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

[iamnotback]

@dinofelis you are writing nonsense.

The government can't pick a fight with the technological future. They can never win. We can DDoS and otherwise disrupt their systems (not just their mining but all their government operations). They rely on us for all their technological systems, not the other way around.

We can enable PoS and other designs coming. The government has no chance in hell of winning against us. The existence of PoS is enough to deter the government from trying to attack PoW. You see everything has a purpose.

The government is merely a figurehead to fool the masses. The real power is behind the curtain.

The real power wants Nash's ideal money, as a better gold.

You're so afraid of the government. The government is impotent and dying.

You are playing checkers with your analysis and the whales of ideal money are playing N-dimensional chess.

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.

As if anyone trusts the government's IOU shit.

The government's house-of-cards is coming crashing down. There won't be any other choice but ideal money.

The government is slave to the whales of ideal money.

[1714003236]

1714003236

[1714003236]

1714003236

[1714003236]

1714003236

[iamnotback]

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 ?

Nonsense. Why would a manufacturer destroy the technology sector that has orders-of-magnitude more growth ahead. They will resist as best they can, using every clever means they can think of.

Besides as Bitmain shows, the manufacturers are also miners with sunk costs.

I understand you whoreship the governments and don't yet understand that blockchains will change everything. So therefor your perspective is that there is no huge growth coming. But smarter people don't agree with your myopia.

Remember governments are controlled by powerful whales behind the curtain. Ask yourself what do they want? They need a level playing field. The reason they have to control the government is because democracy is a power vacuum. They are forced to fill it. Or otherwise stated, that the masses are cattle that have to managed. They would prefer not to have the problem of dealing with so many nation-state currencies. Of course the entirely corrupted pawns (who do the dirty work for the true power brokers) are irrelevant.

The elite power brokers are instituting a plan to destroy the nation-states and bring in a more objective playing field. That is what the Basel rounds and World Bank are about. They will tighten the noose around the neck of the nation-states and their bankrupted central banks.

The nation-states were given a long rope with which to hang themselves.

[iamnotback]

The reason for the small blocks becomes much clearer.

The power brokers want to keep the general public out of Bitcoin in the future. One of the reasons is so that future regulations of blockchain currencies will not apply to Bitcoin blockchain transactions, because none of us will be able to afford Bitcoin blockchain transactions.

The power brokers are never regulated because they capture the regulators.

The masses will be taxed and regulated on Lightning Networks, other blockchains, and/or systems like SEPA.

Remember government exists to keep the masses under control.

The power brokers need a base financial system in which they can't corrupt it, thus not infighting between themselves. This is the way to organize themselves so they are united so they stop fighting each other via nation-state enclaves.

@dinofelis, the governments are not the power structure. Government is a tragedy-of-the-commons where powerful compete against each other to see which can gain control over the regulators, masses, and economy. The elite have tried to organize themselves to cooperate with some success, but they would prefer an even more objective system of cooperation. This is what Nash's ideal money is. And Bitcoin incarnated.

It is amazing to me that you would think that the elite who created Bitcoin can't afford competency. Boggles my mind that you would think Satoshi was some guy coding in his garage. The elite were aware of Nash's work decades before. They had plenty of time to prepare. They have access to $trillions and can afford the best that money can buy.

Of course Satoshi was made to appear to be some lone guy who was very smart but bumbled a bit. If you can afford the best strategists and psychologists, then they would tell you to create such a persona.

[AngryDwarf]

The reason for the small blocks becomes much clearer.

The power brokers want to keep the general public out of Bitcoin in the future. One of the reasons is so that future regulations of blockchain currencies will not apply to Bitcoin blockchain transactions, because none of us will be able to afford Bitcoin blockchain transactions.

The power brokers are never regulated because they capture the regulators.

The masses will be taxed and regulated on Lightning Networks and other blockchains.

Remember government exists to keep the masses under control.

Yes, this is the outcome I can see from small block sizes and LN:

Forgive me for a rather cynical criticism of your big-block position.

By keeping blocksize small, we limit the blockchain to a high value settlement layer. Small payments can be made through the Lightning Network.
By keeping blocksize small, the fees for moving transactions on the blockchain escalates. This wipes out users of small UTXO's. Only large value BTC holders will be able to open and close a Lightning Network channel.
By keeping blocksize small, we have wiped out the savings of small users. These users are now completely excluded from opening and closing lightning network channels.
To enable small users to use the Lightning Network, we will have to introduce a BTC derivative token which is backed by a big BTC holders reserves.

Basically, LN hubs will become the banking network, and large BTC holders opening channels on the lightning network will become the bankers.
I just can't see the world's population being able to afford to use the settlement blockchain layer at all.

[iamnotback]

Upthread I wrote about another reason the power brokers need small blocks in order to remain in control of the blockchain. Read that post for background details on what I will write below.

But there is always an inviolable flaw with fungible money. And it always finds its way into any fungible money system in some form.

That is that any design for a fungible money system will always be a winner-take-all power vacuum. Bitcoin is no exception. And this is the flaw that @traincarswreck didn't know about.

In Bitcoin's case, I see numerous ways that it is a winner-take-all power vacuum.

As the small block size becomes dominated by power broker transactions, which ever broker pays x% of the fees, they earn x / (100 - x)% more profit per unit of hashrate than other miners (presuming electricity cost is equal), because the power broker can make sure he only sends his transactions to a miner who refunds his fees (or the power broker can run his own mining operation). Thus the power brokers become the miners, but since the one with more percentage will accumulate more percentage faster than the rest, then Bitcoin is a winner-take-all system. Tack on selfish-mining once one entity has 33% and the eventual 51% victory becomes even more accelerated.

If the power brokers had to complete against all the transactions made by the masses, then it would be more difficult for them to accumulate 51%. They would need to somehow be able to manipulate the masses. My project is an attempt to take advantage of this insight. Note PoW can't do it, because unlimited blocksize has no stable fee market security equilibrium. But my project is more than that, because it also will enable widescale knowledge trading (the killer app of blockchains) so while the fungible money aspect will grow, it will grow less than the non-fungible component, thus making humanity immune to the evil of fungible money.

Note that MPEx's system only settled daily and ditto LN's will have long settlement periods, thus my above math works.

Note that in high finance such as MPEx (which was able to accumulate a million Bitcoins), the one with more reserves accumulates more as compared to one with smaller reserves. This is a mathematical fact of finance. And this is another reason that all the Bitcoin will become owned by one entity eventually. This is why Nash's concept was flawed and not objective.

This is why Bitcoin is the system that will bring about 666 and the Revelation. All the fungible money wealth will become concentrated in one whale over time.

The problem is fungible money. It is evil. We must get rid of it. I'll show you how we do this and humankind will become very wealthy. We can defeat the idiocy of the elite. Of course the elite want a winner-take-all. They think the survival-of-the-fittest. What they don't seem to care about is that it means total destruction of humankind. But they apparently don't care about that. They think it is destined and they think there is no more objective system possible. But I think there is a more objective system, not based on fungible money (as I had explained in more detail upthread).


Edit: I want to add that the above logic explains why the power brokers of Bitcoin don't want large blocks, but it doesn't necessary follow that they don't want SegWit and hence LN. However, note that given any finite blocksize chosen (which can't later be increased because protocol changes are a political clusterfuck as I explained upthread), then LN will be forced to large centralized hubs which aggregate settlement back to the blockchain because the blocksize will not be able to accommodate minnows settling on the blockchain. Thus, the centralized hubs will become private fractional reserve banks, and the settlement back to the LN blockchain will become purely symbolic. These centralized hubs would keep their reserves in BTC in any case (because it is the dominant chain) and do their meaningful settlement on the Bitcoin blockchain. In other words, LTC will be only a transactional unit-of-exchange, not a unit-of-account for reserves (a mirror of the situation between gold and silver when they used to be money).

Thus I think the power brokers of Bitcoin will not allow SegWit to activate on Bitcoin because they would not want that transactional settlement noise and the potential bugs it could cause to risk the dominant chains status as the most reliable and dominant chain.

Thus not only do I think Bitcoin will never get larger blocks, I also think Bitcoin will never get SegWit.

[traincarswreck]

Yes, this is the outcome I can see from small block sizes and LN:

Forgive me for a rather cynical criticism of your big-block position.

By keeping blocksize small, we limit the blockchain to a high value settlement layer. Small payments can be made through the Lightning Network.
By keeping blocksize small, the fees for moving transactions on the blockchain escalates. This wipes out users of small UTXO's. Only large value BTC holders will be able to open and close a Lightning Network channel.
By keeping blocksize small, we have wiped out the savings of small users. These users are now completely excluded from opening and closing lightning network channels.
To enable small users to use the Lightning Network, we will have to introduce a BTC derivative token which is backed by a big BTC holders reserves.

Basically, LN hubs will become the banking network, and large BTC holders opening channels on the lightning network will become the bankers.
I just can't see the world's population being able to afford to use the settlement blockchain layer at all.

You have done no math to support your claim that the people will not be able to use an asset divisible to 8 places, as a savings.  Show me that cost that proves it becomes out of reach.

[traincarswreck]

Upthread I wrote about another reason the power brokers need small blocks in order to remain in control of the blockchain. Read that post for background details on what I will write below.

But there is always an inviolable flaw with fungible money. And it always finds its way into any fungible money system in some form.

That is that any design for a fungible money system will always be a winner-take-all power vacuum. Bitcoin is no exception. And this is the flaw that @traincarswreck didn't know about.



The problem is fungible money. It is evil. We must get rid of it. I'll show you how we do this and humankind will become very wealthy. We can defeat the idiocy of the elite. Of course the elite want a winner-take-all. They think the survival-of-the-fittest. What they don't seem to care about is that it means total destruction of humankind. But they apparently don't care about that. They think it is destined and they think there is no more objective system possible. But I think there is a more objective system, not based on fungible money.

You have ranted.  And ranted.  And ranted.  You said fungible money over and over and over.  But it simply means this:

able to replace or be replaced by another identical item; mutually interchangeable.

Which leads to none of the implications you are describing.  I'm not reading post after post after post to try and figure out your mistake.  Give me a proper definition which leads to your conclusion otherwise you are guilty of obfuscation.

This is why Bitcoin is the system that will bring about 666 and the Revelation. All the fungible money wealth will become concentrated in one whale over time.

There is no reveltation.  You simply share an intellectual disease with historical man, which is the belief that some future event should cause us to react today, just like fear of apocalypse, global warming, AI, North Korea, Nuclear war etc....

FUD.  You gotta take the fudster out of your conclusions otherwise no one can have an intellectually grounded dialogue with you.

[AngryDwarf]

Yes, this is the outcome I can see from small block sizes and LN:

Forgive me for a rather cynical criticism of your big-block position.

By keeping blocksize small, we limit the blockchain to a high value settlement layer. Small payments can be made through the Lightning Network.
By keeping blocksize small, the fees for moving transactions on the blockchain escalates. This wipes out users of small UTXO's. Only large value BTC holders will be able to open and close a Lightning Network channel.
By keeping blocksize small, we have wiped out the savings of small users. These users are now completely excluded from opening and closing lightning network channels.
To enable small users to use the Lightning Network, we will have to introduce a BTC derivative token which is backed by a big BTC holders reserves.

Basically, LN hubs will become the banking network, and large BTC holders opening channels on the lightning network will become the bankers.
I just can't see the world's population being able to afford to use the settlement blockchain layer at all.

You have done no math to support your claim that the people will not be able to use an asset divisible to 8 places, as a savings.  Show me that cost that proves it becomes out of reach.

Because the blockchain space market is wiping out people's savings. What is the point of an asset divisible to 8 places, when you cannot afford to move it?

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1827068.msg18196886#msg18196886

[traincarswreck]

Because the blockchain space market is wiping out people's savings. What is the point of an asset divisible to 8 places, when you cannot afford to move it?

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1827068.msg18196886#msg18196886

So you are saying the fee for transactions is EXPECTED to increase over time to eat up people's ability to transact? 

Just so my question is clear...you have shown some wallets are such that they hold less than the cost to transact, have you shown that this trend will increase and never stop?

Miner's are charging based on their costs of production.  Will their costs increase decrease or stay the same over time? And, in regard to scarcity of transactions (ie 3tps), what will this do to the fee market over time? 

Lastly, if bitcoin is so valued by a certain group of people, that they will be an increased amount of fees, who are YOU to point to a smaller group of people, with no value to bring to the system, and fight for their socialistic rights to keep the system for the smaller and lesser economy?

Remember socialism leads to tyranny.

[iamnotback]

You have ranted.  FUD.

Okay so now we see you have no substantive rebuttal to the math I showed:

But there is always an inviolable flaw with fungible money. And it always finds its way into any fungible money system in some form.

That is that any design for a fungible money system will always be a winner-take-all power vacuum. Bitcoin is no exception. And this is the flaw that @traincarswreck didn't know about.

In Bitcoin's case, I see numerous ways that it is a winner-take-all power vacuum.

As the small block size becomes dominated by power broker transactions, which ever broker pays x% of the fees, they earn x / (100 - x)% more profit per unit of hashrate than other miners (presuming electricity cost is equal), because the power broker can make sure he only sends his transactions to a miner who refunds his fees (or the power broker can run his own mining operation). Thus the power brokers become the miners, but since the one with more percentage will accumulate more percentage faster than the rest, then Bitcoin is a winner-take-all system. Tack on selfish-mining once one entity has 33% and the eventual 51% victory becomes even more accelerated.

Which is what I expected, because you are just a pretender and don't even understand math.

All you know is how to write "Nash" and quote some excerpts of his writing. You don't actually know anything.

As for why it is the fungible aspect of money which always causes flaws such as the above, that is a grand proof that I will reserve for later, because it will have more impact later when I am ready to kill Bitcoin.

[Vyrez]

Doesn't that logic collapse on itself?

If one cannot know the objective truth about anything, how can the reasoning that you're using to observe that truth be considered reliable? If all knowledge is unknowable, then reality is an epistemological negative feedback loop. Your theory is self-refuting  Smiley

[iamnotback]

@Vyrez has been put on Ignore for stating nonsense which I had already refuted earlier in the thread. Newbies need to read more and write less.

[traincarswreck]

Which is what I expected, because you are just a pretender and don't even understand math.

All you know is how to write "Nash" and quote some excerpts of his writing. You don't actually know anything.

As for why it is the fungible aspect of money which always causes flaws such as the above, that is a grand proof that I will reserve for later, because it will have more impact later when I am ready to kill Bitcoin.

Like I said if you cannot give a reason for the problem of fungible money then you have done nothing but obfuscate your reasoning.

Which leads to none of the implications you are describing.  I'm not reading post after post after post to try and figure out your mistake.  Give me a proper definition which leads to your conclusion otherwise you are guilty of obfuscation.

you give an argument with no reason or basis.  Who will listen to it?

[Vyrez]

Who cares if they did?



I've already handled this before. It's irrelevant who created it in the end, it is what it is, and it cannot be stopped.

That's the whole point. People misunderstand these megalomaniac, they see them as evil incarnate. Sure they've been sordid as hell in the past, and one could argue that this demonstrates their human fallibility, not their omniscience.



But there's one thing these uber-whales seems to get right consistently: extra long term planning, based entirely on logic. Like their inter-generational wishlist to the Santa Claus of totalitarianism

Examples of Elites planning Long-Term

Monotheistic Religions

From the Pantheon (and Paganism before it), the flocks were led to monotheism. Monotheism was simple organisational logic, it put all the wisdom and authority into a single set of stories, administered by a single, internal hierarchical structure. The Pantheon couldn't confer the hierarchical structure that Monotheism did, simply because it was not hierarchical, the anthropomorphised forces of nature that each deity represented could contradict one another in power plays, as it was a oligarchy, not a monarchy. Monotheism took the power structure and the mythology, and placed it all under a single ruler, "One nation under god".


The Book of Revelation

Written nearly 2 thousand years ago (i.e. not in the gnostic Bibles), predicted today's "mark of the beast" situation, not by divine inspiration, but by logic alone. The merchant's logic told the authors that a system where the control of who is permitted to buy or sell was the ultimate "key to the granaries". It took hundreds of years of refinement, but the ultimate such system is nearly upon us today, in the guise of the sleepwalk into the cashless society (and buttressed by ideas like the PRC's "social credit" system)


Crowleyism

Crowleyism was a smart invention of a British MI6 agent, Aleister Crowley. He basically parodied liberalism into such a cleverly devised caricature that even today people are being expected to believe it (not totally sure how widely believed it really is).

But even for those that do not believe it, Crowleyism is still very powerful, but used still used against disbelievers as a smokescreen. Classic British TV serial "The Prisoner" evokes Crowleyism subtly to associate individualism with Crowleyism (and conservatism). What did the first exhibitor of the JFK assassination Zapruder film footage underground cable news presenter Geraldo Rivera go on to cover in the 1980's? Crowleyism (by way of the "Satanic Panic"). What was Charles Manson associated with subsequent to the Tate murders? Crowleyism. Stanley Kubrick very subtly associates nationalism, liberalism and Crowleyism together in various films. What was British TV personality sir Jimmy Saville associated with shortly after the media coverage of his decades of paedophile rapes and sexual assaults? Crowleyism.

And last but not least, modern Libertarianism has already been conflated with Crowleyism by a veteran of the Libertarian circuit, Doug Casey. And the soft-fascist corporatism we know and love has been given double treatment, whereby soft-fascim is conflated with Liberalism (read the now popular "neo-Liberalism" buzzword), which in turn evokes Crowley's parody of Liberalism and Individualism.

Clever stuff. Essentially, whenever the establishment want to sweep something under the rug, or sully it, they invoke Crowleyism somehow. The world and the child-beings who inhabit it appear to accept this.


These people (like the Rothschilds) are not stupid. They plan very assiduously, and the idea that someone like the Rothschilds funded attempts to create a decentraised cryptocurrency is plainly very plausible. The cypherpunk mailing group discussions that people like Hal Finney, Adam Back and Nick Szabo contributed to were available for all to see, and the evidence that the establishment began to investigate the possibilities of cypherpunkism abound. What does everyone think the ultra-rich powerbrokers do all day, sit around fingering each other's assholes? They plan. And if it's possible, they front-run it, so that they're always the ones who get there first, ready to take first spoils.

Is that proof that some lone individual wasn't Satoshi? No. But just blurting out "it waz The Rothschilds!!!1" is chilidish and without merit or reason. Sure they could have been behind Satoshi, they will have given themselves every opportunity. But one does not become an ultra-rich dynasty without being a realist, which means these people wear many hats, both ruthless and pragmatic alike.

[iamnotback]

you give an argument with no reason or basis.  Who will listen to it?

You are refusing to refute the mathematical basis provided:

Okay so now we see you have no substantive rebuttal to the math I showed:

In Bitcoin's case, I see numerous ways that it is a winner-take-all power vacuum.

As the small block size becomes dominated by power broker transactions, which ever broker pays x% of the fees, they earn x / (100 - x)% more profit per unit of hashrate than other miners (presuming electricity cost is equal), because the power broker can make sure he only sends his transactions to a miner who refunds his fees (or the power broker can run his own mining operation). Thus the power brokers become the miners, but since the one with more percentage will accumulate more percentage faster than the rest, then Bitcoin is a winner-take-all system. Tack on selfish-mining once one entity has 33% and the eventual 51% victory becomes even more accelerated.

The above is math. If you can't see the math above, then it means you are not competent.

[traincarswreck]

I don't understand your words like "power broker" and so i have to traverse your dictionary, which is tiresome.

I notice you give a formula which doesn't not allow for the possibility for a power broker to pay 100% of the fees.

[iamnotback]

I notice you give a formula which doesn't not allow for the possibility for a power broker to pay 100% of the fees.

Okay you just proved you are incompetent. When x = 100, then that entity is the only miner and transactor, which is the ultimate outcome of the math. Thus an infinite relative profit (x / (100 - x)%) is correct, because there is no other entity at that point.

The math is stating that the entity with the largest x, will be more profitable than all others and thus his x always grows faster than any other entity.

As for the term "power broker", use any term you prefer such as 'whales' or any term which describes those who issue the transactions which pay the highest fees and thus can fit into the small blocks (because small blocks limit transactions to those with the highest fees).

[traincarswreck]

Okay you just proved you are incompetent. When x = 100, then that entity is the only miner and transactor, which is the ultimate outcome of the math. Thus an infinite relative profit (x / (100 - x)%) is correct, because there is no other entity at that point.

The math is stating that the entity with the largest x, will be more profitable than all others and thus his x always grows faster than any other entity.

As for the term "power broker", use any term you prefer such as 'whales' or any term which describes those who issue the transactions which pay the highest fees and thus can fit into the small blocks (because small blocks limit transactions to those with the highest fees).

Is it infinite profit or 100% profit?

[iamnotback]

Is it infinite profit or 100% profit?

Infinite relative profit to the other miners, and since at 100% there are no other miners, then yes infinite relative profit.

The key concept is relativity here.

[traincarswreck]

Infinite relative profit to the other miners, and since at 100% there are no other miners, then yes infinite relative profit.

The key concept is relativity here.

And what would happen to the value of the system?