Where are you 'Iamnotback'?

[the_end_is_near]

The truth is, I don't even know what math you are talking about nor did I ever (you can quote me if you like) argue about your math.

You can't respond to the logic without responding to the math. So since you are not responding to the math, then your argument has no merit.

The reason is because Bitcoin can't magically become something which the economics dictate that it can't be. Bitcoin was designed with a given economics that dictate what it is and will progress to.

Bitcoin as I personally understand it, will be BOTH regulated and centralized, and nobody will be exempted from it, not the $millionaires and not the $billionaires.

…

Bitcoin will be the Mark of the Beast.

…

Fewer still (among the few) see it as a digital/online tracking/surveillance system/network.

You will not buy nor sell without the Mark of the Beast, regardless of the fee that you are paying.

The 666 outcome can happen without violating what Bitcoin is designed to be. Bitcoin is designed so the shadow elite have a better gold to avoid regulations in the coming NWO system. The minnows won't be allowed onto this unregulated escape. And the $millionaires (dolphins) will be bleed to death by egregious transaction fees to be able to transact on this privileged system.

The masses (like you and I) will be pushed off chain (LN on Litecoin probably) regulated systems where the 666 outcome will take place.

Blockchains are not able to be regulated by nation-states because the blockchain is global and nation-states can only regulate what is inside their borders. Don't conflate blockchains with centralized exchanges. Whereas, off chain LN "banks" can be regulated by the existing banking regulation systems, because most people will have an account on one of these Mt.Box "banks".

What I have explained is the most counter-intuitive and thus according to Szabo's Law of Dominant Paradigm, my math analysis is the correct one, as it is the least understood by most people, i.e. what I have explained is only known by the few (myself only?) who are expert enough.

@Dorky, you should learn to pay attention and stop missing out on my expertise. I say that not as a loud display to be boastful. I am simply trying to help you and others stop being blind. But as I wrote upthread, I realize this is a futile activity on my part and I am disengaging. Hey I offered you one final chance to open your eyes.

The 666 scenario would make sense if Bitcoin sustains an injury where it is thought to be defeated, yet comes back to function as the elite platform which is given back authority by Litecoin

That is a possible Biblical interpretation.

[1715022133]

1715022133

[1715022133]

1715022133

[1715022133]

1715022133

[1715022133]

1715022133

[1715022133]

1715022133

[mprep]

Reminder to all: this thread is meant for discussing about iamnotback's (and his alts') ban(s) and topics directly surrounding it (his actions, forum policy, rules, positive, neutral or negative opinions about said topics), NOT to speculate about LTC's price or anything else. To iamnotback: you're allowed to talk about your ban (and the aforementioned directly related topics) in Meta and that's it - discussing about topics unrelated to it (again, LTC price predictions) is considered ban evasion.

[the_end_is_near]

Reminder to all: this thread is meant for discussing about iamnotback's (and his alts') ban(s) and topics directly surrounding it (his actions, forum policy, rules, positive, neutral or negative opinions about said topics), NOT to speculate about LTC's price or anything else. To iamnotback: you're allowed to talk about your ban (and the aforementioned directly related topics) in Meta and that's it - discussing about topics unrelated to it (again, LTC price predictions) is considered ban evasion.

I see you deleted more posts from this thread. All the deleted posts are still available on the archive or a prior days archive which are being recorded to document your corrupt insanity.

Btw, multiple highly respected members of this forum are telling me in PMs that they are giving up on BCT and that mods have become unreasonable and the SNR is too high. They say they will continue to read my posts where ever I end up writing.

You're destroying your own forum.

[Traxo]

Reminder to all: this thread is meant for discussing about iamnotback's (and his alts') ban(s) and topics directly surrounding it (his actions, forum policy, rules, positive, neutral or negative opinions about said topics), NOT to speculate about LTC's price or anything else. To iamnotback: you're allowed to talk about your ban (and the aforementioned directly related topics) in Meta and that's it - discussing about topics unrelated to it (again, LTC price predictions) is considered ban evasion.

Food for thought: I think majority of people reading this thread is here to read what @iamnotback has to say, and not how you execute censorship.

[mprep]

Reminder to all: this thread is meant for discussing about iamnotback's (and his alts') ban(s) and topics directly surrounding it (his actions, forum policy, rules, positive, neutral or negative opinions about said topics), NOT to speculate about LTC's price or anything else. To iamnotback: you're allowed to talk about your ban (and the aforementioned directly related topics) in Meta and that's it - discussing about topics unrelated to it (again, LTC price predictions) is considered ban evasion.

Food for thought: I think majority of people reading this thread is here to read what @iamnotback has to say, and not how you execute censorship.

None of my concern. The topic's clear ("Where are you 'Iamnotback'?", not "What does iamnotback have to say about LTC price?") and him discussing LTC price changes is ban evasion. He's free to complain how the moderation team is the literal devil in this thread all he wants, but he's still banned from participating in other discussions within this forum.

Even though quite a few of you don't care, the forum still has rules (explanation of rule from https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=703657.0):

25. If you get banned (temporary or permanently) and create a new account to continue posting / sending PMs, it's considered ban evasion. The only exception is creating a thread in Meta about your ban.

[the_end_is_near]

Though quite a few of you don't care, the rules still apply:

25. If you get banned (temporary or permanently) and create a new account to continue posting / sending PMs, it's considered ban evasion. The only exception is creating a thread in Meta about your ban.

You're inane rules which nobody important cares to follow (that's why they no longer post on BCT much at all) are simply banning BCT from the future use by those superstars who the flock will gravitate to.

You continue on with your worst-than-useless, self-destructive activity right into the twilight of the irrelevance and usership of closed-source, top-down controlled paradigms such as AOL.

Most likely you'll remain the smug (“for the lolz”) prick that you are until you are the last user of the system moderating yourself.

I remember I figured out when I was in my early teens that every prick who wanted to fuck with others aspired to a position of corrupt privileged authority such as being a policeman.

It was about then that I realized my life mission would be to disruptively destroy the paradigms of top-down control. I am age 52 this June and still working on my fundamental ambition.

In a world of peaches, don't ask for apple sauce

As I surmised before, you are a follower who lives in the status quo, not a leader nor visionary. But you did also admit upthread, that you enjoy your position of authority because it allows you to be a "for the lolz" prick B-lister and as you stated (and fucking with the serious work of others which you misinterpret to be egotistical because you're offended by your perception of ego as all B-listers do):

No, I'm pissing off a condescending, self-entitled troll … gotta feed that over-inflated ego, amirite?

I'm merely having fun with someone who's of above average intelligence yet thinks he's a visionary genius.

…

My work can be seen in the shit I clean every day, dropped by serial visionaries like you … my thorough annoyance and dislike towards people like you - vain, egoistic lunatics, who think they're hot shit, just because they achieved something in life. News flash: to me, you're just another guy dragging his ass across the floor I try to keep clean for people who actually enjoy being here.

Btw, I had missed this comment before:

Sure, not like any of the massive crypto business (such as the biggest exchanges, major altcoins, etc.) have a thread here. /s

They do not primary rely on BCT for their communication medium. They do not invest a large amount in BCT. They invest the minimum they need to in order to siphon off any value they can extract and take out of the BCT ecosystem. They are not investing in the ecosystem but rather extracting from it.

If they were investing it, you'd see them creating apps, conspicuously promoting a link to the BCT page on their website (or even embedding the forum content into their website seamlessly if Theymos even had a clue about technology), etc. for it, i.e. actually investing.

Theymos doesn't have a clue about how to build network effects, thus the market is wide open ripe for the taking. I have experience at this.

[Traxo]

25. If you get banned (temporary or permanently) and create a new account to continue posting / sending PMs, it's considered ban evasion. The only exception is creating a thread in Meta about your ban.

Say what? 

[minifrij]

Say what? 

Believe it or not, if you continue to use the forum as normal after being banned, you're then evading that ban.
If Ban Evasion wasn't an enforceable rule, then there would be no point on ever banning anyone.

[the_end_is_near]

Say what?  

Believe it or not, if you continue to use the forum as normal after being banned, you're then evading that ban.
If Ban Evasion wasn't an enforceable rule, then there would be no point on ever banning anyone.

His point is that banning public posts is a sufficient punishment, and moderation doesn't even apply to private communication between consenting parties.

Banning PMs (as a punishment inducement to follow policies on public posts) is totalitarianism which is antithetical to the concept of the Internet, decentralized money, etc.. It's as laughable and ignorable as mass media creating paywalls to destroy their readership. We'll simply say "no thanks" and route around the failure. (It is as if Theymos doesn't understand that we have 100s of options for communication these days, it isn't like he can sustain the illusionary monopoly that he thinks he has).

Also that rule exhibits that Theymos has a Hitler control freak fetish, which btw he has been accused of on Reddit as well for deleting all posts about Bitcoin Classic.

If this problem I have with Theymos was just small misunderstanding, then yes we could try to understand each other and find a way to work it out. But the problem is more fundamental than that. The East Germans couldn't just agree to cope with the system, they had to tear down the Berlin wall.

[minifrij]

His point is that banning public posts is a sufficient punishment, and moderation doesn't even apply to private communication between consenting parties.

If you have broken the rules of a specific website, what obligation does that website then have to facilitate anything for you?

Banning PMs (as a punishment inducement to follow policies on public posts) is totalitarianism which is antithetical to the concept of the Internet, decentralized money, etc.. It's as laughable and ignorable as mass media creating paywalls to destroy their readership. We'll simply say "no thanks" and route around the failure. (It is as if Theymos doesn't understand that we have 100s of options for communication these days, it isn't like he can sustain the illusionary monopoly that he thinks he has).

Precisely. If someone has had to have been forcefully removed from participating in a forum I see no reason for said forum to use it's resources to help that someone to communicate, especially so when there are 100s of other (possibly easier) options for doing so.

If this problem I have with Theymos was just small misunderstanding, then yes we could try to understand each other and find a way to work it out.

If you can find a method of contacting theymos and have him listen to the problems involving this forum then you will be even more sought after than it already seems you are. theymos doesn't care.

[the_end_is_near]

His point is that banning public posts is a sufficient punishment, and moderation doesn't even apply to private communication between consenting parties.

If you have broken the rules of a specific website, what obligation does that website then have to facilitate anything for you?

Vindictiveness is not an attribute that coincides with the successful.

Also inane laws tend to be unenforceable. If the community doesn't think they are benefiting from the derelict rules, the community will route around the failure.

Banning PMs (as a punishment inducement to follow policies on public posts) is totalitarianism which is antithetical to the concept of the Internet, decentralized money, etc.. It's as laughable and ignorable as mass media creating paywalls to destroy their readership. We'll simply say "no thanks" and route around the failure. (It is as if Theymos doesn't understand that we have 100s of options for communication these days, it isn't like he can sustain the illusionary monopoly that he thinks he has).

Precisely. If someone has had to have been forcefully removed from participating in a forum I see no reason for said forum to use it's resources to help that someone to communicate, especially so when there are 100s of other (possibly easier) options for doing so.

The resources consumed by PMs are less than a grain of sand at the beach compared to the revenues from advertising.

This is supposed to be the official forum for an open source Bitcoin which were mislead to believe no one controls. Theymos has a privileged position of receiving revenues from this and it behooves him to not do unnecessary vindictiveness which could incite the community to fork off.

For when we do finally fork off, the fork will be far superior and Theymos' forum will wither away and he will lose everything.

Vindictiveness is not a wise strategy.

Additionally, this was not a case of "had to have been forcefully removed". As it was explained to Theymos and @mprep upthread, there was no compelling reason. It's all just batshit insane.

If this problem I have with Theymos was just small misunderstanding, then yes we could try to understand each other and find a way to work it out.

If you can find a method of contacting theymos and have him listen to the problems involving this forum then you will be even more sought after than it already seems you are. theymos doesn't care.

The smug confidence right before the fall off the cliff.

Did you not notice that Theymos posted in this thread.

And yes we know he doesn't care. He took all the BTC donations apparently promising to upgrade the forum software, then never did.

Are you somehow affiliated with the corruption?


Edit: I think the bottom line is that some of us are really not happy with the feature set of this forum. We've been trying to cope with it in varying degrees of disgust. In my case, I am a prolific poster, thus I am the point man (the martry or leader who takes the first bullets) for the problem at hand.

I think it is silly that we continue to argue. Those of you who are satisfied with BCT, then stay here. Those who are not, I may try to help us get what we want.

Then we can compare relative success from that point forward.

Competition is the best way to settle disputes. Butthurts so good is the way to admonish the vindictive pricks in the most satisfying but not revengeful manner. They can always come join the new party with their tail between their legs having their power castrated (the power granted to them their former corrupt regime).

I think it is very difficult for someone who is not a prolific, controversial poster to put themselves in the shoes of the person who is. I am so tired of having to fend off all the crab bucket mentality trolls, the threat of content being suddenly deleted makes the site not a reliable archive of content, thus it is really pointless to continue posting. Why would any one use a system which was so inefficient for them. BCT may be adequate for others and they may not have any compelling needs that are unmet by BCT. I don't really see a problem, as those of us who are unsatisfied can fork off.

However, I am saying that I detest the paradigm that is BCT and of course I think in the end most people will choose to move to a system that has a higher SNR and where the crab bucket mentality, vindictive shit can be filtered out more efficiently without censoring the data entirely (so that everyone has the freedom to read what they want and post what they want).

I am a teenage web developer from the UK.

[minifrij]

The smug confidence right before the fall off the cliff.
Did you not notice that Theymos posted in this thread.

theymos being here doesn't mean he will listen and fix any complaints that you bring up. Proof of this is in the blatant spam problem and inane account recovery system.

And yes we know he doesn't care. He took all the BTC donations apparently promising to upgrade the forum software, then never did.

This software is still in development, granted he is deciding to piss away hundreds of thousands of dollars while this development continues.

Are you somehow affiliated with the corruption?

I'm not sure how you came to this conclusion, but no. I don't have any say in the moderation or administration of this forum past the Report feature.

I think it is silly that we continue to argue. Those of you who are satisfied with BCT, then stay here. Those who are not, I may try to help us get what we want.

Agreed, I won't be posting in this thread again unless addressed. Best of luck with your project.

[Dorky]

You can't respond to the logic without responding to the math. So since you are not responding to the math, then your argument has no merit.

The reason is because Bitcoin can't magically become something which the economics dictate that it can't be. Bitcoin was designed with a given economics that dictate what it is and will progress to.

1. What you said in 1st sentence is utter nonsense. Math is valid only after you know the whole picture, and use math to explain it. You don't try to use math on something you understand fractionally and claim your math holds the truth.
2. The 2nd sentence of yours is also nonsense by implying you already know the future based on Bitcoin's math.

The 666 outcome can happen without violating what Bitcoin is designed to be. Bitcoin is designed so the shadow elite have a better gold to avoid regulations in the coming NWO system. The minnows won't be allowed onto this unregulated escape. And the $millionaires (dolphins) will be bleed to death by egregious transaction fees to be able to transact on this privileged system.

Now this sets me apart from you. You don't know the shadow elites do NOT need bitcoin to avoid regulation. The fact that you think they need bitcoin to avoid regulation (or need anything to avoid regulation itself) means you are not really a savvy person to discuss about the shadow elites. I never say 666 outcome will violate bitcoin. Bitcoin is mark of 666. There is no need for self-violation.

The masses (like you and I) will be pushed off chain (LN on Litecoin probably) regulated systems where the 666 outcome will take place.

You will be wrong on this. It won't take long for this to play out. By then, you will disappear from the forum.

Blockchains are not able to be regulated by nation-states because the blockchain is global and nation-states can only regulate what is inside their borders. Don't conflate blockchains with centralized exchanges. Whereas, off chain LN "banks" can be regulated by the existing banking regulation systems, because most people will have an account on one of these Mt.Box "banks".

This implies you do NOT understand how the shadow elites will use bitcoin/blockchain to regulate us. And what you are saying about people getting regulated because they have account on the Mt. Gox "banks" is utterly untrue. It shows your ignorance.

What I have explained is the most counter-intuitive and thus according to Szabo's Law of Dominant Paradigm, my math analysis is the correct one, as it is the least understood by most people, i.e. what I have explained is only known by the few (myself only?) who are expert enough.

I have no interest to look into your math. Only you have interest in your own work.

Given opposing opinions with equal evidence in their favor, the less popular opinion is more likely to be correct.

You can bet my opinion is the least popular and most against by most people.


@Dorky, you should learn to pay attention and stop missing out on my expertise. I say that not as a loud display to be boastful. I am simply trying to help you and others stop being blind. But as I wrote upthread, I realize this is a futile activity on my part and I am disengaging. Hey I offered you one final chance to open your eyes.

@iamnotback, what is your expertise? A PhD in math? A PhD in critical thinking? A psychic? You may think I need you to survive the future but that's like I saying you need me to survive the future. Both are equally BS. But at least I am not the one uttering the BS. I don't know how to make a retard like you understand. If I say I don't need your expertise, you may think I am stupid/foolish. But then if I say the exact same thing to you (that you need my expertise), you may say I am an idiot. But then if I say I need your expertise, you will say I am smart. So can you see where this kind of one-sided thought process of yours is heading? Utterly foolish, boastful and egoistic. You need my guidance. But you need to submit to me first.

The 666 scenario would make sense if Bitcoin sustains an injury where it is thought to be defeated, yet comes back to function as the elite platform which is given back authority by Litecoin

That is a possible Biblical interpretation.

That clearly shows you don't really know the shadow elites, nor the Bible, nor bitcoin. Do you even know who/what is the Beast? You are more dumb than I thought.

Bitcoin is the ONE AND ONLY digital currency of choice. Not litecoin. Not monero/dash. Not even ethereum.
You can contradict me all you like with your smartness, but its not like you really know, or going to succeed.

[the_end_is_near]

You don't know the shadow elites do NOT need bitcoin to avoid regulation.

Yes they do because they need to quietly obscure their power so they will commingle their transactions with the dolphins.

Have you forgotten what David Rockefeller said about the importance of discretion. Rothschilds achieved his original fortune by employing deception.

You don’t seem to understand that if the dolphins united, they could defeat the shadow elite, so the discretion must be employed until the next NWO stage is achieved then the power can become more overt.

This implies you do NOT understand how the shadow elites will use bitcoin/blockchain to regulate us. And what you are saying about people getting regulated because they have account on the Mt. Gox "banks" is utterly untrue.

The dolphins ($millionaires or $billionaires now, $billionaires as BTC appreciates) will be on chain in Bitcoin and they are the high priority for digital tracking on chain since they are next rung below the shadow elite whale $trillionaires.

The minnows are to be destroyed by their own nation-states as the nation-states collapse giving way to the NWO, so putting them off chain, regulated on LN where their nation-states can tax and confiscate them.

Yes ultimately everyone who survives the nation-state collapse into the 10 Kings regions will be on chain, but that is later when the NWO is established.

We have stages to go through first.

Dorky the chart of reality refutes you:

https://bitinfocharts.com/comparison/transactionfees-btc.html

P.S. I will not reply again to you on this topic of discussion about Bitcoin’s future transaction fees. Let this die now please. You may have the last word.


Edit: we are having a discussion over at slack and Craig Wright (@csw) the self-proclaimed Satoshi Nakamoto is participating. I am posting there as @anonymint. In the discussion, @macsga wrote:

macsga [10:47 PM]
no bans here
 
we banned Thermos
 
anonymint [10:47 PM]

Lol. +1

The entire discussion in context (and this pastebin will be updated if @csw replies):

https://pastebin.com/S6quvGMk

Code: (https://pastebin.com/S6quvGMk)

csw [9:49 PM] 
https://web.archive.org/web/20160502203742/http://www.drcraigwright.net/tulips-myths/
Dr. Craig Wright Blog
Tulips and other myths - Dr. Craig Wright Blog
What common knowledge tells us and the truth of a matter is not always the same thing. One example is the relationship between tulips and economies.
April 26th, 2016 at 10:54 AM
 

[9:50] 
Don't always believe what you are told.


zillionaire [9:52 PM] 
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11127-006-9074-4
SpringerLink
The tulipmania: Fact or artifact?
The famous tulipmania, which saw the reported prices of several breeds of tulip bulbs rise to above the value of a furnished luxury house in 17th century Amsterdam, was an artifact created by an impli
 

fatman3001 [9:52 PM] 
_"I think the three years core has stalled on chain development is a failure of their leadership"_
It's not leadership at all, and they're proud of it. They think it's some free flowing wishy washy approach for hippie anarcaps, but in reality it just means the ones who shout the loudest are the ones who are heard. Kind of like Gavin said it would be. Where is Gavin btw?

tomothy 
[9:55 PM] 
The reaction to bcoin and parity, in my opinion, illustrates that it's not about what's best for the market or for bitcoin, but blockstream/core. Anything perceived as a threat to that power structure is attacked and undermined. There wasn't any constructive feedback or discourse. Simply, "BAD! BAD BAD!" It demonstrates that something's rotten, to the core. (edited)


klee [9:56 PM] 
They bullied Sergio from Rootstock FOR FUCK's SAKE

fatman3001 [9:57 PM] 
Posted a question in the SegWit Q&A thread. I've asked before without much luck.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1682183.msg18900818#msg18900818
bitcointalk.org
Post your SegWit questions here - open discussion - big week for Bitcoin!
Post your SegWit questions here - open discussion - big week for Bitcoin!

klee [9:57 PM] 
not to mention Emin...

zillionaire [9:57 PM] 
is Emir Gun on core side?

tomothy 
[9:57 PM] 
The reason for my vitriolic response is that i saw how f2pool flipped after being attacked for supporting scaling. Would they flip again if they were attacked for not supporting scaling? These actions skew the economic market. Like someone playing pinball and tilting the machine. (edited)

klee [9:57 PM] 
NO

[9:57] 
he got bullied too

[9:58] 
and trolled hard

tomothy 
[9:58 PM] 
Emin is more independent than most imho.

[9:59] 
Hence I think he could be an interesting person to conduct studies or a student under. His neutral to bigger blocks and hated by core. Good enough.

zillionaire [9:59 PM] 
we should have chief of propaganda lol.

tomothy 
[9:59 PM] 
No. That's a waste of resources.

[10:00] 
You'd be better off hiring a similar troll army.

zillionaire [10:00 PM] 
have some bot posting the same thing, banhammer lol

anonymint [10:03 PM] 
joined private by invitation from @zillionaire

vlad2vlad [10:04 PM] 
@zillionaire  I've been calling myself minister of propaganda for iXcoin.  So I agree.  Core has theirs - we should have ours.  :)

[10:05] 
@anonymint !!!!  Been looking for you?!!!

newliberty [10:05 PM] 
Balancing core is beneath our dignity.


vlad2vlad [10:05 PM] 
Lol.  True story!!! ^^^^

[10:06] 
Core needs to be disassembled.  Enough wasted time.

tomothy 
[10:07 PM] 
Hey anonyumint, welcome. LOL

newliberty [10:09 PM] 
@anonymint take notice of the pinned statements from @csw which presents a funded research offer.  It might be something you could dig your teeth into.


macsga [10:09 PM] 
@anonymint welcome buddy

[10:09] 
enjoy your stay

anonymint [10:10 PM] 
Someone share this with me, https://pastebin.com/TZY4aQU0 and also some other ideas from csw about how to scale Bitcoin by employing merchants as miners.
Pastebin
The Challenge - Pastebin.com (19kB)

vlad2vlad [10:10 PM] 
What do you think about that, @anonymint ?

anonymint [10:11 PM] 
Well @illodin also pointed out to me that csw seems to regurgitating the concerns Peter Todd wrote: https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-December/012103.html

newliberty [10:13 PM] 
Todd's is a thought paper, the proposal is for demonstrating it with evidence.

cypherblock [10:13 PM] 
yes csw posted link to that a while back

anonymint [10:19 PM] 
It seems to be true that with SegWit, the minority miners who don't often win their own blocks, have an incentive to mine without validating, so they can decrease their losses due to mining sooner on the next block by not needing to wait for the propagation of witness data and validation delay. However, my thought is they can begin mining on the next block trusting without the witness data, but statistically they will nearly always have received the witness data and validated it long before they actually find a block solution. So from a theoretical standpoint, I am not understanding the big threat. Additionally, the majority hash rate miners (later we will get into why hashrate will always be centralized) will see their own blocks instantly thus they know they are validated. If the majority hashrate miners want to collude and do malfeasance, they already can with a 51% attack without SegWit. What am I missing?

2 replies Last reply today at 1:50 AM View thread

tomothy 
[10:20 PM] 
Incentive also to Mine non valididated blocks?

pesa [10:20 PM] 
joined private by invitation from @tomothy

anonymint [10:20 PM] 
Nice to see you again macsga.

vlad2vlad [10:20 PM] 
@anonymint  I didn't even finish reading your sausage message yet feel like you should win Satoshi's £36.000.  Where should I sent it?

tomothy 
[10:20 PM] 
Afrokoin is pesa

[10:20] 
Spelling my bad

vlad2vlad [10:21 PM] 
Ohhh, just realized Dr. Wright strapped me down with multi-sig.  He saw this coming.  :)

anonymint [10:21 PM] 
Lol.

vlad2vlad [10:24 PM] 
We're getting world class people in this room.

hankdasilva [10:25 PM] 
csw said that he visions 100 000 nodes (merchants?) mining, did he explain why they would be mining as they can't possible compete against large mining farms located next to power plants thus mining at a loss

macsga [10:26 PM] 
world class yes

[10:28] 
@anonymint got it immediately

tomothy 
[10:28 PM] 
Hankdasilva, I think it's the assumption that they want to support and include their own txs and security of them. I.e., Toyota finance, selling cars or leases, they want those txs secure and confirmed

macsga [10:28 PM] 
we didn't have to argue about it

vlad2vlad [10:28 PM] 
Mining nodes = profit sharing.

[10:29] 
@tomothy  yes, PLUS profit sharing

tomothy 
[10:30 PM] 
I mean, a supermarket POS upgrade is like 2-10kish the idea was $20k hardware... And yeah they can get their own fees back in return

[10:31] 
I know theirs been talk of working with excess power generators on off time and mining with older hardware. Certain niches have an incentive to use excess supply

hankdasilva [10:32 PM] 
if there are 100 000 merchanst mining then on average it takes 100 000 blocks to include their tx in a block if that's the reason for them mining in the first place, I'm confused (edited)

anonymint [10:33 PM] 
@hankdasilva is my sockpuppet, lol. Well almost. Good job!

hankdasilva [10:34 PM] 
yeah, except I'm almost always confused lol

tomothy 
[10:36 PM] 
But that's based on current size constraints right? What if there is no block size limit?

[10:37] 
They're not trying to make money, merchants pay in average 3% of every cc txs. But it helps offset costs.

[10:37] 
At least that was my interpretation. Phones dying. Back later lol.

cryptorebel [10:40 PM] 
@hankdasilva some people think mining will become more decentralized over time: https://medium.com/@lopp/the-future-of-bitcoin-mining-ac9c3dc39c60
Medium
The Future of Bitcoin Mining – Jameson Lopp – Medium
Speculation about long-term changes to the dynamics of who and why people will mine bitcoins.
Reading time
----------------
8 min read

(401kB)
Dec 19th, 2015 at 10:19 PM

macsga [10:40 PM] 
I was away for a couple of hours guys, do we have any takers on the challenge?

[10:40] 
maybe @anonymint should be the supervisor of the team to test the hypothesis

anonymint [10:40 PM] 
Although afaics SegWit does partially ameliorate the advantage that centralized mining has over minority miners in terms of being able to start mining sooner on the next block due to propagation and validation delay, it doesn’t eliminate all the economy-of-scale advantages that drive centralization of PoW mining. In addition to economies-of-scale on electricity costs and being able to locate next to the lowest cost sources (or even perhaps corruption of having political connections to get utility power at below cost), economies-of-scale on hardware acquisition and being first to get new hardware, perhaps one of the most salient factors is that there are only two 14nm fabs in the world. So this tells me that the shadow elite control Bitcoin via Bitmain and their indirect control over large Capex infrastructure such as these two 14nm fabs.

zillionaire [10:42 PM] 
Damn ... I didn't know what I did but now I know ...

vlad2vlad [10:44 PM] 
@anonymint  "Although afaics SegWit does partially ameliorate the advantage that..."

AmelioWhat?  Stop that Anonymint.

anonymint [10:45 PM] 
Also recently I explained that the whales and the miners are the same economic entity:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1887077.msg18859434#msg18859434
And they have no incentive to ever allow large blocks.
bitcointalk.org
Where are you 'Iamnotback'?
Where are you 'Iamnotback'?

klee [10:45 PM] 
So BU does not actually want big blocks?

anonymint [10:46 PM] 
No. It was only a PR game by Bitmain.

tomothy 
[10:46 PM] 
No. That's insane.

macsga [10:46 PM] 
that explains it all

tomothy 
[10:46 PM] 
Will respond later.

macsga [10:47 PM] 
I knew there was a conspiracy somewhere

anonymint [10:47 PM] 
Please don’t ban me. :stuck_out_tongue_winking_eye:

macsga [10:47 PM] 
no bans here

[10:47] 
we banned Thermos

anonymint [10:47 PM] 
Lol. +1

klee [10:47 PM] 
Interesting theory, seriously

anonymint [10:48 PM] 
Somebody please give me a pastebin of this when we are done.

pesa [10:51 PM] 
+1 me too. pastebin much better for tldr

zbingledack [10:51 PM] 
Transacting on a soon-to-be dead chain seems pretty uninteresting for most whales, as does mining on such a chain.

[10:53] 
Much more interesting to make profits from new investors because the chain is usable and grows

cryptorebel [10:53 PM] 
I made a pastebin from when craig popped in earlier: https://pastebin.com/Wa1CMM1E
Pastebin
private by invitation from @jp  zbingledack  7:48 AM  @andy He was on the BU sla - Pastebin.com (19kB)

[10:53] 
but I didn't make it public, don't feel comfortable making everything public

macsga [10:54 PM] 
good thing @cryptorebel

fatman3001 [10:54 PM] 
Anonymint?
https://media.tenor.co/images/9d06a86bdcd648c964e322559fdd3b80/tenor.gif (1MB)

macsga [10:54 PM] 
we don't want the man out of here

cryptorebel [10:54 PM] 
yeah true

anonymint [10:56 PM] 
I didn’t read the policies when I joined. Are we restricted or encouraged not to share this chat publicly?

fatman3001 [10:56 PM] 
Restricted

cryptorebel [10:56 PM] 
not sure, it does say the channel is not actually private

zbingledack [10:56 PM] 
Impossible to enforce anything like that

cryptorebel [10:57 PM] 
I was thinking maybe it would be good to make the chat public somehow, with a bot linked to IRC or something, then public can view, but trolls cant disrupt the discussion


klee [10:57 PM] 
no need for restrictions I think, it is private in a sense to cut the trolls


zbingledack [10:57 PM] 
The point of making it private is to keep it readable

macsga [10:58 PM] 
^this

vlad2vlad [10:59 PM] 
The assumption is the only way for a mining node to be profitable is as they are now.

100,000 merchants. Plus.

They have their own reasons and methods...

We will explain how in time... but no Protocol change needed other than the cap
  

macsga [11:01 PM] 
@vlad2vlad thanks for clarifying this for the newcomers

vlad2vlad [11:01 PM] 
That was from the Dr. Wright

macsga [11:01 PM] 
:slightly_smiling_face:

andy [11:02 PM] 
:slightly_smiling_face:

anonymint [11:06 PM] 
@zbingledack why would Bitcoin be dead with 1 MB blocks? It will become highly sought after due to scarcity of transacting on chain unregulated in the reserve currency of the crypto-currency ecosystem.

tula [11:08 PM] 
@anonymint that can only happen if 1MB is a natural limit, not artificial (edited)


anonymint [11:20 PM] 
@tula there is no natural limit which is a tragedy of the commons. Thus it is a power vacuum which must be filled by a centralized power that sets a limit and has an economic incentive to enforce it.

tula [11:22 PM] 
so current hardware has no limits?

anonymint [11:22 PM] 
Btw, poor punctuation phrasing. I meant the lack of a natural limit, creates a tragedy of the commons.

tula [11:24 PM] 
there are no commons, the network is owned by the miners

anonymint [11:24 PM] 
The transaction fees are the commons.

tula [11:25 PM] 
elaborate

anonymint [11:29 PM] 
In a hypothetical decentralized scenario (which doesn't exist), the miners will fight with each other to compete to offer larger block sizes, thus lower transaction fees, and drive their revenue and thus security towards 0. There is no fee market without a block size limit. This is tragedy of the commons, thus even if mining wasn’t centralized for the other stated reasons, it would become centralized in order to dictate a maximum block size. The whales and miners are the same economic entity and have no incentive to offer larger than 1 MB block size.

[11:30] 
That is presuming the block size wasn't limited in the protocol.

macsga [11:30 PM] 
That notion there just blew my mind

[11:30] 
I need to sleep

anonymint [11:31 PM] 
Sleep first.

macsga [11:31 PM] 
good night everyone enjoy your stay

[11:31] 
nice talking to you @anonymint

fatman3001 [11:31 PM] 
gn

klee [11:33 PM] 
Why security goes to 0?

fatman3001 [11:33 PM] 
cause no fees

[11:33] 
no block reward

klee [11:33 PM] 
so spamming

[11:35] 
Suddenly IOTA comes to mind

[11:36] 
0 fees, but spamming supposed to secure the network (instead of destroying it)

[11:36] 
Never understood how

anonymint [11:37 PM] 
How do we know the real Craig Wright is posting here?

tula [11:37 PM] 
@anonymint i suppose you are familiar with https://www.bitcoinunlimited.info/resources/feemarket.pdf
so what are your objections to that?

cypherblock [11:38 PM] 
@anonymint earlier I requested he post a selfie of himself with this slack in background. he complied

vlad2vlad [11:38 PM] 
@anonymint  cause I pinky swear

klee [11:38 PM] 
He posted a shit ton of photos taken live before some hours
anonymint
How do we know the real Craig Wright is posting here?
Posted in #privateYesterday at 11:37 PM

cypherblock [11:38 PM] 
it is above somewhere unless deleted

[11:38] 
background is somewhat blurry but I think it was this slack. I could sort of see my icon in the background

anonymint [11:38 PM] 
I obliterated @Peter R's whitepaper in discussion on BCT. I will try to find a link for you. It was a long discussion.

fatman3001 [11:39 PM] 
I disagree with @anonymint. I think competition of ideas will land the network at a place where profitability for miners, utility for users and security for the network will be balanced within an acceptable range. Some miners will see that it's in their interest to make the network as attractive as possible for it to grow and become more profitable. Some will mine large blocks altruistically. (edited)

[11:39] 
search image.png in the slack

anonymint [11:39 PM] 
I think the real reason they banned me is because I speak heresy.

cypherblock [11:40 PM] 
who banned you?

fatman3001 [11:40 PM] 
scrolling takes too much time

klee [11:40 PM] 
Who gives a shit about Theymos et al any more

[11:40] 
screw them

fatman3001 [11:41 PM] 
not many of the cool cats left there (edited)

anonymint [11:41 PM] 
@Theymos: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1887077.msg18861383#msg18861383
bitcointalk.org
Where are you 'Iamnotback'?
Where are you 'Iamnotback'?

[11:44] 
@fatman3001, the altruistic miners are being bankrupted by Bitmain. Bitmain miners sells their hardware first to those who support the master plan. The altruistic miners get hardware when it is beyond its profitability life.

fatman3001 [11:44 PM] 
We can't just have one asic producer forever

anonymint [11:44 PM] 
He who controls the 14nm fabs, controls Bitcon.

fatman3001 [11:44 PM] 
it's madness

klee [11:44 PM] 
Where's Intel?

[11:44] 
or AMD?

[11:45] 
Why not in this biz too?

anonymint [11:45 PM] 
Intel has 14nm fabs, but not available for custom ASICs. AMD's fab is Global Foundaries, one of the two 14nm available for custom ASICs.

klee [11:46 PM] 
aha

fatman3001 [11:47 PM] 
Maybe some of the other independent miners should go together and buy a chip dev firm. Globalfoundries will make chips to anyone and their mother as long as you pay them. TSMC too.

[11:49] 
Soon they're going to want Bitcoiners to pay for their initial runs of 10-11nm processes

tomothy 
[11:49 PM] 
Mining and segwit. Segwit changes the economic incentives necessary for mining development to continue. Rewards from mining are necessary to encourage people to spend money on capital projects, they are rewarded with fees / BTC block reward. As miners compete, their efforts result in the network being secured. Segwit changes this economic incentive. Mining itself isn't centralized but mining production is. So long as bitmain doesn't censor who can or can't buy their tools that concern is invalid. Additionally price of BTC is an issue. You don't have large companies investing in hardware development because there isn't enough demand. These issues go away as bitcoin grows. However the incentives changed by segwit do not.

[11:50] 
Growth has artificially been suppressed because of the cap. That's cws's whole point on all of this.

fatman3001 [11:50 PM] 
chip design is the tricky part

tomothy 
[11:50 PM] 
He specifically States, no fees.

fatman3001 [11:50 PM] 
Bitmain has a massive head start

tomothy 
[11:50 PM] 
Not only does he say no fees, he says no cap.

[11:51] 
Sure but most companies could buy bitmain with pocket change at this point.

[11:51] 
They may be a leader in their field but not a global leader.

anonymint [11:51 PM] 
@klee not even spamming. Just the fact that without a block size limit then users don’t have to include any significant transaction fee, because some miner will add it for the incremental revenue no matter how small it is. That is assuming miners haven’t colluded/agreed to set a maximum block size or minimum fee. A minimum fee dictates a block size limit as well. So therefor there has to be some protocol (or de facto agreed) limit else it is a tragedy of the commons. Iota requires proof-of-work to accompany each transaction and the game theory on that is obtuse and unclear to me as well. But I Iota has bigger problems in that afaics it doesn’t converge on consensus without centralized servers.

fatman3001 [11:51 PM] 
They're a global leader in their field

tomothy 
[11:51 PM] 
And don't the have 2nm now?

[11:52] 
Sorry, global leader in their field, but still not mega Corp

[11:52] 
I.e., Sony, etc etc etc

anonymint [11:53 PM] 
@fatman3001 I heard the the fabs are oversubscribed and they prioritize their largest customers. Bitmain seems to have someone pulling strings for them, as their volume is not large compared to say AMD.

tula [11:53 PM] 
@anonymint can you give me the gist of that orphaning rebuttal of yours? let me guess 100% centralization?

vlad2vlad [11:54 PM] 
@anonymint  you've got mail.  :)

tomothy 
[11:54 PM] 
I think you're right that their are large behind the scene players. However the players are bitmain and bitfury. And bitmain at least sells to the general public.

[11:55] 
Those Public sales help support more Decentralized mining as compared to the full setups by bitfury

anonymint [11:55 PM] 
They sell the public, but the public seems to get the newest profitable versions somewhat later than the insiders.

fatman3001 [11:55 PM] 
AMD doesn't want to pay for the initial runs. The price is high and the yield is terrible in the beginning. Basically the manufacturing process isn't really "finished" until it's run several runs and ironed out the kinks.

tomothy 
[11:56 PM] 
Sure but that's mitigated by a persons electric costs

anonymint [11:56 PM] 
I heard that independent miners will tell that the ASICs killed their profits for the most part.

fatman3001 [11:57 PM] 
Bitcoin ASICs is Gods gift to chip manufacturers.

tomothy 
[11:57 PM] 
Sure, if you don't have money you lose

[11:57] 
But that's the nature of competition

[11:57] 
You grow or die

[11:58] 
But again a lot of that was due to price. If bitcoins' price was 2-3x smaller miners would still be profitable

[11:58] 
Failing to grow not only hurt adoption but also chain security.

anonymint [11:58 PM] 
I need to eat breakfast. Fasting since I took my TB meds. Famished now. Brb.

tomothy 
[11:59 PM] 
Np thanks for comments.


----- Today May 7th, 2017 -----
vlad2vlad [12:03 AM] 
TB mess?  @anonymint

[12:03] 
Mess?

[12:03] 
Meds *

klee [12:03 AM] 
tuberculosis

vlad2vlad [12:04 AM] 
@anonymint your profile pic, is that the mind of a muppet?  Just askin'?

klee [12:04 AM] 
Homer Simpson

vlad2vlad [12:04 AM] 
Tuberculosis?  @anonymint you 98 or you chilling in the jungles of Africa again looking for answers?

[12:04] 
Haha

[12:05] 
I like really like this @anonymint guy.  A real genius.  Shit, I hope I don't have to ban his shit.   :)

tomothy 
[12:06 AM] 
Jesus tb is rough, sorry dude


cryptorebel [12:06 AM] 
lol

vlad2vlad [12:06 AM] 
Maybe he deserves it.  Maybe he's a small Blocker.  Just sayin'!

cryptorebel [12:07 AM] 
he sounds like a small blocker

vlad2vlad [12:08 AM] 
Luke is a small Blocker and he's coming to our global domination party.  So it depends

tomothy 
[12:08 AM] 
Security is important and that's what this concerns, mining incentives and segwit

[12:08] 
I think mining centralization and segwit incentives are different and this study just concerns the latter

vlad2vlad [12:09 AM] 
We need @csw in here debating him on the centralized bankster nature of Segwit and LN.


cryptorebel [12:09 AM] 
Craig was mentioning a big danger of segwit is the developers can set the mining fees, so it takes away power from miners and gives it to devs


[12:09] 
we don't really want a centrally planned blockchain


vlad2vlad [12:09 AM] 
Yeah.  Segwit is a power play.  Power stolen from the miners

anonymint [12:16 AM] 
@klee & @macsga, after all my chronic illness was finally diagnosed in January as disseminated Tuberculosis. All those years since 2012 at least, I was fighting TB and didn’t know what was causing my health problems. I never suspected TB because I did not have a cough. The TB was disseminated all over in my gut, lymph nodes, brain, etc.. The normal mode of death is an internal hemorrhage due to the disfigurement caused by the bacteria. So that explains the gut pain and liver disease I developed. Any way 15 weeks into very toxic TB meds, I am coming cured!! I can actually enjoy life again! Back to doing my intense sports, able to think without delirium, etc.. What a massive relief!!

klee [12:17 AM] 
I read that

[12:17] 
glad to found the reason

anonymint [12:17 AM] 
Supercharged and ready to go!

klee [12:18 AM] 
stay strong and fight the disease (we all fight some disease)

tomothy 
[12:18 AM] 
Jesus dude. Will it be fully gone after you finish the medication courses?

fatman3001 [12:18 AM] 
Congratulations man

[12:18] 
That's friggin insane

cryptorebel [12:18 AM] 
you can never be fully cured of TB, there is only active and inactive form


elliotolds [12:18 AM] 
joined private by invitation from @bitsko

bitsko
[12:18 AM] 
thank you for joining @elliotolds

klee [12:18 AM] 
You manage it for life

anonymint [12:19 AM] 
Unless it is a MDR strain, I have a 90+% chance of no recurrence. If it is MDR and it comes back after a year, there are new superior treatments under Stage 2 and 3 trials at the TBalliance.org

klee [12:20 AM] 
Going to sleep guys, tight XRP stop (shotring it)

anonymint [12:22 AM] 
gn @klee. The inactive and active form of TB can be eradicated, but it is not 100% certain, because TB hides away and if you don't get every last one of those fuckers, it can come back again. The stats are roughly 93% chance of no reoccurrence after 5 years. And that includes people who maybe didn't do their meds every day. So the odds are pretty good. And the new drug regimens coming are probably even more effective.

newliberty [12:22 AM] 
Grats anon, I was concerned for you for a long time, great news.

cryptorebel [12:26 AM] 
sometimes i feel like blockstream is Bitcoin's TB

[12:27] 
neverending battle

anonymint [12:27 AM] 
@vlad2vlad I do hope @csw comes back. I had once cited him as being smarter than Nick Szabo and Gregory Maxwell on the issue of whether Bitcoin is Turing complete:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1284083.msg13239420#msg13239420
bitcointalk.org
Layman's Journey to Understanding Zerocash
Layman's Journey to Understanding Zerocash

cryptorebel [12:29 AM] 
yeah Craig had some interesting comments about turing completeness on Bitcoin using a double stack architecture: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LdvQTwjVmrE&feature=youtu.be&t=17m11s
YouTube BitcoinInvestor.com
All-Star Panel: Ed Moy, Joseph VaughnPerling, Trace Mayer, Nick Szabo, Dr. Craig Wright
 

vlad2vlad [12:30 AM] 
@anonymint I can guarantee you CSW will be back here but only if you respond to my PM.  And he is smarter than Szabo et al.  Dude, did you see how many degrees he wiped the floor with?  Ludicrous!!!

[12:31] 
Double stack?  What?

fatman3001 [12:32 AM] 
Pancakes

[12:32] 
with syrup

cryptorebel [12:32 AM] 
he said dual stack architecture, sounds interesting though maybe Craig could elaborate what he means

ajd [12:33 AM] 
joined private by invitation from @bitsko


satoshi [12:35 AM] 
Putting together some tools to facilitate opposition research.

anonymint [12:37 AM] 
@tula, you were asking for a gist about my orphaning rebuttal. I presume you mean my rebuttal to @Peter R's BU whitepaper about a natural fee market with unlimited block size. Afair (and there may have been more details I am not remembering offhand), Peter's analysis assumed an equal orphan rate for all miners, but each miner has a different orphan rate determined primary by their proportion of the hashrate and other factors such as their connectivity for propagation.

vlad2vlad [12:37 AM] 
uploaded this image: Double Stack!!!
Add Comment

vlad2vlad [12:37 AM] 
Never in my life did I think my junk would have such meaning.

bitsko
[12:39 AM] 
is there no place on the internet that is free from your junk pics lol

tula [12:40 AM] 
@anonymint different cost is still not zero cost ...

anonymint [12:41 AM] 
@tula I will dig up a link for you, bcz I have forgotten all of the issues offhand. There were game theories enabled by this fact that orphan rate is asymmetrical.

vlad2vlad [12:42 AM] 
Fair enough

[12:42] 
No junk

vlad2vlad [12:43 AM] 
uploaded this image: Vlad2vlad - BIG Blocker!!!
Add Comment


fatman3001 [12:47 AM] 
_wtf?_

satoshi [12:48 AM] 
:eyes:

vlad2vlad [12:48 AM] 
IXcoin.  Ohhh.  I keep forgetting to plug that

xhiggy [1:07 AM] 
A miner that makes a block that can't propagate and be validated in less than ten minutes, would be at a substantial orphan risk.

[1:07] 
Compared to a block that could be

vlad2vlad [1:08 AM] 
uploaded this image: I just can't help myself.  Oh...IXcoin!!!
Add Comment

newliberty [1:28 AM] 
BitCoin already has an Alt-stack
https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Script#Stack
Turing machine can be made from a small number of deterministic outputs and functions.  CSW is right in that BitCoin in its current state is Turing complete, but then so also is Conway's game of life.
Meaning that you can program anything that can be programmed with it.
Here's a digital clock with Conway's game of life:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3NDAZ5g4EuU

A Turing complete system is one thing, being able to do things with easily and economically it still another.
YouTube Mikhail Goncharov
digital clock in conways game of life
 


zillionaire [1:29 AM] 
Dr. Conway ... mad respect for him. 4 hours of meeting was gold.

[1:29] 
He was talking about Church, God, Turing and Russel

[1:30] 
Explained 3n+1 conjecture, incompleteness theorem, turing, 2+2=5 joke, etc. (edited)

[1:31] 
Had him personally taught "surreal number" and the monster.

anonymint [1:40 AM] 
Why are some of my posts in this slack disappearing from history? Who is the moderator here?

tomothy 
[1:41 AM] 
10000 posts

[1:41] 
and i don't think thats possible

anonymint [1:41 AM] 
I scroll up and I can't find some of my posts.

tomothy 
[1:41 AM] 
slack sucks, there is that

[1:41] 
has it loaded?

[1:42] 
oh, you have to click" and more"

[1:42] 
to unlock the prior pages

[1:42] 
it's not like irc in that regard

[1:42] 
well, it doesnt suck, i mean, emojjis

[1:42] 
:dancing_penguin:

anonymint [1:44 AM] 
The posts between 4am and 4:54am are gone.

[1:46] 
Somebody is deleting more and more of the posts. Now the ones from 4:54 are gone also.

tomothy 
[1:46 AM] 
keep scrolling back and unloading more?

[1:46] 
it only keeps 10,000

bitsko
[1:46 AM] 
people are allowed to delete their own posts per the settings

anonymint [1:47 AM] 
I did. I can see posts from 4am and before, and 4:56am after. But the posts between that time frame are gone. And those were the most damning posts I wrote refuting Craig Wright.

tomothy 
[1:47 AM] 
impossible

anonymint [1:47 AM] 
I did not delete my posts!

tomothy 
[1:47 AM] 
i can't delete your posts and you can't delete mine

bitsko
[1:47 AM] 
I am the only moderator, I am on not going to delete others posts

anonymint [1:47 AM] 
So where are my first posts in this discussion?

tomothy 
[1:48 AM] 
let me do a search

[1:48] 
did you say craig or csw/ or?

[1:48] 
(trying to limit terms

anonymint [1:48 AM] 
Somebody go look for any posts between 4am and 4:56am. Can anyone see any posts from that time frame?

tomothy 
[1:49 AM] 
i dont have same time, what time is it for you now?

[1:49] 
i'm 750pm

anonymint [1:49 AM] 
7:50am for me. So go look for posts between 4pm and 4:56pm your time.

tomothy 
[1:49 AM] 
kk

anonymint [1:50 AM] 
Now there are no posts between 4am and 5:29am for me. The problem is getting worse.

tomothy 
[1:51 AM] 
i have some from 410+

[1:51] 
you share the pastebin

[1:51] 
i don't think its limit? is it limit?

[1:52] 
stuffs missing

[1:52] 
i think

anonymint [1:52 AM] 
All posts have returned when I refreshed the browser page. Apparently it was some JavaScript glitch.

tomothy 
[1:52 AM] 
my whole cconversation with you is gone

[1:52] 
wtf

[1:53] 
ok. so i'm not crazy, but this could drive one crazy :smile:

[1:53] 
:hypnotoad:

anonymint [2:15 AM] 
@tula, I am glad you prompted me to go review my prior research on the two BU papers, because it caused me to realize something new and important! @dinofelis and I (along with @tromp from private msg) had reasoned[1] that Peter R's whitepaper was irrelevant because well before any posited equilibrium could be reached due to the limitation of orphan rate, that the network would have failed (or necessarily come under centralized control enforcing a lower block size equilibrium) due to bandwidth overload[2], asymmetrical orphan rate game theory strategies[3], or failure to converge on a longest chain due to too high of an orphan rate. I then refuted[4] Andrew Stone’s white paper on the grounds that regulating block size via empty block production will cause miner centralization. However, because as I explained in this slack[5] SegWit enables Xthin-like propagation with UTXO changes available immediately (with the witness proof to normally arrive statistically before the block solution is found), then there is no equilibrium point on block size and it is a tragedy-of-the-fee-commons power vacuum that must be filled by a centralized mining power that enforces a block size limit.

[1] https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1819153.msg18289475#msg18289475
[2] https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1739268.msg18260085#msg18260085
[3] https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1819153.msg18273645#msg18273645
[4] https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1837136.msg18323030#msg18323030
[5] My comment at 4:19am. https://btcchat.slack.com/archives/G583BUJ7J/p1494101954754652
[Suspicious link removed]
Do you think "iamnotback" really has the" Bitcoin killer"?
Do you think "iamnotback" really has the" Bitcoin killer"?
 bitcointalk.org
Miner cartel, Bankster cartel, or an altcoin? Your choice?
Miner cartel, Bankster cartel, or an altcoin? Your choice?
 anonymint
It seems to be true that with SegWit, the minority miners who don't often win their own blocks, have an incentive to mine without validating, so they can decrease their losses due to mining sooner on the next block by not needing to wait for the propagation of witness data and validation delay. However, my thought is they can begin mining on the next block trusting without the witness data, but statistically they will nearly always have received the witness data and validated it long before they Show more…
Thread in #privateYesterday at 10:19 PM

tomothy 
[2:19 AM] 
Have you reviewed or evaluated parallel validation?

anonymint [2:25 AM] 
By parallel validation you could be referring to either multicore usage on each miner, or you could be alluding to some sort of sharded block chain design?

[2:26] 
Satoshi’s PoW can not be sharded. And multicore usage doesn’t solve the scaling issues we are discussing.

bitsko
[2:28 AM] 
https://github.com/BitcoinUnlimited/BitcoinUnlimited/pull/254/commits/cca06f89f9287e7b0412eeb649e6878170f8d203
GitHub
Parallel Validation by ptschip · Pull Request #254 · BitcoinUnlimited/BitcoinUnlimited
opening PR on the dev branch
 
 

tomothy 
[2:28 AM] 
and then bitcrusts'

[2:28] 
https://bitcrust.org/blog-spend-tree
bitcrust.org
BITCRUST
BITCRUST, Second generation bitcoin software | Fast parallel block validation without UTXO-index (12kB)

[2:29] 
https://bitcrust.org/blog-fraud-proofs
bitcrust.org
BITCRUST
BITCRUST, Second generation bitcoin software | Fast parallel block validation without UTXO-index (12kB)

anonymint [2:30 AM] 
I am reasonably confident I already figured out what is going to happen, so I can tell you with high confidence the future.

Bitcoin will never be forked to increase the block size or add SegWit. It will remain 1MB forever. It will be the reserve currency and be used by the wealthy who can afford the high transaction fees. Litecoin will become the SegWit+LN off chain scaling coin. There will be no on chain scaling for most of us. We will be pushed off chain onto to regulated Mt. Box-like "banks" (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1887077.msg18888361#msg18888361). The shadow elite have planned this out well. Bitcoin was a trojan horse. And we've been totally fooled.
bitcointalk.org
Where are you 'Iamnotback'?
Where are you 'Iamnotback'?

tomothy 
[2:31 AM] 
I think that is a possibility, however, based on continued miner scaling support for an increase, I think there is a chance of that future not coming to pass.

bitsko
[2:31 AM] 
:wut:

tomothy 
[2:31 AM] 
I think we'll probably get 2mbs on chain

anonymint [2:31 AM] 
My question for @csw is what is your role in this? Are you a disinformation agent of the shadow elite?


tomothy 
[2:31 AM] 
but I think LTC will be an interesting experiment

[2:32] 
as CW is suggesting the complete removal of a block limit; although he could be a disinformation agent, he still seeks onchain scaling, which runs contrary to globalist interests regarding control

[2:32] 
especially if it is to be used to facilitate gaming in all it's shapes and forms...

anonymint [2:35 AM] 
In case my links to Bitcointalk stop functioning (mods havebeen deleting posts and entire threads of mine), here is a backup archive: https://web-beta.archive.org/web/*/https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1887077.0;all

Does someone have a lifetime paid pastebin account to make a permanent pastebin of my discussion here?
 4 replies Last reply today at 3:47 AM View thread

tomothy 
[2:35 AM] 
I think there was discussion of setting up an IRC relay; so text could be sent to irc via a bot, and then that text saved/archived

[2:36] 
I'm not sure the status of that however

cypherblock [2:39 AM] 
@anonymint are you anonymint on bitcointalk ?

[2:39] 
or who

anonymint [2:40 AM] 
@tomothy I posit there is no real support for an increase. BU and all that (including perhaps @csw) is just PR to keep us distracted from our self-enslavement which we are enabling with our fanatical support of these systems. @dinofelis says I have a confirmation bias because I am working on a consensus design which I claim/posit doesn’t have these problems. I claim to have solved everything.

cypherblock [2:40 AM] 
Iamnotback ?

anonymint [2:42 AM] 
I am all of these accounts and my real name is Shelby Moore III (my photo is on my avatar at the following link):

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=400235.msg16925985#msg16925985
bitcointalk.org
rpietila Wall Observer - the Quality TA Thread ;)
rpietila Wall Observer - the Quality TA Thread ;)

tomothy 
[2:44 AM] 
I think you miss the forest for the trees; what i mean by that, is that bitcoin adoption is stalling because of the limit. bitmain has invested significant amounts of capital and needs a return on that which is dependent on again, increased adoption, and increased bitcoin fees

[2:45] 
if bitcoin fails to increase on chain txs, mining won't be able to support itself after the next halving

[2:49] 
so if there is no increase, bitcoin mining dies. it would have to change how it works and it would no longer be bitcoin

tula [3:05 AM] 
@anonymint ok thx.. so it was as i thought ..you assume unregulated blocksize leads to 100% centralization ..because bigger pools have an advantage over smaller pools (no shit)
thus "proving" that bitcoin does not work (is a ponzi scheme) and we need a central bank.
also mathematically proving that generally free market capitalism does not work and thus the only system that works is communism (this should give you a hint where i think you made a mistake) (edited)


jesse [3:06 AM] 
joined private by invitation from @bitsko

anonymint [3:33 AM] 
@tomothy the altcoin ecosystem adoption is not stalling. Bitcoin is the reserve currency (the most liquid, least volatility) of this ecosystem. Bitcoin will continue to grow in value as the mother ship. Bitmain will profit handsomely. Besides, I am positing that Bitmain is just a front for the shadow elite, and most mined coins end up in the shadow elite's pocket because Bitmain makes sure that independent miners are not that profitable, by selling them hardware that is already months after first produced for the insiders. Nothing is dying. It is all going according to the master plan: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1887077.msg18897366#msg18897366
bitcointalk.org
Where are you 'Iamnotback'?
Where are you 'Iamnotback'?

anonymint [3:45 AM] 
Coinmarketcap has a chart on total market capitalization that will show you the ecosystem is still growing.

tomothy [3:47 AM] 
Yes the overall market has increased. However, I think increasing the blocksize would also increase bitcoin dominance (59). This is because more block space would allow more increased development. In doing so, it would also clearly weakens altcoin market.

anonymint [3:47 AM] 
As well that BTC's share of the ecosystem has declined from 90+% to roughly 2/3 rather precipitously recently with the Scalepocalypse coming to moment of truth.

tomothy 
[3:47 AM] 
I think the global elite ideas is dependent on how that and the issue is framed

[3:48] 
For example. If you have a bitcoin, now, you are part of the global elite. Think about how many people live on less than $5 USD/day. So it's about​ perspectives.

new messages
anonymint [3:49 AM] 
@tomothy you are at best only a dolphin. Refer to my prior BCT links which explain what I think will happen to the dolphins and the role you play in the NWO.

tomothy 
[3:50 AM] 
In terms of global politics? I think there was an attempt to limit bitcoin Independence by suggesting segwit and refusing size increase. It failed. Now? Now bitcoin has the opportunity to vote on it's future. Will it change that future? Maybe. Maybe not.
Ok I'll take a look. And then AFK.

cypherblock [9:57 AM] 
i would like to be a dolphin

anonymint [9:59 AM] 
@tula correct fungible finance is always a winner-take-all paradigm. Marxism rose up (as promoted by the shadow elite to give us a way to deceive ourselves and keep  us preoccupied) as a false antithesis because it is also a loser-take-all paradigm. Neither of these are the solution. But I have good news for you. Both of those paradigms are dying and I know the solution. The death of fungible money is underway and the rise of Inverse Commons in the knowledge age is coming (see links below for more details). My project is all about this. This is why @dinofelis says I have a confirmation bias on my conspiracy theories, yet my math and logic is cogent.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1837136.msg18526830#msg18526830
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1837136.msg18505797#msg18505797

cypherblock [9:59 AM] 
wait maybe I am a dolphin. I would like to be a bitcoin dolphin though

[9:59] 
sorry had a few glasses of wine

@cryptorebel wrote:
> @hankdasilva some people think mining will become more decentralized over time: https://medium.com/@lopp/the-future-of-bitcoin-mining-ac9c3dc39c60

Ah sorry I debunked the PoW as space heaters in my unpublished whitepaper:

https://gist.github.com/shelby3/943a7191771090600ba08d978a116534

checksum0 [11:28 AM] 
Bitcoin mining has never been more decentralized since the advent of mining pool, it is not people arguing, it's fact. (edited)

[11:33] 
Also, I don't believe in PoW as space heaters because machine are not build for that (they are built and design to be in mining farm). In the link you posted, the author argue that it is 4000 times more efficient to extract heat thru immersion cooling (citation needed?), well do you know how much efficient _NOT_ removing waste heat is?

[11:33] 
I save tens of thousands of dollars every winter _NOT_ having to cool my farm

[11:35] 
Bottom line is this: 1kw of heating or 1kw of computation produce the same heat, the idea is too offset you heating cost by mining, NOT to offset your mining cost by not heating the area (edited)

anonymint [11:42 AM] 
@checksum0 I have this habit of calling people idiots when they fail to read carefully, because they waste my time causing me to repeat and explain what was already written for them to read. Please try to read again more carefully what I provided. I am the author.

Please read again before replying. (edited)

checksum0 [11:44 AM] 
You mean the exerpt that is totally unreadable, that goes from 5.1.1 to 5.7 and then die off without even a conclusion

[11:44] 
Yeah, no

[11:44] 
fuck off

anonymint [11:45 AM] 
Here come the idiot trolls again. They seem to follow me where ever I go.

checksum0 [11:45 AM] 
Lol

anonymint [11:47 AM] 
If you think it is unreadable, then you are admitting you did not comprehend it.

[the_end_is_near]

Lol, regarding the prior post, after @macsga assured me there would be no bans, they banned me from the Slack discussion with Craig Wright because @checksum0 is incapable of reading this:

https://gist.github.com/shelby3/943a7191771090600ba08d978a116534

That is why I won’t come back into this cesspool without the groupwise moderation controls we need, because I never know when all the sincere effort I put into a discussion is suddenly blindsided by corrupt moderators.

@checksum0 can’t seem to comprehend that a 4000X efficiency improvement in removing heat is not a 4000X improvement in electricity overhead and the 30 - 50% reduction to 1% is more than ample to make the point there why PoW mining for heat is not economic on any significant scale that could enable decentralization.

He also can not seem to comprehend the point made about the scale of heat that could be offset in the home (nothing of sufficient scale to challenge the centralization of mining farms) is not even worth the labor and capex cost of setting it up and also that in most places in the world winter is only seasonal yet mining equipment is always depreciating if not in constant use. Some miniscule, seasonal, uneconomic anecdotal use of mining offset as heat is irrelevant.

Any way, the point of mentioning here, is this is the reason @Theymos and the mods are induced to ban experts, because the idiots do not want the truth to be stated. They get angry, defensive, and troll until they can either drown out the expert or get the expert banned by baiting an intentional flame war.

This has to stop. And the only way is for us to be able form our own group moderations so we can keep the trolls out of our like-minded groups.

Theymos can either implement the feature of BCT, else I will be implementing it on my project Bitnet.

I think I am done here.

See you like-minded (or even antithetically minded) folks on Bitnet soon....  

[macsga]

Unfortunately not everyone understands your mental and intellectual level my friend. You don't belong there with them but IMO, it's their loss. If the have problems to solve, they are now a brain shorter. Let them figure it out all by themselves.

Cheers and I'm sorry I misinformed you about the ban tactics.
 

[dinofelis]

I consider this post as related to @iamnotback's ban, and his complaint about this being a centralized discussion entity that makes banning of authors, instead of filtering messages, possible.

Such a rudimentary system existed in the 1990-ies as I said before: it was called usenet, and had a simple, decentralized protocol: NNTP.

Afaik, NNTP is not decentralized consensus. Rather it is a single news server which is the canonical source and other servers can mirror it.

Nope.  It was, AFAIK, totally decentralized.  You posted your post to the news server your reader was connected to, who then propagated it in a P2P network of news servers.  You could run your own news server of course but only institutions did so, because that was "heavy" at that time for the existing technology in those days.  In fact, it would even be "heavy" today too.  Bitcoin's block chain is ridiculously small compared to the news groups' daily volume.  That said, a news server mostly didn't keep old stuff.  One month of history was usually standard.  If you wanted to keep stuff, it was entirely your business.

The "consensus" was simply everything, because there was no specific order needed, there was no contradiction to be resolved etc...
Of course, every news server could decide for himself whether he propagated the article or not, but the standard policy was to propagate everything.  There was no crypto needed for that.  You didn't need an "account".   Everyone could just post and put the "credentials" he liked - but of course, nobody would stop you from signing your messages.

No wonder it was a clusterfuck failure. Anyone could then act as an imposter for anyone, and other inconsistencies such as people could post in the future dated as if they had responded in the past, thus pretending to be able to predict the future.

Also there is no guarantee that any server is giving you the full or even correct data!

Well, these are "worries" that didn't ever pose a problem.  

1) Given the fact that an "identity" was just an e-mail address (and a name if you cared about it), it also meant that users KNEW this and hence didn't attach any particular value to that field: there was no point in "stealing an identity" because there wasn't any, so there was not this idiocy of creating "virtual important personalities with a reputation".   But of course, if you really wanted to prove an identity, nothing stopped you from signing a message.  In any case, messages were not meant to be kept, and discussion was ephemeral, unless you wanted to save old stuff yourself.    I think this was in fact a big advantage: the "identity" of the author didn't really matter, what mattered was what was said, and it only mattered for a limited amount of time, like oral conversations.  This limited naturally the "fake personality social value and reputation" because there wasn't really an avatar.  I have to say I've never seen abuse of this.  

2) There wasn't really a "future" or a "past".  There were just messages, threading together (you could of course only reply to an existing message, forming a reply tree ; and there were independent reply trees, taken together in "discussion groups").  You could configure your newsreader to keep a local copy of all the replies of a given tree, so that when these messages were purged from most of the servers, you still had a copy of what was discussed in those discussions you bothered to read.  

3) There was no need for any guarantee.   Of course, as an owner of a news server, you were free to relay or not what you wanted, but given that this was a decentralized system, a message would only not propagate if a LARGE MAJORITY of servers decided to not relay it ; there's a kind of "percolation limit" as to how many servers should ban a message before it gets effectively not propagated.  Note that bitcoin and other cryptos are not different: if the whole network decides to ban a transaction from propagating, it won't propagate.  But this didn't happen.  It did (openly) happen for whole discussion groups: many servers decided to only serve and propagate a limited list of groups ; but this was mainly for reasons of volume.
And of course, it is sufficient that one server contains a given message, and everyone can connect his reader to it to read it.  In other words, this was a true decentralized paradigm.

I have to say I liked usenet a lot, especially for these properties ; the very fact that discussions were essentially ephemeral, that there wasn't any "avatar personality reputation building" and other virtual nonsense, and that the system was simple and decentralized.

But it is clear that it died because people were looking for centralized authority, medals, moderators and the attraction of fake avatar personality building as a side effect of taking positions in discussions.  They wanted a "boss" to select for them what is correct content.  

Usenet wasn't a "database".  That's important. It was a *discussion* of which old interactions disappeared.  Even though this was only implemented for reasons of disk volume, this was in fact a good thing.  Archiving informal discussions is problematic, because in informal discussions, one can test ideas, take temporary positions, say sometimes stupid things ...  Archiving takes all this stuff and turns it into a kind of eternal social contract.  The strong linking between avatars and content makes that one focusses now more on the building of a reputation and the destruction of competitors' reputations, than to discuss about the content.  Whole strategies are now deployed to market or destroy avatars.  

Informal intellectual or recreational discussion shouldn't be a database, and authors of content shouldn't matter.   That was the good thing of usenet.   The bad thing, and why everyone left it, was that the uncensorable freedom to write gibberish made the exercise of reading discussions quite hard and time consuming ; so people preferred a trusted party to select the interesting parts for them ; at the same time, these selectors could "make" or "destroy" authors, which is what opened a market for "allowed posters" ; and, like in tribal acceptance, "being a member of a forum" meant somehow that you were part of those that were saying "important" stuff.  Forums replied with handing out medals, reputations, .... and all the other stuff authorities use to build a hierarchy, and users liked this.  That's how forums took over from usenet ; how a decentralized and free paradigm was set aside for the desire of authority, "social hierarchical recognition", "reputation building" and so on.

This is why I think that "decentralized stuff for the masses" is bullshit.  The masses want hierarchy, bosses and central authority.  Some of us, a small minority, don't.  And we should make our thing, but understand that we are a small, insignificant minority.

There are many indications that "the masses" want authority and prefer centralized paradigms over decentralized ones.  Because people like their own freedom, but they hate even more other peoples' freedom.  And they prefer easiness over freedom, and are willing to delegate trust if it makes life simpler.

[the_end_is_near]

Someone had sent me a link to @Theymos’ design proposal for a scalable altcoin and so I decided to leave Theymos a parting gift on my way out the door. The browser tab (window) for Theymos’ latest design idea was still open on my browser and I was checking off extraneous todo from list, so I realized I could assist Theymos on this.

Theymos please note I had replied in your prior thread about why a PoW/PoS hybrid is less secure than either PoW or PoS alone.

Your new proposal appears to be a duplicate of Peter Todd's Tree-chains proposal which is already discussed in the unpublished whitepaper for my project.

[^tree-chains]: Peter Todd. Tree-chains preliminary summary. Bitcoin-development mailing list at lists.sourceforge.net, Mar 25, 2014.

[the_end_is_near]

I consider this post as related to @iamnotback's ban, and his complaint about this being a centralized discussion entity that makes banning of authors, instead of filtering messages, possible.

Agreed.

I thought I was done, but I feel compelled to reply because I think I see some errors in your logic below.

1) [disorganized chaos and crappy user experience]

2) [ditto]

Yep, Usenet wasn’t easy-to-use nor could it remain popular with the much better user experiences with current websites.

3) [no performance guarantees, chaos and unreliable, inconsistent user experience]. In other words, this was a true decentralized paradigm.

You are conflating decentralized with disorganized shit. Decentralized software systems can be indistinguishable in terms of user experience from centralized software systems. That is your broken clock aliasing error again. I do not understand why your brain continually does this. You seem like you have a very high intellect, but you seem to so often make these egregious errors of logic.

Edit: I see below that you were conflating decentralized with maximally disordered.

I have to say I liked usenet a lot, especially for these properties ; the very fact that discussions were essentially ephemeral, that there wasn't any "avatar personality reputation building" and other virtual nonsense, and that the system was simple and decentralized.

Reputation is essential to the way humans evolved in our ancestral environment. Without reputation, humans do not know how to function well, because they do not digest all the information. They use reputation to make shortcuts, because humans are lazy and busy on other things (such as masturbating, stuffing their mouth with food, watching porn, stroking their ego, and other very important activities).

But it is clear that it died because people were looking for centralized authority, medals, moderators and the attraction of fake avatar personality building as a side effect of taking positions in discussions.  They wanted a "boss" to select for them what is correct content.

You were close to correct. They actually want tribal leaders. They want to compare reputations, because this is what humans have always done in tribes.

But you are incorrect to equate this with a single centralized authority. Humans are quite well adapted to forming groups with group leaders. In fact, they like being part of their own tribe within their Dunbar limit. Theymos’ mistake is he is trying for one-size-fits-all site-wide reputation and moderation authority, which is devolving into a clusterfuck because humans need to be able to splinter off into competing tribes (teams). They will rip each others heads off until they are allowed to form tribes within their Dunbar limit of closer like-minded relationships.

This is why I am fairly certain my design for a forum will kick ass on BCT’s current design.

Usenet wasn't a "database".  That's important. It was a *discussion* of which old interactions disappeared.

Group leaders will never tolerate such a system. Would never become popular because the flock follow where the tribal leaders go.

The group leaders will drive the demand for the decentralized systems, because they do not want to invest in closed source, because they risk their investment being stolen by the centralized authority of the closed source.

Archiving informal discussions is problematic, because in informal discussions, one can test ideas, take temporary positions, say sometimes stupid things ...  Archiving takes all this stuff and turns it into a kind of eternal social contract.  The strong linking between avatars and content makes that one focusses now more on the building of a reputation and the destruction of competitors' reputations, than to discuss about the content.  Whole strategies are now deployed to market or destroy avatars.

It will remain that way until humans evolve.

Informal intellectual or recreational discussion shouldn't be a database, and authors of content shouldn't matter.

I disagree. I often refer back to my discussions to remember what I was thinking. Can you remember everything you ever said and thought   Even if you can, how many people can do that?

I can remember a lot of what I have written. Maybe 500 pages of it, but not verbatim. I can remember well enough to use Google to find the post I want.

That was the good thing of usenet.   The bad thing, and why everyone left it, was that the uncensorable freedom to write gibberish made the exercise of reading discussions quite hard and time consuming ; so people preferred a trusted party to select the interesting parts for them ; at the same time, these selectors could "make" or "destroy" authors, which is what opened a market for "allowed posters" ; and, like in tribal acceptance, "being a member of a forum" meant somehow that you were part of those that were saying "important" stuff.  Forums replied with handing out medals, reputations, .... and all the other stuff authorities use to build a hierarchy, and users liked this.  That's how forums took over from usenet ;

Correct.

how a decentralized and free paradigm was set aside for the desire of authority, "social hierarchical recognition", "reputation building" and so on.

Decentralization does not necessarily mean that there are no group leaders. You are thinking in terms of absolute decentralization, but there is no absolute. Decentralize all the atoms in our bodies, we can not even post anything, and that is still not absolute.

Disorder and decentralization are not the same concept. You are conflating. Decentralization is about distributing the control of a system. It does not mean the distribution has to be maximal to the point that there is no control whatsoever (complete disorder, i.e. maximum uncertainty and random chance).

This is why I think that "decentralized stuff for the masses" is bullshit.

Disordered chaos is bullshit, but you are conflating this with decentralized systems.

The masses want hierarchy, bosses and central authority.

Nope they will kill each other if locked into a single grouping and they can not fork off into tribes. That is why the future of the EU is going to be so horrific because the EU refuses to allow the different groups to have their own governance.

Some of us, a small minority, don't.  And we should make our thing, but understand that we are a small, insignificant minority.

Nope we are all in the majority of being tribal.

There are many indications that "the masses" want authority and prefer centralized paradigms over decentralized ones.  Because people like their own freedom, but they hate even more other peoples' freedom.  And they prefer easiness over freedom, and are willing to delegate trust if it makes life simpler.

They hate not having tribes (teams) to go war against.

They prefer reputation over information.

Now I understand why you wrote the following and why you hope the Singularity is true and humans are destroyed and replaced by machine intelligence:

That said, it comes close to my view on the world: "me", and "the others"

Regarding the Craig Wright scam Slack that banned me from my post in the prior page of this thread today:

Code:

[quote]also, "Reputation is essential to the way humans evolved in our ancestral environment. Without reputation, humans do not know how to function well, because they do not digest all the information. They use reputation to make shortcuts":
[/quote]

cryptorebel
8:23 AM
anonymint seemed like the troll and being disrespectful, imo...im glad hes gone

cryptorebel
8:31 AM
i dont think check was rude, anonymint seemed very rude to me from the start
i thought he was some infiltrator troll or something
but a lot were vouching for him

cryptorebel
8:33 AM
anonymint was acting arrogant, he could have raised his points without being a jerk about it

[quote]
cryptorebel is trusting his perception of checksum0's reputation against the new intruder
[/quote]

csw
11:39 AM
@anonymint Commons. Please... The solution is simple, markets. No more no less
fatman3001
11:41 AM
looks like anonymint ragequit the channel
csw
11:43 AM
Bloody socialists

And they ganged up to kick me out because I was busting their scam. Craig Wright could not stand up to me and have debate. The scammer Craig Wright says something nebulous about markets and didn’t refute any of the points I made (see the pastebin in my prior post for the details).

Then of course they lie and accuse me of rage quitting when in fact they removed my access to the Slack discussion channel (someone I know sent me the update of what they wrote about me after they kicked me out).

They are playing the reputation game.

[dinofelis]

Yep, Usenet wasn’t easy-to-use nor could it remain popular with the much better user experiences with current websites.

That was just a matter of making a better newsreader client.  I think that was not the problem.  It is true that usenet originated in the unix/command line/text interface world, and its traditional users probably didn't see any reason to switch to some fancy graphical interface and "feature-hiding", but it could easily have evolved.  As I said, that was not, IMO, the principal reason for its abandoning.

3) [no performance guarantees, chaos and unreliable, inconsistent user experience]. In other words, this was a true decentralized paradigm.

I never had any technical issues, honestly.  The only pain in moderated groups was that your post only appeared something like the next day, because the moderator had to approve it before it appeared.  But that was already not usenet's spirit.  Moderation was something that was added to it because the unmoderated groups were full of shit, and wading though it to find something interesting to discuss was delegated to a dude that wanted to do this.

But usenet worked very reliably, technically.  No "bad user experience" (if you didn't mind command line client software and ascii, but on a VT-100 terminal, you mostly didn't have anything else in any case !).

You are conflating decentralized with disorganized shit. Decentralized software systems can be indistinguishable in terms of user experience from centralized software systems. That is your broken clock aliasing error again. I do not understand why your brain continually does this. You seem like you have a very high intellect, but you seem to so often make these egregious errors of logic.

As I said, and I've been using usenet for more than a decade, it wasn't "disorganized shit" at all, but the fancy bells and whistles of graphical user interfaces was not deemed necessary (that said, they exist).
And yes, I already told you that I think that a system can only remain decentralized when it is "disorganized" and when there are no "rules forever".  For instance, I consider the ecosystem of crypto coins as potentially decentralized, but there is no single crypto coin which comes near being "decentralized", on the contrary.  However, the "disorganized mess" they form, comes somewhat closer.  So yes, in as much as usenet could about do anything, it was decentralized. 

Edit: I see below that you were conflating decentralized with maximally disordered.

Yup, but that's on purpose.

Reputation is essential to the way humans evolved in our ancestral environment. Without reputation, humans do not know how to function well, because they do not digest all the information. They use reputation to make shortcuts, because humans are lazy and busy on other things (such as masturbating, stuffing their mouth with food, watching porn, stroking their ego, and other very important activities).

This brings us to trust, to hierarchies, and to centralization.  And why most people are not into the "decentralized stuff" thing.

You were close to correct. They actually want tribal leaders. They want to compare reputations, because this is what humans have always done in tribes.

But you are incorrect to equate this with a single centralized authority. Humans are quite well adapted to forming groups with group leaders.

Ah, I see.   By "centralized" I don't mean "one single controlling entity", but simply the existence of hierarchies of control and command.  So yes, several tribal leaders are a centralized system (from the point of view of a tribe member).  Of course, they form a decentralized system amongst themselves, if these tribal leaders themselves do not have "higher" hierarchies.  But from the point of view of the tribe member, he is part of a centralized system: his tribe, with its rules and hierarchy.

Now, there can be dynamics in the "decentralized layer" of tribal leaders (for instance, warfare) that have the tendency to make only one the dominant one ; or there can be dynamics that will rather make it difficult to dominate.  Depending on the dynamical laws of the system, there will be convergence to a "natural monopoly" or not.    Things which have network effect tend to have this convergence towards monopoly, and discussion forums are part of that.

As a member, a discussion forum is a central authority ; but discussion forums on the internet have no "higher authority" and hence form an disorganised, and hence decentralized, system.  But their evolution is usually that the forum with the biggest network effect draws in all users - unless there are niche applications for other forums (for instance, differently moderated).  The dynamical interactions of the market share of discussion forums are a messy, and hence decentralized dynamics, with no hierarchical control but which usually lead to a single market leader, giving a lot of power to the hierarchy of that "tribe".

In fact, they like being part of their own tribe within their Dunbar limit. Theymos’ mistake is he is trying for one-size-fits-all site-wide reputation and moderation authority, which is devolving into a clusterfuck because humans need to be able to splinter off into competing tribes (teams). They will rip each others heads off until they are allowed to form tribes within their Dunbar limit of closer like-minded relationships.

Well that's not Theymos' "fault".  He's just the tribal leader of the tribe that became a natural monopoly.  If you want to be part of his tribe, there's not much else to do but to submit to his rules (or stay under the radar).

Usenet wasn't a "database".  That's important. It was a *discussion* of which old interactions disappeared.

Group leaders will never tolerate such a system. Would never become popular because the flock follow where the tribal leaders go.

That's exactly why I think that usenet got abandoned ; because people wanted tribal leaders (= centralisation = hierarchy and authority).

The group leaders will drive the demand for the decentralized systems, because they do not want to invest in closed source, because they risk their investment being stolen by the centralized authority of the closed source.

Forum software is mostly open source... (?)

Archiving informal discussions is problematic, because in informal discussions, one can test ideas, take temporary positions, say sometimes stupid things ...  Archiving takes all this stuff and turns it into a kind of eternal social contract.  The strong linking between avatars and content makes that one focusses now more on the building of a reputation and the destruction of competitors' reputations, than to discuss about the content.  Whole strategies are now deployed to market or destroy avatars.

It will remain that way until humans evolve.

Informal intellectual or recreational discussion shouldn't be a database, and authors of content shouldn't matter.

I disagree. I often refer back to my discussions to remember what I was thinking. Can you remember everything you ever said and thought   Even if you can, how many people can do that?

I can remember a lot of what I have written. Maybe 500 pages of it, but not verbatim. I can remember well enough to use Google to find the post I want.

That's actually one of your irritating posting habits.  I forget about immediately what I say (even though by saying it, I improved a conceptual understanding of something).   It is like an oral conversation: you simply have to say again whatever it might have been what you were saying before.  I consider a discussion "without memory", and arguments only to be valid at the moment of discussion in the flow of the arguments.  Of course, during some "back and forth" in a *given discussion*, one can refer to some earlier posts if they inspired a reply to a reply or something, but indeed, everything from more than a week ago should be forgotten (and in my case, mostly IS forgotten). 

Logical reasoning is "instantaneous", well, for the length of the argument, and is then "back into the bit bucket", just like in the case of an oral conversation.  You are not going to have people listen to pre-recorded older conversations in a given conversation, are you ?

Decentralization does not necessarily mean that there are no group leaders. You are thinking in terms of absolute decentralization, but there is no absolute. Decentralize all the atoms in our bodies, we can not even post anything, and that is still not absolute.

Ah, to me, yes. Decentralization is the total absence of hierarchy, leadership and the perfect "flatness" of all command and control - which can only happen in a totally disorganized system.

Disorder and decentralization are not the same concept. You are conflating. Decentralization is about distributing the control of a system. It does not mean the distribution has to be maximal to the point that there is no control whatsoever (complete disorder, i.e. maximum uncertainty and random chance).

Ok, well, to me, both notions are the same.   I'm not saying that a decentralized system cannot implement dynamics that naturally evolve towards forms of leadership, but I consider then that they centralize ; unless they also contain dynamical rules that destroy these leaders, so that leadership is an ephemeral phenomenon. 

Like prey and predators in nature ; you might think that these establish some kind of "hierarchy", but usually, these hierarchies are just as well destroyed as set up, so that's ok.   It is when the dynamics can lock in leadership, that I consider it a failed decentralisation. 

The masses want hierarchy, bosses and central authority.

Nope they will kill each other if locked into a single grouping and they can not fork off into tribes. That is why the future of the EU is going to be so horrific because the EU refuses to allow the different groups to have their own governance.

I'm not talking about a SINGLE grouping, but *every* form of sustained grouping.  Tribal groupings are also, as I said, centralized from the point of view of a tribe member.  Whether you have to obey to your tribe leader, or you have to obey to the king of the world, doesn't really matter from the point of view of a member.  Of course, it makes all the difference in the world for a tribal leader, who has to put up with other tribal leaders ; or with a king of the world ; or wants to be the king of the world.

From the moment there are hierarchies, I consider the system centralized, even if there can be many of them in parallel, as long as you are locked into one as a member, it doesn't make a difference.

Nope we are all in the majority of being tribal.

I'm not very tribal. 

There are many indications that "the masses" want authority and prefer centralized paradigms over decentralized ones.  Because people like their own freedom, but they hate even more other peoples' freedom.  And they prefer easiness over freedom, and are willing to delegate trust if it makes life simpler.

They hate not having tribes (teams) to go war against.

They prefer reputation over information.

Now I understand why you wrote the following and why you hope the Singularity is true and humans are destroyed and replaced by machine intelligence:

That said, it comes close to my view on the world: "me", and "the others"

Finally