Fuck: SegWit, LN, Blockstream, Core, Adam Back, and GMazwell

[traincarswreck]

Did you even read my analysis? Appeals to authority are not valid in a meritocracy.

I posit that Hayek is incorrect and empirically so from the 1800s example in the USA. Also the economy is fundamentally changing, which is what I explained if you dig down into my recursive links starting from the one I provided to you for your timely edification.

We are moving away from a model where labor was fungible. Have you not read the essay at the top of the Economic Devastation thread written by myself Rise of Knowledge, Demise of [Usury] Finance.

Note I've also copied your thesis to the other thread for discussion there with @dinofelis.

Let the banksters have Buttcoin. We'll build something for us.

If you don't believe in basing your argument in accepted economic theory and scientifically/objectively founded thinking, how much time do you think people will spend reading the words you put together?

[1713891539]

1713891539

[1713891539]

1713891539

[iamnotback]

If you don't believe in basing your argument in accepted economic theory and scientifically/objectively founded thinking, how much time do you think people will spend reading the words you put together?

As if academics could have invented Bitcoin.  

Logic stands on its own. Authority has to rest on valid logic. Refute my logic. Afaics, my logic is consistent with Adam Smith to the extent that his body of work is applicable.

There is always extensive fraud in unregulated fractional reserve banking. The banksters game it and force a default on the nation as they did in the USA. Academics live in glass cathedrals and not in the real world.

[traincarswreck]

As if academics could have invented Bitcoin.  

Logic stands on its own. Authority has to rest on valid logic. Refute my logic. Afaics, my logic is consistent with Adam Smith to the extent that his body of work is applicable.

Bitcoin was obviously created by academics, and is a perfect example of a publically peer reviewed proposal with a proper whitepaper and proper citations, based on other already accepted and understood cryptographically related papers (which themselves do the same).

This is also how logic and reason work.  They are not based on subjective foundation but premises that are founded on insight and discovery from thousands of years of evolution of philosophy.

If you don't ground your arguments in accepted principles and theories, no one will or should pay any attention to them.

And no you are not in line with Smith and you have not cited anything by him and I have.  And I would wager you have not read any of his works but POSSIBLY a few paragraphs.  I have already shown Nash, Szabo, Finney, Hayek directly disagree with your assertions.

[traincarswreck]

get a room you two

^^^This is a troll post.

[iamnotback]

Bitcoin was obviously created by academics,

Not academics who bloviate theories without any empirical results in the real world.

Again what I stated about the 1800s is direct evidence that Hayek was incorrect.

bla bla

You still haven't read my logic and refuted my logic. So are we going to have interesting discussion about logic or are you going to bloviate appeals to authorities who made unproven theories?

[traincarswreck]

Bitcoin was obviously created by academics,

Not academics who bloviate theories without any empirical results in the real world.

Again what I stated about the 1800s is direct evidence that Hayek was incorrect.

bla bla

You still haven't read my logic and refuted my logic. So are we going to have interesting discussion about logic or are you going to bloviate appears to authority who made unproven theories?

No one respectable  or educated will ever take you serious.

[OneUnderBridge]

get a room you two

^^^This is a troll post.

^^^ Reiteration (sorry couldn't help it) manaja twa?

I think that this whole argument is inorganically precipitated. It has to be a form of manipulated chaos designed to set the course of the project into an unforeseen direction guided by only a few insiders. Does it feel that way to anybody else?



 

[iamnotback]

I think that this whole argument is inorganically precipitated. It has to be a form of manipulated chaos designed to set the course of the project into an unforeseen direction guided by only a few insiders. Does it feel that way to anybody else?

Don't take so many drugs son. It's not good for rationality.

There is no collusion. I am genuinely interested in the topics I want to discuss because the outcome of those discussions impact my work and my decisions.

Folks like @dinofelis, @traincarswreck, and myself are just thinking at a very high abstract (and detailed) level, so it may be making your head spin.

[JaredR26]

And while committing logical fallacies and being a jackass, you claim the higher ground.  Nice.

I hate to break it to you, but you are acting like the garbage that you proclaim to abhor.

You're responding to a misinformation agent, a normal person simply doesn't think or respond like that, not with this kind of pattern. If you look beyond the bs he's spewing, you can see his pain, he is obviously someone who is forced to support something he doesn't even believe in, he has no passion, his reply is robotic and he is tired, but he can't stop because it is part of his job and his boss is watching, can you imagine how boring and stressful it is to have to think and respond like a broken robot all the time.

After reading his comments I realized how pointless arguing with him is.  While I think it is far more likely that he is just not intelligent enough to see the flaws in his own posting, I will say his grandiosity and bad behavior is so bad it makes me embarrassed to think that I still support/agree with many of the same things as him.

[traincarswreck]

And while committing logical fallacies and being a jackass, you claim the higher ground.  Nice.

I hate to break it to you, but you are acting like the garbage that you proclaim to abhor.

You're responding to a misinformation agent, a normal person simply doesn't think or respond like that, not with this kind of pattern. If you look beyond the bs he's spewing, you can see his pain, he is obviously someone who is forced to support something he doesn't even believe in, he has no passion, his reply is robotic and he is tired, but he can't stop because it is part of his job and his boss is watching, can you imagine how boring and stressful it is to have to think and respond like a broken robot all the time.

After reading his comments I realized how pointless arguing with him is.  While I think it is far more likely that he is just not intelligent enough to see the flaws in his own posting, I will say his grandiosity and bad behavior is so bad it makes me embarrassed to think that I still support/agree with many of the same things as him.

All I am guilty of is challenging each poster to found their argument in science.  And not a single person here aside from me as done so or claimed to do so.  It's a thread full of people asserting their opinions and not realizing what the purpose of science is.

You clearly show you do not understand what it means to make a proper argument and objective and reasonable posters lurking now have proof of this.

[iamnotback]

And while committing logical fallacies and being a jackass, you claim the higher ground.  Nice.

I hate to break it to you, but you are acting like the garbage that you proclaim to abhor.

You're responding to a misinformation agent, a normal person simply doesn't think or respond like that, not with this kind of pattern. If you look beyond the bs he's spewing, you can see his pain, he is obviously someone who is forced to support something he doesn't even believe in, he has no passion, his reply is robotic and he is tired, but he can't stop because it is part of his job and his boss is watching, can you imagine how boring and stressful it is to have to think and respond like a broken robot all the time.

After reading his comments I realized how pointless arguing with him is.  While I think it is far more likely that he is just not intelligent enough to see the flaws in his own posting, I will say his grandiosity and bad behavior is so bad it makes me embarrassed to think that I still support/agree with many of the same things as him.

He could possibly be a disinformation agent but you are incorrect to state that he is not responding to your arguments with sound logic.

He is an academic who is pointing out some economic theory. He has some valid points, but his mistake is he thinks unregulated fractional reserve banking is not a massive bankster fraud. He doesn't seem to understand how the banksters were able to manipulate the USA economy in the 1800s under the very laissez faire system he is advocating. He thinks competition would somehow violate the power-law distribution of banker power and control. 

[traincarswreck]

He has some valid points, but his mistake is he thinks unregulated fractional reserve banking is not a massive bankster fraud.

Each of the well regarded economic and crypto economic thinkers I quoted and the well founded objective theories they expound on, are based on the premise and implication of the breaking of the monopoly of money supply, and each of them explains an argument that supports each others direction of thinking which is that the ultimate evolution is self regulation of the market and tendency towards Ideal Money.

You cannot point to a time in history pre bitcoin as an example as to why these men's theories don't hold ground, because the theory is predicated on bitcoin as the advent of a money system that breaks the monopoly.

He thinks competition would somehow violate the power-law distribution of banker power and control.

You are no longer only addressing my sentiments but years and years of arguments by Nash Szabo Finney Hayek and Adam Smith. You could never gain any ground in any respected debate as these men are incredibly well respected in their respective fields because their arguments are based on accepted reason and objectively born theories.

[iamnotback]

He has some valid points, but his mistake is he thinks unregulated fractional reserve banking is not a massive bankster fraud.

Each of the well regarded economic and crypto economic thinkers I quoted and the well founded objective theories they expound on, are based on the premise and implication of the breaking of the monopoly of money supply, and each of them explains an argument that supports each others direction of thinking which is that the ultimate evolution is self regulation of the market and tendency towards Ideal Money.

You cannot point to a time in history pre bitcoin as an example as to why these men's theories don't hold ground, because the theory is predicated on bitcoin as the advent of a money system that breaks the monopoly.

And their theory is complete nonsense for the reasons I stated.

[traincarswreck]

And their theory is complete nonsense for the reasons I stated.

Let it be known that this poster hand-waved Nash Szabo Smith Hayek and Finney with subjective drivel not founded in any science or accepted literature/economic theory.

You don't know what science is or what well founded arguments are.  You are simply a loud person on a forum.

[iamnotback]

And their theory is complete nonsense for the reasons I stated.

Let it be known that this poster hand-waved Nash Szabo Smith Hayek and Finney with subjective drivel not founded in any science or accepted literature/economic theory.

You don't know what science is or what well founded arguments are.  You are simply a loud person on a forum.

Where is your argument?

[JaredR26]

Logic stands on its own. Authority has to rest on valid logic. Refute my logic.

Excellent quote, well said.  I want to steal that.

FYI, I disagree with both of you regarding the idea that transaction volume is not essential to Bitcoin's growth because Bitcoin can function like gold.  Many things can function like gold and have attempted to do exactly that over human history.  Despite that, there is only one gold.

Gold's dominance is predicated upon nearly 4000 years of acceptance in every commercially-connected location on the planet - to this day, you can exchange gold for local money in nearly any city at almost the same exchange rate.  Doofus-spammer's theory that Bitcoin doesn't need tx volume because it will function like gold ignores the obvious discrepancy between Bitcoin's 8-year, unstable, and limited-acceptance history and gold's massive scope.

Bitcoin **may** function like gold due to its advantages over gold, but almost any other altcoin could function in the exact same manner and surpass Bitcoin and/or gold.  The competing coins must differentiate themselves, and Bitcoin's best differentiation - the first mover advantage and relatively high stability - will be forced to face off against other competing coin's relative ease of transacting.  If Bitcoin becomes decisively more difficult/costly to transact with than competing coins who replicate all other features that Doofus-spammer's theory relies upon, Bitcoin's first mover effect will be eclipsed, and we will all lose.

Bitcoin is in no position to claim that it can win on its merits simple because gold wins on similar merits.

[iamnotback]

FYI, I disagree with both of you regarding the idea that transaction volume is not essential to Bitcoin's growth because Bitcoin can function like gold.

I didn't make that argument. I'm building an altcoin with unlimited transaction scaling.

But BU will never get you there. All you do is enable the mining cartel to create a billion tokens out of thin air. GLHF (good luck, have fun). If they HF once, they HF what ever is in their interest in the future. You need to identify where the real power is. And it isn't with you all. It is the whales who will decide, whether you like it or not. That is the reality of the PoW. If you don't like it, find a different design that is not PoW.

So either the whales are for BU or they are for Core. And they will decide. I analyzed all the technical and economic game theory in great detail already. The Bitcoin whales have to choose small blocks, else they enable the mining cartel to HF to a billion tokens in the future. They will never allow this. BU will be destroyed if they attempt a HF. All of you who buy the BU token will end up bankrupt.

You've been warned. So don't cry later.

[jonald_fyookball]

Gold's dominance is predicated upon nearly 4000 years of acceptance in every commercially-connected location on the planet - to this day, you can exchange gold for local money in nearly any city at almost the same exchange rate.  Doofus-spammer's theory that Bitcoin doesn't need tx volume because it will function like gold ignores the obvious discrepancy between Bitcoin's 8-year, unstable, and limited-acceptance history and gold's massive scope.
 

Well said.  Bitcoin is only slightly beyond tulip bulbs in the eyes of the old establishment.  Without great utility (fast transactions, low fees) it is highlly unlikely to remain a dominant cryptocurrency, let alone a gold-like store of value.

[traincarswreck]

FYI, I disagree with both of you regarding the idea that transaction volume is not essential to Bitcoin's growth because Bitcoin can function like gold.  Many things can function like gold and have attempted to do exactly that over human history.  Despite that, there is only one gold.

Gold's dominance is predicated upon nearly 4000 years of acceptance in every commercially-connected location on the planet - to this day, you can exchange gold for local money in nearly any city at almost the same exchange rate.  Doofus-spammer's theory that Bitcoin doesn't need tx volume because it will function like gold ignores the obvious discrepancy between Bitcoin's 8-year, unstable, and limited-acceptance history and gold's massive scope.

Bitcoin **may** function like gold due to its advantages over gold, but almost any other altcoin could function in the exact same manner and surpass Bitcoin and/or gold.  The competing coins must differentiate themselves, and Bitcoin's best differentiation - the first mover advantage and relatively high stability - will be forced to face off against other competing coin's relative ease of transacting.  If Bitcoin becomes decisively more difficult/costly to transact with than competing coins who replicate all other features that Doofus-spammer's theory relies upon, Bitcoin's first mover effect will be eclipsed, and we will all lose.

Bitcoin is in no position to claim that it can win on its merits simple because gold wins on similar merits.

There is no argument that bitcoin's 8 years of not having gold's market cap proves it is inferior.  Bitcoin is pretty much the number one rising asset in the world as it has been crushing the usd for a couple years now.

Bitcoin is far cheaper to send than gold and way faster, and so you have said nothing to the limitations of bitcoin.

You haven't understood, described, or attended to the reason gold is so valuable today as an inflation hedge and there is no argument that it is because 4000 years ago it was used as a money.  Gold's value has to do with its cost of production versus supply which puts a natural and predictable throttle on its value proposition from change rapidly.

Bitcoin also has this mechanism which works slightly differently but produces a similar result: predictable supply.

There are other suitable commodities to this regard, and the value which they might transfer based on their weight (ie cost) but there are also reasons that they are not suitable for such a standard which don't apply as weaknesses/limitations to bitcoin (as described by John Nash):

It is a coincidental fact that the inherent nature of mining and mining technology makes it possible for the prices of certain commodities that are produced as a result of the devotion of labor and capital to the effort of mining to increase less (or decrease more) than might be expected.  There is a “dimension paradox”: Agricultural products are produced by using the two-dimensional resource of the earth surface, so the “disappearing frontier” creates a limitation. In contrast, some mining, particularly for elemental metals, can essentially be done in three dimensions, although, of course, there are increasing costs for deep digging. So, really there is lots and lots of gold, silver, platinum, tungtsten, and so forth out there and more can be found by digging deeper.

If we then consider which commodities would be optimally suitable for providing a basis for a means of transferring utility, and if we specifically consider the possibility that the trading partners may be located in different nations and perhaps on different continents, than the suitability of such commodities with regard to the ideal function of facilitating utility transfer depends on the extent to which such a commodity seems to have a value independent of its geographical location.

Clearly, in terms of this geographical perspective, gold has historically been optimal, largely because the labor cost of moving it over great distances is so small relative to the value of what is being transported.  Thus, gold formed a very efficiently movable medium for the transportation of a value exchangeable for other values, ultimately deriving, in one way or another, from human labor (with the achievements of warriors here also being viewed as involving labor).

Nowadays, however, few would propose a return to the actual use of simply the metal gold as a standard, for the following reasons.

(i) The cost of mining gold effectively does depend on the technology. Recent cyanide leaching techniques have made it possible again to profitability mind gold at formerly abandoned sites in the U.S. so that it is now a big producer.  However, the unpredictability of the cost is a negative factor.

(ii) The location of potential gold-mining locations may not be “politically appealing.” so it would seem undesirable to make a political choice to enhance the economic importance of those particular areas.

(iii) There is some negative psychology about gold such tat even if it were the most logical choice after all, the unpopularity of the idea could be very obstructive.

However, right now platinum would be even better than gold, because it has more value per unit of weight.

Crude petroleum could also be used for barter transactions, and in view of the present state of the global economy it would seem a proper component of an index of prices of internationally traded commodities that enter into the costs of industrial consumption.

[traincarswreck]

Well said.  Bitcoin is only slightly beyond tulip bulbs in the eyes of the old establishment.  Without great utility (fast transactions, low fees) it is highly unlikely to remain a dominant cryptocurrency, let alone a gold-like store of value.

This is a sentiment not derived from any scientifically founded theory.  It's a myth you keep repeating with nothing to support such a claim.