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

[Capradina]

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.

AHhha, everyone think so indeed at first they do not understand certain growth or emergence of the bitcoin. So that they do is to see what they are reading without digging deeper on the history of bitcoin. Bitcoin arises indeed want to provide better compared to other currencies, so no connection bitcoin appeared for a cause as you say.Be someone who understand the origin of a thing and be someone who can work together for a lot of things in order to get maximum results
 

[1714009341]

1714009341

[1714009341]

1714009341

[1714009341]

1714009341

[iamnotback]

I'm not a BU loyalist.  I'll support any implementation that allows big blocks and on chain scaling.

and no, segwit isn't meaningful onchain scaling in my view.

Decentralized on chain scaling is technologically impossible with PoW:

https://www.reddit.com/r/litecoin/comments/631ffe/pools_that_block_litecoin_development/dfr3weo/

If you actually understood the technology, then perhaps you'd change your position to something which can actually scale off chain.

The economic majority wins. Those who are buying LTC now are doing so because they want SegWit to be activated. Julian Wu of Bitmain who is blocking SegWit on both LTC and BTC, created the new more efficient Scrypt miners, so I didn't realize this before. They could monopolize these in theory. So this fight might not be as easy as I thought. But the economic majority should win, unless it lacks resolve and/or patience. Already people are arbitraging and finding ways to rent hashrate in order to earn money and support SegWit. If you think the price is going up, you try to lock in a rental price that doesn't increase as the price rises, so you can profit. Others may be buying A4s if they want to maximize profits and believe the price will remain high (and going higher).

Julian Wu needs to get his ass kicked economically so both Bitcoin and Litecoin can move forward.

It is most likely that BU is a diversionary lie. These miners simply want to gouge high fees on Bitcoin and block any alternatives. They were never going to fork with BU. It was a lie to prevent everyone from joining together to kick Julian's ass.

If my health will improve or stabilize, my plan is to launch a Bitcoin Killer which doesn't require PoW (the design is already completed). I want to bankrupt all these miners. Their vested interests are a pain in the ass. We need to kick all their arses out into the street and turn their ASICs into door stops. I am talking long-term plan.

Those who are buying ASICs now, my plans are a year or more away from reaching any relevancy or size, so fear not. Buy A4s and profit.

Both you guys are obstructionist wolves in sheepskin. You pretend you want to make progress but you are intentionally stalling. Any one with a brain stem can see right through your deceit.

ProHashing is not signaling SegWit thus they are an obstructionist. Their words are meaningless. In a meritocracy only actions count.

"Talk is cheap, show me the code", wrote Linus Torvalds

Also it is quite clear that BU never intended to fork Bitcoin with that Buggy Unlimited piece-of-shit, because they know damn well the economics of Bitcoin are that the whales can and will destroy any miners who attempt to fork Bitcoin. I explained this in great detail on BCT.

BU is a lie and diversionary tactic in order to fool everyone. The real goal of Julian Wu is to gouge maximize transaction fees from Bitcoin and block any alternatives for scaling. These obstructionists are block progress on both Bitcoin and Litecoin, because Bitcoin depends on Litecoin to add off chain scaling, because the whales of Bitcoin will never allow SegWit on Bitcon. Period. ProHashing by their actions is complicit. Words are meaningless.

Look at your conflicting statements:

He states that we oppose Segregated Witness, which is true. We do not think that SegWit is the best course for bitcoin or litecoin.

We do intend to implement SegWit

A majority of customers have requested SegWit, so we plan to implement it.

Stalling. Deceit. An obstructionist wolf in sheepskin.

the IRS doesn't move its deadline back because of SegWit, and we won't have any business at all if they come after us

Miners should leave such an incompetent company.

Whining in a forum about not being able to do your accounting at the same time you do your technical work.

Of course it is quite clear you are just lying and deceitful.

[iamnotback]

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.

I already explained the critical flaw in his thesis. The long-term failure mode is all the Bitcoin wealth will become concentrated in one whale. This is an inviolable law of finance if it is true that only Bitcoin is non-manipulated. I am not going to repeat all of the logic I expressed already about that. If you can't assimilate information from multiple posts, then you need to go back to high school.

I've already explained it (several times in fact). You guys are really dumb.

There is no need for me to repeat myself again.

I know what I know. And I know I will kill Bitcoin and PoW. You watch and observe as idiots who are looking at "magic" that they can't understand.

Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. - Arthur C. Clarke

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?

The Bible speaks about honest weights and measures. Does that mean there is dishonesty and manipulation in units-of-measure. Duh.

All units-of-measure are relative. The government can tax your electricity, so a kilowatt then costs 1.5 kilowatts.

Ditto a whale who controls a majority of the Bitcoins can do what ever he wants to do with finance, if indeed Bitcoin is the most trusted and accurate measure of reserves.

That absolute power can be used at the End Times, to complete the fate we've been promised in Revelation.

An absolutely non-manipulable fungible finance reserves is absolute destruction. Nash was one crazy lunatic.

Of course though there isn't such an absolute. And if the elite succeed in fooling the world into believing Bitcoin is such an absolute stable reserve, then they will enslave fungible finance. But they can't enslave knowledge trading in an Inverse Commons, because the monetary component of that is very small compared to the value of the knowledge traded. And I posit the non-fungible trading of knowledge will far exceed the value of fungible finance. Because fungible finance is only applicable to fungible investments such as factories, laborers, real estate, and tangible things. Laborers are replaceable meaning that laborers are fungible with each other. Individualized knowledge and creativity are not replaceable meaning that each individual has a unique perspective that is not fungible with others. "God" (nature) made it this way. The bastard elite who are pulling this Bitcoin wool over your eyes, will not succeed in destroying all of humanity with their diabolical deceit. But those of you who fall into the trap may perish. But this will take some time so the End Times for finance may or may not come in your lifetime. Yet the knowledge age will not perish. Fungible money will perish. You will throw your useless gold and silver into the street.

If you don't understand these concepts by now, there is nothing more I can say to you. You will just have to watch and observe the magic.

[dennyd999]

Well I do not know if BU is bad or good idea, but Bitcoin must work hard and quick, because of SEPA instant payment

http://www.europeanpaymentscouncil.eu/index.cfm/sepa-instant-payments/what-are-instant-payments/


It will lunch in 2017. Commision free, fast ,secure, legal. Made in Germany

I guess Bitcoin is only for darknet, but it is far far away to be concurentable with SEPA Instant payments when they release.

Community must to do really good something..Who will need bitcoins after all this official instant payment will lunch?

[iamnotback]

SEPA instant payment

Can't scale to millions of globalized transactions per second with millisecond confirmations.

Neither can Bitcoin nor LN though.  

They can't scale it technologically, politically, and also adoption scaling fast enough.

[iamnotback]

@dinofelis, I realized that no PoW blockchain can have a viable changeable blockchain size solution. Every possible solution is centralization (large blocks, small blocks, unlimited blocks), including Monero's automatic adjustment algorithm.

Even LN on Litecoin will eventually fail as a political clusterfuck when the block size needs to be increased again.

Satoshi's PoW only is really viable only for power broker money on small blocks.

Satoshi's PoW is diabolical. We must destroy it.

[dennyd999]

SEPA instant payment

Can't scale to millions of globalized transactions per second with millisecond confirmations.

Neither can Bitcoin nor LN though.  

They can't scale it technologically, politically, and also adoption scaling fast enough.

Well it will lunch in 2017. I think it will work good. Single SEPA is working fairly good for now. No crashes at all as I know. Why you think SEPA
Instant will fail?

I think 24/7/365 instant payment from officials is really,really cool. With no commision.

I do not need to use Bitcoin to send money to Greece for my mom anymore. You know what I mean? It also will be much more simple. I do not need to convert it on stock exchanges.

So I do not need Bitcoins anymore..if they will be comiision fees and 2-3 hours long.

[iamnotback]

Why you think SEPA Instant will fail?

I didn't claim it would fail. I claimed it can't scale fast enough for where the knowledge age is headed.

SEPA will apply to some activities in the economy. For example, can scale to retail and normal Internet transactions within the EU. Globalized harmonization will probably take some years. Scaling up adoption globally will take years. Attaining millions of transactions per second reliably with millisecond confirmations and globally will probably take some years to scale up.

Also you have to factor in that top-down instituted paradigms don't grow network effects as fast as bottom-up paradigms. There will be turf battles, etc..

How do you harmonize a payment in pesos to an entity who wants euros? There will be exchange losses/fees.

[traincarswreck]

The metric Nash describes is locked in the laws of the universe and discover-able through technology.  it's not corruptible.

[dinofelis]

@dinofelis, I realized that no PoW blockchain can have a viable changeable blockchain size solution. Every possible solution is centralization (large blocks, small blocks, unlimited blocks), including Monero's automatic adjustment algorithm.

Even LN on Litecoin will eventually fail as a political clusterfuck when the block size needs to be increased again.

Satoshi's PoW only is really viable only for power broker money on small blocks.

Satoshi's PoW is diabolical. We must destroy it.

It will annihilate itself.  Simply too costly.  The huge costs of PoW for feeble security are now invisible because they are covered by an influx of greater fools (called "adoption").   This is similar to the invisible rise of socialism in Western countries during the booming years: everyone is getting richer, and you don't realise that they are running away with a big part of your wealth because you're still getting richer, but less fast than you should.
Bitcoin security costs about $400 million a year, to secure some $20 billion.  That is already quite risky: you allow for someone with $2 billions and a strong motive, to destroy bitcoin.  Imagine it goes 100-fold.  Then the cost will have to rise comparatively.  $ 40 billions of waste a year to secure a 2 trillion ledger.  When this becomes a whales-only club, and no greater-fools are paying for the bill, these whales will have to cough up $40 billion A YEAR on waste.  While the competition does it at essentially no waste cost.
Electricity: today: 500 MW.  100-fold: 50 GW.   That's France's nuclear power.   What whales can permit themselves to waste that while there are alternatives that don't need it ?  

While you can achieve the same with a few laptops.  ENIAC against core-i7.

PoW is horrible cryptographic security. It is 1-1 between good guys and enemies.  

That said, I don't believe that Satoshi had something diabolical in mind.  You mustn't put on the account of conspiracy, what can be explained by ignorance.  

PoW simply has a natural ceiling of value, because it becomes too costly to maintain.  It is not competitive.

EDIT: I saw another comparision: in 2016, the bitcoin mining consumed 10 times more energy than CERN, the biggest particle lab in the world.  In a certain way, the results were similar: nothing

Or another one: a single bitcoin transaction consumes as much electricity as almost 2 days of a typical American home.

Not sustainable.  Too wasteful.  Not competitive.

[traincarswreck]

 

That said, I don't believe that Satoshi had something diabolical in mind.

Only objectivity can create such an invention just like the atom bomb.

[iamnotback]

I've analyzed Ripple:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1663070.msg18447196#msg18447196

More followup:

Well to be fair it seems this is more a criticism of banking in general, not Ripple. I'm not aware of Ripple claiming they'd reform banking practices. From my understanding they're simply designing a system that can allow banks to operate more efficiently.

How is not paying an interest on deposits and not having any central bank or self-reported regulation on reserves represent what banking ever was or is?

If banks will only use Ripple as a clearing mechanism between themselves then what great value does Ripple have?

Frankly I don't understand what the widespread use case is?

Banks have the problem of trusting solvency. I don't see how trusted gateways resolve anything. All Ripple does is record that a promise was made. It doesn't do anything to insure those promises are valid or even fungible. Banks can't trust the USD.banknamehere tokens of each of 100 other banks. That is why they use a central bank backed currency.

I don't see how Ripple improves on the current situation at all.

Ripple reminds me of dot.com bubble with all the build it and they will come nonsense.

Ripple has a coordination problem which even the Fed can't solve. This is why Bitcoin rules and Ripple is dogshit.

Well, that was my point earlier. I don't see banks becoming non-existent "soon". Are you talking 5, 10 or 20 years when you say that?

I expect that in 5 - 10 years from now the world financial and monetary system will be quite different.

[adolf512]

@dinofelis, I realized that no PoW blockchain can have a viable changeable blockchain size solution. Every possible solution is centralization (large blocks, small blocks, unlimited blocks), including Monero's automatic adjustment algorithm.

Even LN on Litecoin will eventually fail as a political clusterfuck when the block size needs to be increased again.

Satoshi's PoW only is really viable only for power broker money on small blocks.

Satoshi's PoW is diabolical. We must destroy it.

It will annihilate itself.  Simply too costly.  The huge costs of PoW for feeble security are now invisible because they are covered by an influx of greater fools (called "adoption").   This is similar to the invisible rise of socialism in Western countries during the booming years: everyone is getting richer, and you don't realise that they are running away with a big part of your wealth because you're still getting richer, but less fast than you should.
Bitcoin security costs about $400 million a year, to secure some $20 billion.  That is already quite risky: you allow for someone with $2 billions and a strong motive, to destroy bitcoin.  Imagine it goes 100-fold.  Then the cost will have to rise comparatively.  $ 40 billions of waste a year to secure a 2 trillion ledger.  When this becomes a whales-only club, and no greater-fools are paying for the bill, these whales will have to cough up $40 billion A YEAR on waste.  While the competition does it at essentially no waste cost.
Electricity: today: 500 MW.  100-fold: 50 GW.   That's France's nuclear power.   What whales can permit themselves to waste that while there are alternatives that don't need it ?  

While you can achieve the same with a few laptops.  ENIAC against core-i7.

PoW is horrible cryptographic security. It is 1-1 between good guys and enemies.  

That said, I don't believe that Satoshi had something diabolical in mind.  You mustn't put on the account of conspiracy, what can be explained by ignorance.  

PoW simply has a natural ceiling of value, because it becomes too costly to maintain.  It is not competitive.

EDIT: I saw another comparision: in 2016, the bitcoin mining consumed 10 times more energy than CERN, the biggest particle lab in the world.  In a certain way, the results were similar: nothing

Or another one: a single bitcoin transaction consumes as much electricity as almost 2 days of a typical American home.

Not sustainable.  Too wasteful.  Not competitive.

It actually depends on how the cost of securing a PoW network scales with the market cap, if it is linear and above 1% Proof of Work is not sustainable but if it increases less than linear the inflation needed to secure the network will decrease will decrease when the price of the coin increases.

Quark and a few other cryptocurrencies has survived a long time despite having very low inflation(less than 1%), shorting these coins isn't possible which may explain why they havn't been killed in 51% attacks, maybe the inflation needed to secure a PoW network actually increase with adoption? if that is the case pretty much all coins are doomed. ASIC mining might actually be a good thing once most coins has been distributed since mining farms had huge sunk cust and thus more to loose.

I will have to study some of the 51% attacks made, it seams to be pretty rare.

[iamnotback]

It will annihilate itself.  Simply too costly.
...
Bitcoin security costs about $400 million a year, to secure some $20 billion.

Emphatically disagree.

That is only because the Bitcoin marketcap is low and is minting a lot of Bitcoins to pay enough security such that no one else in the world could afford more hashrate than Bitcoin can.

As the value of Bitcoin transactions increases, then the amount paid for security can decrease as a percentage of transaction value.

This is why debasement can be allowed to tail off to 0 over time.

The only way your premise could be true is if Bitcoin never becomes a significant portion of the global economy.

The remaining issue is over what the blocksize should be, which determines the fee market.

[dinofelis]

It actually depends on how the cost of securing a PoW network scales with the market cap, if it is linear and above 1% Proof of Work is not sustainable but if it increases less than linear the inflation needed to secure the network will decrease will decrease when the orice of the coin increases.

There are two hard laws in PoW:

1) the security of PoW is exactly equal to the waste

2) the waste of PoW is nearly equal to how much miners gain, which is the cost of the system (inflation cost, and transaction fee cost).

The threat model is twofold:

1) economically

2) strategically

The economical threat model is that of double spending, but is ridiculous.  Indeed, if ever you succeed in double spending, you will KILL THE SYSTEM, and then your holdings aren't worth anything in any case.  So the danger of double-spending is largely overrated.  Nobody is going to double spend, simply because if someone is going to double spend, and it works, then the confidence and belief in the system is dead, which means that the coins you took back are worthless now (there may be a window of opportunity to sell them before people realize and the market crashes, though).

--> there is almost no necessity of security against double spending, because the stake holders that COULD double-spend, would destroy the value of their stake.

The true threat model of a crypto is strategically: where you want to destroy the system's confidence, not because you want to obtain value INSIDE the system but because of the system's failure.  That threat is worth a certain amount of value to the attacker and the system should be secured such that the cost to the attacker is larger than his incentive is worth.

In fact, this threat incentive is most probably more than linearly related with market cap.  It can be "outside economical", mainly through shorting the asset of the system ; or it can be "political/strategical", like promoting a rival system, or purely geo-political reasons.

It is clear that these are "threshold threats".  Below a certain market cap, you won't trigger these threats ;  above it, you will have to face a huge incentive to break the system.  You can even combine both:  you can finance your political threat by shorting the system.

Killing a 20 billion market cap thing is most probably not interesting for powerful agencies.  Killing a 2 trillion system is.  If you need to spend 20 billion on killing a 2 trillion system, that's costly ; but if you can finance that by shorting, you can even get both some financial benefice AND reaching your political goal of blowing up the system.  

--> the higher the market cap of a PoW coin, the higher the market cap percentage you have to waste on PoW to protect it.   Right at this moment, bitcoin is OVER PROTECTED with its 2% waste cost of market cap per year.  Do this times 100, and it is vastly under protected and will be killed if you keep just 2% of waste per year.  

[iamnotback]

In fact, this threat incentive is most probably more than linearly related with market cap.  It can be "outside economical", mainly through shorting the asset of the system ; or it can be "political/strategical", like promoting a rival system, or purely geo-political reasons.

You can't short and attack a PoW coin, because the expense of the hashrate has to be maintained. The market knows this and will defeat your short over sufficient duration. The best you could hope for are short-duration attacks and shorts, but for any player that has this power, they do more harm to their sunk costs (ASICs) than they gain.

Killing a 20 billion market cap thing is most probably not interesting for powerful agencies.  Killing a 2 trillion system is.  If you need to spend 20 billion on killing a 2 trillion system, that's costly ; but if you can finance that by shorting, you can even get both some financial benefice AND reaching your political goal of blowing up the system.  

--> the higher the market cap of a PoW coin, the higher the market cap percentage you have to waste on PoW to protect it.   Right at this moment, bitcoin is OVER PROTECTED with its 2% waste cost of market cap per year.  Do this times 100, and it is vastly under protected and will be killed if you keep just 2% of waste per year.  

You've got that backwards.

There is a threshold above which the bankrupt, overleveraged fiat systems implode if they waste it on hashrate to try to attack Bitcoin.

The whales will change the PoW hash over and over as necessary and bankrupt the idiots who attempt that.

It isn't just the cost of the hashrate, those idiots would have to invest in new ASICs designs, build out the economies-of-scale, etc..

[dinofelis]

As the value of Bitcoin transactions increases, then the amount paid for security can decrease as a percentage of transaction value.

This is why debasement can be allowed to tail off to 0 over time.

The only way your premise could be true is if Bitcoin never becomes a significant portion of the global economy.

Of course it won't.  It will not be allowed to.  The higher the market cap, the more geo-political interests there are to kill it, which can be auto-financed by shorting bitcoin while attacking it.

The (small) French government just spent 4 billion dollars to keep Guyana calm to keep the Ariane launchpad secure.  4 billion dollars for a small/medium sized country for a relatively small geopolitical advantage.  If bitcoin reaches a 100 fold market cap, at 2 trillion, it is still just a few percent of the world economy, but it will start annoying TPTB.  At a 2% protection, the PoW effort is 20 billion dollars a year and hence its security level.  With 20 billion dollar, you destroy bitcoin.  That's peanuts.  5 times the French effort in Guyana this month, to get that thing out of the way. But what's nicer, you don't even have to spend them.  You can win much more by shorting bitcoin at the time of attack, and pay back your 20 billion dollars.

As you said, the tail doesn't wag the dog, and the dog is the fiat system.

Moreover, you don't even need to spend value on it, by shorting you can even win a lot of value in doing so.

[iamnotback]

The higher the market cap, the more geo-political interests there are to kill it, which can be auto-financed by shorting bitcoin while attacking it.

Complete nonsense. Read my prior post.

The ASIC manufacturers are not going to sell their goods to the government so the government can destroy their market.

The governments are bankrupt. They can't afford to battle the whales, especially as the whales of crypto grow more wealthy.

Also the whales who want Bitcoin to succeed are the same whales who are engineering the NWO, Basel rounds, and the collapse of the current financial system.

Bitcoin is part of the master plan. They won't kill their own baby.

Presuming he government could muster enough resources for a 51% attack against all countermeasures, it would have to sustain its attack indefinitely while the tokens would remain spendable in the future when ever the government stopped its attack. The government can't win the war of attrition against the whales, because the government is paying an interest rate to the whales. The governments have tried to do ZIRP but with this they have destroyed themselves (bankrupted pensions, created a massive short on their own solvency, etc).

[dinofelis]

The whales will change the PoW hash over and over as necessary and bankrupt the idiots who attempt that.

They can't do that fast enough, and if you do that 3 times in a row, nobody's gonna trust your thing any more.  20 billions spend on a YEAR of attacks, remember.  If you mess up the block chain for a month or so, the system is entirely dead.  Nobody's going to trust it any more.

It isn't just the cost of the hashrate, those idiots would have to invest in new ASICs designs, build out the economies-of-scale, etc..

That is what the whales would have to do if they want to change hash rate.  That is why their threat wasn't really credible, but just got the miners scared.  If you want to change a PoW scheme that *needs to deliver at the next block 20 billions worth of waste*, you need to have produced already truckloads of ASICS for that change.  If not, you are delivering your change AFTER the attack open to a much much easier attack. 

If ever the system comes up again, for the attacker, rinse and repeat.  Remember that it didn't cost him anything last time, he got his (fiat) money back by shorting.  At a certain point, the whales will run out of ASIC designs.    In fact, the next time, the attacker simply has to announce publicly that he shorts massively and that will be sufficient.

[dinofelis]

The ASIC manufacturers are not going to sell their goods to the government so the government can destroy their market.

Governments are the true makers of the rich elite and always have been.  An asic producer that can sell to government always will.  Hell, he can sell his entire production (larger than the hoped-for market share of "miners") to government, what producer would refuse such a contract ? 

The governments are bankrupt. They can't afford to battle the whales, especially as the whales of crypto grow more wealthy.

Those "whales" are small maffioso with too big egos, and killing a big crypto is lucrative when you know when.  A small-sized war costs more than what is needed to spend on killing a one trillion dollar coin with 2% PoW protection.  The Iraq war has cost the US *directly* one trillion dollars.  What do you think 20 billion with returns would stop them.

Also the whales who want Bitcoin to succeed are the same whales who are engineering the NWO, Basel rounds, and the collapse of the current financial system.

Bitcoin is part of the master plan. They won't kill their own baby.

I really don't believe that.  As I said before, don't put on the back of conspiracy what can be explained by ignorance.  Bitcoin is absolutely no game for the fiat system.  If it stays sufficiently under the radar it may survive, but it will kill itself by PoW inefficiency.