincarswreck there is no such thing as a stable fungible value. It can't exist as it violates the laws of physics. That is Nash's error. And there is no such thing as a plurality of asymptotically fungible stable values. That is a fantasy in the mind of a crazy, brilliant man who didn't quite figure out his error. His mistake was not realizing that his ideal would only be plausible in the non-fungible case. He was close to realizing that.

Nash was on the right track though. We can have an asymptotic plurality of stable values, when they are all non-fungible. And my project will bring that theory into existence.

Bitcoin will be destroyed. Mankind will prosper. And I will prove you are wrong. But it won't happen overnight. It will take a while yet.

Fungible money will die. Slowly but it will wither away.

That is what my Rise of Knowledge, Demise of Finance points out. Yeah atoms are heavily but they don't get heavier. Relative value will decline (the absolute value will always have mass but that is irrelevant as I had pointed about to Eric Raymond on his blog, c.f. the Dark Enlightenment thread).

There are no stable values in a relativistic universe. But this is a good thing, otherwise we would not exist because the past and the future would collapse into indistinguishable (the light cones of relativity would overlap) if there could be any absolute reference point because relativism wouldn't exist.

End of story.

I am tired of talking. The discussion is redundant. I will reply to @dinofelis' other errors then end my participation in this thread. Adios amigos.

P.S. thanks to all for the discussion.

No one believes you.

Any one who whoreships fungible value can never believe me, for their entire thesis is destroyed. So they will just have to be destroyed. It is their destiny.

Love of money, is the root of all evil.

Love of knowledge and production is glorious and fruitful.

I am a true capitalist. The financiers (especially the whale-most of all financiers) are leeches and parasites.

With all due respect shelby I do not think you understand ideal money and you are running with your idea of it to curve fit into your line of thinking and ltc activating segwit has confirmed your line of thinking even though it is off track. You then extrapolate to big picture and it is dangerous because the thesis of your original argument is way off.

[traincarswreck]

@traincarswreck there is no such thing as a stable fungible value. It can't exist as it violates the laws of physics. That is Nash's error. And there is no such thing as a plurality of asymptotically fungible stable values. That is a fantasy in the mind of a crazy, brilliant man who didn't quite figure out his error. His mistake was not realizing that his ideal would only be plausible in the non-fungible case. He was close to realizing that.

Nash was on the right track though. We can have an asymptotic plurality of stable values, when they are all non-fungible. And my project will bring that theory into existence.

I've asked you this before and we have been over this.  Nash didn't make a mistake his thesis is crystal clear and fundamental.  You need to explain to me why you think funable money breaks the laws of physics, in a post, succinctly, not a series of post.  

Nash redefine our understanding of einsteins works, and he did it when he was a kid, there is evidence he talked to einstein and oppenheimer about this, and he left another lecture on the subject like he did Ideal Money, cryptic but significant.

So don't get caught being silly saying "Nash didn't understand, the subject he was the expert on...." and saying that you understand the laws of the universe better than him.  There is no one on earth near his level, ask ANYONE that is familiar with him and his works, his peers etc.

He wasn't just "smart" he was on a whole other level.  You sound silly hand waving his intelligence away.

[traincarswreck]

With all due respect shelby I do not think you understand ideal money and you are running with your idea of it to curve fit into your line of thinking and ltc activating segwit has confirmed your line of thinking even though it is off track. You then extrapolate to big picture and it is dangerous because the thesis of your original argument is way off.

Yup, needs to slow down and give 70 years of contemplation by a man with an out of this world ahead of his time perspective its due.