Is a Madmax outcome coming before 2020? Thus do we need anonymity?

[practicaldreamer]

Anonymint - your last post contained 46 links.

[1714975266]

1714975266

[Rassah]

I think AnonyMint's posts can be used as entropy seeds.

[AnonyMint]

Anonymint - your last post contained 46 links.

That just shows how motivated and enthusiastic he is...

The "Yes" votes on this thread and the other one are surprisingly high.  

I did not expect such a high percentage of the readers would agree with me. I am accustomed to being far ahead of the crowd, and my views don't become mainstream until a decade after I start to capitalize on them.

So this could mean I have a found a filter (topic of Bitcoin and decentralization) for people more like me, and/or it could mean I've been much too slow to capitalize on these sort of macro-economic, geopolitical insights that I started contemplating after 9/11 and researching seriously since 2005.

[Rassah]

I notice in the other "Transactions Withholding Attack" is still listed, despite the fact that it was already debunked as not feasible by a few bitcoin core developers, as well as people with a much better understanding of bitcoin than you. It was likely the thing that made you lose so much respect among developers and long-time bitcoin users, since they would point out to you why this would not work, and yet you kept insisting they were wrong, despite demonstrating that you did not understand how the bitcoin blockchain and incentive structure actually works.

Interestingly enough, me mentioning this on that thread ended up with the post being deleted.

[Rassah]

P.S. Your low IQ cohorts can repost their deleted spam posts in your thread. I have already provided a link to it above. Readers can follow that link to read posts which I deemed to be political grandstanding noise and not sincere discussion. Or repeating debates that were already made in other threads which are linked from the OP. If they want to continue those orthogonal debates, they can put their posts in those orthogonal threads.

"low IQ cohorts" Hah! This from a guy who brought up an idea that was thoroughly debunked, and who couldn't even understand why it was debunked despite being explained over many pages. And who thinks his ideas are incredibly insightful and unique, especially since he provides 40 links to all his other supporting posts (each with its own links, of course), when the rest of us just take your ideas for granted and don't post about them because we don't think they are all that special (yeah, no shit socialism is a cultural disease, ecomony is unsustainable and will likely collapse, governments will try to take as much as they can from anyone who has anything, and bitcoin will need to be much more resistant before that time comes. We're working on it!)

Regardless, you're still lying in your post by bringing up things that were already proven to be wrong, and your anti-bitcoin agenda is rather blatantly obvious.

[harkonnen]

The mathematically irrefutable outcome of government is a power vacuum that attracts the flies aka. vested interests.

Some Iron Laws of Political Economics by Eric S Raymond the 150+ IQ genius author of the Cathedral and the Bazaar and the Art of Unix Programming, who launched the open source revolution (he coined the term "open source", elucidated the business models, etc).

Can't believe you are actually quoting from Eric.

[Rassah]

Can't believe you are actually quoting from Eric.

Had to look him up on Wikipedia. Can't say it was very flattering, either:

He wrote CML2, a source code configuration system; while originally intended for the Linux kernel, it was rejected by kernel developers.
...
Noting that the Jargon File had not been maintained since about 1983, he adopted it in 1990 and currently has a third edition in print. Paul Dourish maintains an archived original version of the Jargon File, because, he says, Raymond's updates "essentially destroyed what held it together."

Sounds like AnonyMint

[practicaldreamer]

Can't believe you are actually quoting from Eric.

Had to look him up on Wikipedia. Can't say it was very flattering, either:

He wrote CML2, a source code configuration system; while originally intended for the Linux kernel, it was rejected by kernel developers.
...
Noting that the Jargon File had not been maintained since about 1983, he adopted it in 1990 and currently has a third edition in print. Paul Dourish maintains an archived original version of the Jargon File, because, he says, Raymond's updates "essentially destroyed what held it together."

Sounds like AnonyMint

Similar story with Martin Armstrong

[Rassah]

Similar story with Martin Armstrong

That looks like a completely different story o.o

[AnonyMint]

Smart readers are smart enough to know when they are being lied to.

These dolts will run together into the abyss.

I encourage them. Carry on children throwing sand and telling lies.

These dolts accomplish nothing. They spend their lives talking to themselves. And sending me intentional harassment in private Messages:

Happy to provide you with entertainment.

Their jealousy is so obvious:

Happy to provide you with entertainment. How's your alt-coin progressing?

Is that all you can do with your pitiful self?

I'll take that as "it's not." Quite a bit of competition you got now with NXT and Ethereum. People may not care or take you seriously any more if you wait too long.

And they still don't grasp that one of my strategic goals is I don't want to be taken seriously (in the beginning). This is perhaps the fourth time I've written this. But we know their comprehension and retention level is not very high.

[Rassah]

And they still don't grasp that one of my strategic goals is I don't want to be taken seriously (in the beginning). This is perhaps the fourth time I've written this. But we know their comprehension and retention level is not very high.

People who don't want to be taken seriously, do not spend time writing 4 page dissertations on public internet forums, supported by 40 reference links, and invoking authority from 150+ IQ geniuses.

But regardless, you have very much succeeded in not being taken seriously. Also, you started it on the PMs, as this https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=365141.msg5059193#msg5059193 was my reply to it.
Also also, aren't I on your ignore?

[AnonyMint]

Posting iconoclastic information by definition means I won't be taken seriously by the mainstream sheep such as yourself. I estimate you will be referring to the dictionary for one of those preceding words.

Haven't you noticed I don't give a flying fuck about authority.

[practicaldreamer]

Even if we favour a conspiracy angle to explain the 7 years jail for contempt thing, it still paints an overall non-conspiratorial picture, because of course the evil elites already have their own market prediction software

I think what the likes of Martin Armstrong have realised is that if you can present a case convincingly enough and with enough authority then there is a fair chance that some people will be prepared to gamble/invest in you - there is a fair chance that a certain amount of people will take your assertions to be truth when at best they are verisimilitude. They will take them to be true not so much because they are true - more because they wish them to be true. You can, by pure force of will essentially, take people along with you on your journey - almost in spite of themselves.
    And then your success becomes like a self fulfilling prophecy and gains its own momentum - and this is regardless of the truth or falsity of the case you first presented. He understands peoples innate will to believe and exploits it ruthlessly. He understands peoples vanity, their appeal to authority, their desire to be ahead of the curve - and he makes it work for him.

   Another article here about him.
‘‘His 8.6-year cycle perhaps roughly fits the timing of the last three U.S. recessions but that’s about it,” said Karel Mertens, a professor of economics at Cornell University in Ithaca, New York, who has studied business cycles. “It’s comparable to numerology.”

      I imagine he's a good talker - but not the seer or iconoclast he would have us believe  .

[CoinCube]

Ouch this thread is getting personal. Lets put two things in perspective.

1) No one who has replied to this thread is an idiot. I have met a lot of idiots in my life. Sorry but none of you make the cut. On the contrary overall quality of posts and debate has been very impressive.

2) Everyone here has a vested interest/agenda. Many here have a large position in bitcoin and stand to lose a lot if the OP is right. The OP is obviously pushing an alternative and stands to likewise lose out if he is proven wrong.

Our goal here (at least mine) is a search for truth. Given that we are an intelligent group of non idiots with vastly differing agendas I am impressed the conversation has been as civil as it has. Lets try to keep it that way sans vulgar words and personal attacks.

[AnonyMint]

A person who doesn't want to make a complete fool of himself, would have taken the time to go back and look at all of Armstrong's computer's predictions and see the vast majority of them came true, even many accurate to the day.

Please continue posting and making utter fools of yourselves. Please do.

No one who has replied to this thread is an idiot.

You have a much lower standard than I do.

[CoinCube]

You have a much lower standard than I do.

Blablahblah is naturally opposed to you because your arguments (at least the economic ones) are based in materialism. He is clearly of the idealist school of thought. To agree with you across the board would essentially be the equivalent of accepting materialism as correct (not going to happen). Lot's of very intelligent idealists out there.

Practicaldreamer is obviously a man of faith and you have posted quite few things not entirely supportive of religion. Very hard to get anywhere with him starting from that.

Rassah owns a lot of Bitcoins.

What I see are three intelligent individuals with differing agendas/philosophical outlooks.
 

[AnonyMint]

Sorry I see these dolts as huge drag on my work time. I will no longer be patient with them. I am kicking them away from me. And all future threads of mine will be self-moderated and they are banned. I've been patient with them for months and I have made a decision. Time to get real work done and cast off the dead weight.

You have a much lower standard than I do.

Blablahblah is naturally opposed to you because your arguments (at least the economic ones) are based in materialism. He is clearly of the idealist school of thought.

At the quoted link above, he continues to demonstrate an entire failure of basic logic that is characteristic of most of his posts throughout this thread and others. Liberalism is illogical, so it is very easy to twist them in knots, then they resort to lies, political grandstanding, and propaganda. This happens every time.

Liberalism is not idealistic rather it is destructive to humanity as explained upthread. I am the one who is incredibly idealistic, believing that I might be able to further individual freedom beyond what for example Eric S Raymond did and I did, to already help create a decentralized internet.

To agree with you across the board would essentially be the equivalent of accepting materialism as correct (not going to happen). Lot's of very intelligent idealists out there.

They are not intelligent. They can't present a coherent and consistent logic.

You at least admitted that collectivism (a.k.a. socialism) was required when the economy was physical and there was no way to discard the political power vacuum. But that idea originated mostly from me, although you with non-biased mindset helped push the logic forward to full conclusion. These other assholes are so set in their Liberalism and old world collectivism model, they habitually commit logic errors to defend all they've ever known, because they can't think themselves out of their box.

I consider that a sign of lack of intelligence because remember my definition of knowledge creation which you have quoted.

Practicaldreamer is obviously a man of faith and you have posted quite few things not entirely supportive of religion. Very hard to get anywhere with him starting from that.

Everything I have written is entirely consistent with the Bible. If he is a Christian, he doesn't even know the philosophy well.

That doesn't mean I accept the Bible as fact, because faith in an afterlife is not falsifiable.

Rassah owns a lot of Bitcoins.

I have explained mathematically upthread how large capital becomes dumb.

What I see are three intelligent individuals with differing agendas/philosophical outlooks.

Sorry failure of logic on asserting intelligent life amongst those dolts. Because remember my definition of knowledge creation which you have quoted from blogs and I don't even see diversity of thought, because these guys are stuck in the mainstream mayonnaise. These are just to a significant degree robots who have had their individuality and uniqueness largely suffocated by their belief in and academic training by the collective system.

I have never read a single post from any of these three that was individually enlightened. They are always regurgitating the system's mayonnaise.

In short, their minds are controlled by Liberalism, religion, and large capital commitments. Thus they are no longer free to think.

[CoinCube]

Ok I am pulling out of this dispute (not my fight and I regret getting involved)

For the record my own potential biases are as follows.
1) I own no bitcoins and thus I am more likely to be more supportive of something new.
2) A lot of my personal income is indirectly derived from socialism and the social safety net.

Where I stand on the multiple disputes discussed so far is as follows.

A) Overall economic theory regarding Knowledge Age:
In Agreement: After spending much time reviewing this I find the theory sound

B) Technical critique of Bitcoins flaws:
Undecided: I don't have sufficient technical knowledge of bitcoin to judge for myself. All those who do have said knowledge have either an agenda or a vested interest.

C) Need for Anonyminity:
In Agreement (reluctantly): This has some major major downsides but I have been unable to think of a better solution to the power vacuum.

D) Regarding existence of a power elite:
Extremely Skeptical: The post with all the links was an challeng to my argument that they do not exist. As it was a response to my challenge I will read them all (sigh) and see if that changes my mind... eventually (probably not this week).

[AnonyMint]

Edit: note this post increased the "Yes" vote percentage in both threads.  

Ok I am pulling out of this dispute (not my fight and I regret getting involved)

I of course recognize and appreciate your kind effort to make a truce.

I was willing to entertain their counterpoints (to test my logic in the search for objective truth) until in my analysis they became disingenuous with their logic and debating ethics.

So now they and I should part ways and head down different forks in the road.

For the record my own potential biases are as follows.
1) I own no bitcoins and thus I am more likely to be more supportive of something new.
2) A lot of my personal income is indirectly derived from socialism and the social safety net.

Even those who own bitcoins should still be on the lookout for something new that will appreciate in value faster. Upthread we discussed why smaller things can grow faster. One of the fundamental tenets of investing is get in early and sell to the crowd. Where investors get trapped is when they think a larger crowd is always on the horizon. The fact is that as the market cap grows, the risk on that horizon increases. Period. Yet people prefer to stay with what has worked for them, ditto sticking with socialism into the abyss.

Armstrong has identified a repeating Public vs. Private wave economic confidence model (ECM) that shifts direction every 51.6 years as well as the public vs. private social structure wave on a 309 year cycle. Both of these cycles change direction on 2032, as well the 224 year cycle of political upheaval turned in 2013. So we have major shift ahead thus socialism is peaking. He publicly predicted many years ago the riots we are seeing now in all those links I provided upthread.

Change and adaptation is essential to life, per the discussions upthread.

B) Technical critique of Bitcoins flaws:
Undecided: I don't have sufficient technical knowledge of bitcoin to judge for myself. All those who do have said knowledge have either an agenda or a vested interest.

It doesn't matter if they think the Transactions Withholding Attack won't happen, because 0 transaction fees are more popular.  

They think there is a problem with transaction spam if transaction fees are 0, but that is because they haven't thought out-of-the-box of how to design a system that is different than Bitcoin in very amazing ways.

One day soon these guys are going to read some whitepapers that are going to make them walk away with their tail between their legs.

Also mining can't be funded from transaction fees proportional to the growth in the market cap of Bitcoin unless transactions grow as fast (and they are not) and transaction fees are a percentage (and they are not or better not because debit cards and ACH are flat fee), thus it is logically irrefutable that the value of attacking Bitcoin will increase faster than the funding for mining to protect against a 51% attack.

You don't need to be technical to understand that simple math.

These dolts just need to STFU because they are not any where near my level. (yeah I am pissed at their nonsense...wasting my time for months on end)

C) Need for Anonyminity:
In Agreement (reluctantly): This has some major major downsides but I have been unable to think of a better solution to the power vacuum.

We always had it in the past with cash and gold, it only now we need to add it to digital age because the government is gaining an unfair advantage and can now track everything.

We are just restoring the balance that had always been there before but which is being lost currently and helping socialism to go into an insane peak.

Have you voted in moolaching's naming poll?

D) Regarding existence of a power elite:
Extremely Skeptical: The post with all the links was an challeng to my argument that they do not exist. As it was a response to my challenge I will read them all (sigh) and see if that changes my mind... eventually (probably not this week).

It doesn't matter if there is a power elite or not. If they exist, they are also subject to nature and the natural cycles.

Armstrong thinks our fear to take certain actions would be influenced by whether they exist or not. No because our risk to take actions is the same whether they exist or not. A power elite is not in control of every individual outcome on the earth. If they exist, they are just symbiotic with the macro cycles.

All I need to ascertain is there is a trend towards a centralized, non-anonymous, digitally tracked world currency and governance which concentrates the control due to the power vacuum at the detriment of the people.

[Rassah]

Posting iconoclastic information by definition means I won't be taken seriously by the mainstream sheep such as yourself. I estimate you will be referring to the dictionary for one of those preceding words.

Haven't you noticed I don't give a flying fuck about authority.

I do speak english rather fluently, and understood you just fine. Pretty funny you think I'm "mainstream." Must mean I have "arrived" or something  Also, says something about YOUR level of comprehension if you think I'm for authority.

I am very anti-authority, and describe myself as Anarcho-Capitalist. In fact, I'm apparently much more anti-authority than you are (maybe that's why we clash, me being anti-authority, and you being authoritarian?). I do not dispute your points about the possible fall of society, or the why and by which means it may happen. I am actually in agreement with pretty much all of it (except for the crazy coincidental cycle theories). My only difference in opinion is that I believe your claim is one of many possible outcomes, not the only one. My main contention with you is that you come on here claiming some divine wisdom, pretending as if you are the only person who realizes these things you are talking about, and that everyone else should listen to how smart you are, and study up on your "very important" sources and other clutter of links and crosslinks, when I, and likely many many others on here, have come to those same conclusions you are espousing all on our own ages ago. Yes, we know, you don't have to yell about it in dozzens of threads, 5 pages at a time! And you're not that special or original for bringing it up, since we've all been discussing this for a while, too.

As for Bitcoin, I don't actually own a lot of bitcoin (sold most of it to get my Prius), but I do understand it WAY better than you, as do many others on here. Simply because we actually spent an enormous amount of time discussing it for years, and have been involved in development in some way. So when you come on here out of nowhere like some noob, yelling "The sky is falling!" and proclaiming a bunch of problems in bitcoin that the rest of us have discussed adnauseum two years before you even showed up, and have already figured out and dismissed these problems as non-issues, please excuse us for not taking you seriously. Especially when you bring up an issue, we shoot it down, and you bring up another issue right after, over and over. It paints a rather specific agenda on your part (like you are SURE bitcoin is bad and broken, but you're just trying to figure out how). That "transaction withholding attack" of yours is likewise nothing new, and yes, we do understand it completely. No, it will not work, because bitcoin just doesn't work in the way that it would have to for that attack to actually be effective. As for mining fees, you don't need to understand simple math, to understand that even spending $1mil to attack a network and bring your investment down to $0 will still be throwing away $1mil. The value of attacking the network will always be $0 in the long run.

I also understand that bitcoin is not in its final form. It can, and will, be changed and updated. Blockchain algorithms and mining will be improved, transactions will be anonymized. And if you ever come out with whitepapers (I'm not holding my breath), I'm sure we'll be happy to implement them into bitcoin after rigorous testing (unless we spend yet another 50 pages, explaining to you that "That's not how bitcoin works, damnit!"

By the way, it's rather ironic you keep saying we are wasting your time. How long does it take to create a 5 page long post, with 40 links, and keep track of your old posts that you can crossreference, when all you are doing in the entire post is trying to state a single, simple point?