"Failure to understand Bitcoin could cost..." (non-totalitarian version)

[blablahblah]

Seeing that the manipulator, AnonyMint has a somewhat tyrannical habit of starting threads that look promising at the start, but are ruthlessly censored to shut out dissenting views, I've decided to repost here.

Feel free to post (or repost) replies as you see fit.

Self moderated threads are for pansies.

(Doug) Casey Research's Alex Daley penned a myopic rebuttal to internet pioneer, now venture capitalist Marc Andreessen's myopic fanboy regurgitation of the often repeated incorrect theories about Bitcoin's key innovation and future. These two and most of the Bitcoin community are far from understanding what is really going on. Thus expect the majority to vote "No" here, to reaffirm their myopia, else they should refute me in debate me here (they won't be able to).

Daley essentially incorrectly argues that money can't exist without top-down corporate and government control (although he admits it could in a "wild west" mad max world which is precisely where we are headed after 2016), yet correctly argues that Bitcoin has insurmountable (also) flaws for consumer payment without top-down take over while he failed to enumerate many of the reasons Bitcoin is vulnerable to top-down take over. Copying the myopia of most of the Bitcoin community, Andreessen fails to understand the reasons Bitcoin is doomed to a future of top-down control and thus can't compete with the top-down global money solutions being patented recently by the major banks.

Your prejudice against all things centralised or structured "top down" (aka: weasel words for social structures that you emotionally dislike), fits right in with the 'myopic' Libertarian euphoria surrounding Bitcoin... in 2011 - 2012. In defence of the Libertarians here, most seem to have quite moderate views in advocating "small" governments and seeing their ideology as a "guiding principle" rather than a hard set of rules.

Bitcoin is doomed to a future of top-down control and thus can't compete with the top-down global money solutions

That's BS. Central control implies a cohesive group of vested interests -- much more dangerous to legacy financial systems than a disorganised collective of FOSS enthusiasts. One could even argue that as a distributed/decentralised platform, Bitcoin was a) too new/experimental/immature to compete with anything, b) allowed to naturally mature and become more hierarchical in precisely your favourite way: chaotic simulated annealing. It's too bad that you don't like the results-to-date of that unregulated self-structuring.

Bitcoin Take Over Threats

• Coming $Trillion(s) bubble burst will demand world government intervention & cooperation [1] (Bernie Madoff is so much smaller)
• Selfish mining attack confirmed by skeptics
• Those who were anonymous lose it ex post facto, when tax & law enforcement attack the numerous non-anonymous [2]
• 51% attack because mining is concentrated in a few pools
• 51% attack because mining is ASICs concentrated and ASICs foundries could be purchased with unlimited fiat. Note also ASICs can't be re-purposed as PCs can, i.e. each ASIC only works for a specific coin design.
• 51% attack because mining is not funded with perpetual debasement (new coins) to remain proportional to market value, instead transaction fees can not scale to market cap because even debit cards & ACH charge a flat-fee not a percentage of transaction value. Thus the world's rich (denominated in coin) grow more wealthy relative to the income of the miners.
• Non-zero transaction fees allows cartel take over via Transactions Withholding Attack
• Pools can be attacked with Share Withholding Attack fixable with oblivious shares
• Blockchain requires increasingly powerful full clients as scale to billions of transaction, thus more centralization and vulnerability to 51% attack.
• Superior altcoin

Your fears seem pathological, and you seem to misunderstand several things about the nature of money (but that's OK, so do most people).

Re: the $150T bubble collapsing?
Not gonna happen unless levels of mutual distrust in society reach a crisis point. Look up the causes of hyperinflation. There doesn't even need to be an increase in the money supply -- hyperinflation is fundamentally a runaway collapse in the amount of trust the average person has in the underlying system. Look around! Bitcoin had its own mini bout of hyperinflation just the other day -- yet the inflation policy has never changed.

You've opined about the hockey stick shape of US reserve printing. There are many ways in which it could be interpreted, e.g.:
-2008 was the start of currency war in which the US tried to steal from the EU with overpriced dollars. Since exchange rates are laggy, there's a first-mover advantage for currency debasement and the US broke the stalemate by printing. US interests would have been able to transfer $billions in hard assets from the EU, if not for EU counter moves to eliminate that advantage. Now it's back to stalemate mode with both sides sitting on extra reserves that they can't really move.
-Structural problems where the Fed have some print policy, but a parasitic hierarchy of banks is doing funny things with the money instead of lending it, because no Glass Steagal.
-You're right about a coordinated conspiracy and the Satanic elites have some suicidal plan.
-Or... anarchy rules, everything is a pathological mess, and no-one's in charge. Ideological belief in the superiority of Capitalism could do that -- government bureaucrats simply shrug their shoulders because the free market already pays them to do what they do.


All the 51% stuff and other attacks? It's all priced in.

Centralisation boogie-man = big yawn. As mentioned above, it naturally results from your favourite simulated annealing process.

Bitcoin Killer Altcoin

The Bitcoin killer will thus have at least the following features.

• provably cpu-only mining with botnet resistance (current proof-of-stake can't redistribute new coins to masses & I posit it isn't secure)

Mining is a temporary bootstrapping thing. As a feature of money, the 'costliness' of the tokens has near zero utility. Calling that cost "intrinsic value" is just a distraction for people who haven't quite wrapped their heads around more advanced ideas that cash is a symbolic pointer to a web of trust.
Mining is a (maybe) necessary evil so that trust can be built on immature networks where no naturally trustworthy leaders have emerged yet. Bitcoin allows proof-of-stake to be added. Whereas perpetual POW crappyness is implausible.

small, reasonable perpetual debasement

agreed.

built-in anonymity (to minimize non-anonymous users)

meh.

zero transaction fees (with economic transaction spam resistance)

So you want to reinvent hashcash? How? Perhaps a small fee to prevent ddos? Maybe all the miners get together and vote to determine fee levels?... You haven't thought this through, have you?

faster 1-confirmation block chain, e.g. 1 minute instead of Bitcoin's 10 min delay, if the orphan rate can be contained

2nd gen cryptos like Ethereum could make that issue completely irrelevant. E.g.: Ethereum would allow you to set up any centralised cash or share system inside a contract, and the "decentralised cloud server mining" nonsense is outsourced and non-intrusive. Your server just runs seamlessly until it runs out of funds.

[Rassah]

It doesn't matter what thread this gets posted through, either way we fist have to go through the horrible ordeal of slogging through 10 pages of random crap plus links.

[practicaldreamer]

Good thinking Blahblah - I didn't even realise there was such a thing on this (or any) forum as a self moderated thread. Perfect for Anonymints purposes though.
  Can I just add here that if anyone out there has ever come across Anonymints threads and have found it difficult to grasp the ideas contained therein - it is not because you are a dead weight lazy lumpenproletariat malignant tumour idiot fuckwit (as Anonymint would likely have you believe) so don't worry about it too much.
     How do I know this to be true ?   I know this to be true because I am one such dead weight lazy lumpenproletariat malignant tumour idiot fuckwit - and I understand his threads just fine   .

   

[blablahblah]

As expected, my comment was deleted from the other thread. Not even a quote or passing mention this time

Only Satoshi's Proof-of-Work can solve the entropy security issue. Period. I have thought about this deeply.

Oh, I thought u were an open-minded person. Sorry for disturbing u.

It is a fundamental mathematical insight. Someday I need to write a whitepaper on this. (Any mathematician readers who have some time to do this now?)

I am open-minded to that which isn't already evidently mathematically irrefutable.

Essentially proof-of-stake requires you to move to trust and reputation and call that "security". But that is not the type of security I want, because it ends up as "winner takes all". It is just democracy and fiat again. I want decentralized security which does not have the power vacuum. Only Satoshi's Proof-of-Work has that.

While proof-of-work obviously tickles the braincells in various ways, AnonyMint's posts strongly suggest that technical design is merely secondary to some agenda he's obsessing about. In spite of all his showy keyboard bashing, he sure refuses to engage in meaningful discussions.

[misternanyte]

blahblahblah wrote:
Mining is a (maybe) necessary evil so that trust can be built on immature networks where no naturally trustworthy leaders have emerged yet. Bitcoin allows proof-of-stake to be added. Whereas perpetual POW crappyness is implausible.

I strongly disagree. Mining is not a necessary evil, because it helps process the transactions, which costs energy, which in turn provides energy. Bitcoin miners are simply fish in a pond. Do any of those fish in the pond OWN the pond? No. Did they build it? No. Do they deserve to drink and breathe from it, YES! And that's why bitcoin mining is not a necessary evil, but a necessary FUNCTION for a TRULY free economy to work. Everyone who is a good person deserves to have whatever they want, as long as it doesn't hurt the economy (IE taking too much of something). It's the same reason why in the old days in the 1800's, people who lived in small towns would generally just walk by some random guy's corn field and take some corn home with them. But they never took too much. That's the principle. Understand that a free market isn't some deathly, scary, grey concrete slab that falls on you when you don't pay exactly the amount that you took. There is intrinsic value in charitable actions. Imagine an old lady who can't get around anymore, and needs her food shipped to her. She could mine for bitcoins to get her food, and perhaps medicine. Understand that energy doesn't die or get used up, it just transforms. And sometimes the intrinsic value of any resource you can imagine can transform into the necessity of charity.

Understand that charity does NOT equal socialism. A baby being taken care of by it's mother isn't socialism. It's charity. So tell me, what is the value of taking care of an infant? Love.

Let me further explain how the bitcoin mining works. Perhaps the electrical cost is less than the value recieved from processing bitcoin transactions (mining). But why should that matter? The value of something isn't separated from other objects of value, but rather it's one whole unit that is affected by everything we do. THere were some years in our cultivated past that we caught a really good time to grow lots of crops and thus were able to make an abundance of coin. You just ride the wave. There is no real set value to anything. It's just whatever feels right to you. Sometimes you have to think about it, sometimes you don't. But whatever the case, you just do what feels necessary or right. That's the principle behind bitcoin. People don't need to starve just because they themselves don't produce EXACTLY the cost of the resources they take from. Rather, if they need help, then those that are able to help simply become stronger, not weaker. Perhaps physically, or skill-wise. Either way, all energy just shifts from one area to another. It doesn't matter that we're not all "equally adapted" to society and/or the economy within said society.

[blablahblah]

blahblahblah wrote:
Mining is a (maybe) necessary evil so that trust can be built on immature networks where no naturally trustworthy leaders have emerged yet. Bitcoin allows proof-of-stake to be added. Whereas perpetual POW crappyness is implausible.

I strongly disagree. Mining is not a necessary evil, because it helps process the transactions, which costs energy, which in turn provides energy. Bitcoin miners are simply fish in a pond.

I'll throw some numbers out to illustrate what I mean.
As a rule of thumb, mining cost tends to asymptotically "catch up" with price, kinda.
So let's say 1BTC costs $800 to make.
A block with 25BTC = $20k of cost.

Now, putting ideologies and general awesomeness aside for a moment, in a different system those 25 bitcoins might have been printed for free. OK, call it "$5" because even typing some numbers into a database must cost something.
The other $19.995k is basically global warming, burnt coal for electricity, and landfills stuffed with dead ASICs. As some would it, "economic devastation" and a cancerous dead weight.

And how many transactions are packed into each block? A few hundred? Sweet! Only $50 of socialised habitat destruction (per transaction, that is) to pay for the "provable inflation rate". At least it's not as bad as that extortionate minimum fee. *sigh*

But surely I've misunderstood something? What about the awesomeness of decentralised proof-of-work, making it all transparent and honest? Well, the cost is so extreme that I'm questioning whether it's worth it. AnonyMint did not want to have that discussion. He would rather repeatedly shout out his conclusions and his pre-existing, US-centric rationale about centralisation and evil governments. However, when questioned about the heart of the issue, he kept deleting my posts.


Another reason for my questioning is the high volatility. It's clear that a "transparent, honest, provable rate of increase in the money supply" does not produce nice smooth exchange rate graphs in practice. "Trust in the maths" is all over the place:
1BTC = $800 of trust-in-the-maths one week,
1BTC = $600 of trust-in-the-maths the next week.

Obviously something doesn't quite add up, there. There must be some other factor/s affecting exchange rates. How about liquidity, flow, chaotic changes in holdings? Scale of adoption might have an effect, and it could be argued that exchange rates will become more stable as the market saturates. 4~5 years might not be long enough to see a long-term trend on log charts. (More on that, later.)


To be fair on Bitcoin, it does seem extremely well thought-out and elegant in its simplicity:
Block rewards are reduced over time, and tendencies to centralise and form natural monopolies (think: mining pools) are not cock-blocked by ideology. Innovation and evolution: from CPU mining, to GPUs, FPGAs and custom ASICs was free and unhindered all the way. However, some people would prefer a design that is deliberately crippled (read: micromanaged and prematurely optimised) to block these natural processes. AnonyMint himself argued extensively about entropic force and power law distribution -- so why the blind spot?

[cAPSLOCK]

While proof-of-work obviously tickles the braincells in various ways, AnonyMint's posts strongly suggest that technical design is merely secondary to some agenda he's obsessing about. In spite of all his showy keyboard bashing, he sure refuses to engage in meaningful discussions.

Usually he likes to attack the intelligence of his readers and then takes his toys and claims to be leaving the forum.

I have witnessed a half dozen of his net-suicides at least.

He is an intelligent man, obviously, but something is out of balance. 

[AnonyMint]

blahblahblah wrote:
Mining is a (maybe) necessary evil so that trust can be built on immature networks where no naturally trustworthy leaders have emerged yet. Bitcoin allows proof-of-stake to be added. Whereas perpetual POW crappyness is implausible.

I strongly disagree. Mining is not a necessary evil, because it helps process the transactions, which costs energy, which in turn provides energy.

Astute. I also explained this in my way of expression:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=455141.msg5146060#msg5146060

Another reason for my questioning is the high volatility. It's clear that a "transparent, honest, provable rate of increase in the money supply" does not produce nice smooth exchange rate graphs in practice. "Trust in the maths" is all over the place:
1BTC = $800 of trust-in-the-maths one week,
1BTC = $600 of trust-in-the-maths the next week.

Obviously something doesn't quite add up, there. There must be some other factor/s affecting exchange rates. How about liquidity, flow, chaotic changes in holdings? Scale of adoption might have an effect, and it could be argued that exchange rates will become more stable as the market saturates. 4~5 years might not be long enough to see a long-term trend on log charts. (More on that, later.)

Scaling of the money supply M is not intended to make exchange rates stable. The purpose has nothing to do with that, rather see my link above for the benefits. See Quantity Theory of Money and the linked posts in the Errata section.

To be fair on Bitcoin, it does seem extremely well thought-out and elegant in its simplicity:
Block rewards are reduced over time, and tendencies to centralise and form natural monopolies (think: mining pools) are not cock-blocked by ideology. Innovation and evolution: from CPU mining, to GPUs, FPGAs and custom ASICs was free and unhindered all the way. However, some people would prefer a design that is deliberately crippled (read: micromanaged and prematurely optimised) to block these natural processes. AnonyMint himself argued extensively about entropic force and power law distribution -- so why the blind spot?

Agree Bitcoin is flawed and thus is drifting towards centralized. Thus is failure directed.

Fixing those flaws to keep it decentralized is on trend with the Second Law of Thermodynamics which says the entropy of the universe trends to maximum. Thus is success directed.

[misternanyte]

blahblahblah wrote:
Mining is a (maybe) necessary evil so that trust can be built on immature networks where no naturally trustworthy leaders have emerged yet. Bitcoin allows proof-of-stake to be added. Whereas perpetual POW crappyness is implausible.

I strongly disagree. Mining is not a necessary evil, because it helps process the transactions, which costs energy, which in turn provides energy. Bitcoin miners are simply fish in a pond.

I'll throw some numbers out to illustrate what I mean.
As a rule of thumb, mining cost tends to asymptotically "catch up" with price, kinda.
So let's say 1BTC costs $800 to make.
A block with 25BTC = $20k of cost.

Now, putting ideologies and general awesomeness aside for a moment, in a different system those 25 bitcoins might have been printed for free. OK, call it "$5" because even typing some numbers into a database must cost something.
The other $19.995k is basically global warming, burnt coal for electricity, and landfills stuffed with dead ASICs. As some would it, "economic devastation" and a cancerous dead weight.

And how many transactions are packed into each block? A few hundred? Sweet! Only $50 of socialised habitat destruction (per transaction, that is) to pay for the "provable inflation rate". At least it's not as bad as that extortionate minimum fee. *sigh*

But surely I've misunderstood something? What about the awesomeness of decentralised proof-of-work, making it all transparent and honest? Well, the cost is so extreme that I'm questioning whether it's worth it. AnonyMint did not want to have that discussion. He would rather repeatedly shout out his conclusions and his pre-existing, US-centric rationale about centralisation and evil governments. However, when questioned about the heart of the issue, he kept deleting my posts.


Another reason for my questioning is the high volatility. It's clear that a "transparent, honest, provable rate of increase in the money supply" does not produce nice smooth exchange rate graphs in practice. "Trust in the maths" is all over the place:
1BTC = $800 of trust-in-the-maths one week,
1BTC = $600 of trust-in-the-maths the next week.

Obviously something doesn't quite add up, there. There must be some other factor/s affecting exchange rates. How about liquidity, flow, chaotic changes in holdings? Scale of adoption might have an effect, and it could be argued that exchange rates will become more stable as the market saturates. 4~5 years might not be long enough to see a long-term trend on log charts. (More on that, later.)


To be fair on Bitcoin, it does seem extremely well thought-out and elegant in its simplicity:
Block rewards are reduced over time, and tendencies to centralise and form natural monopolies (think: mining pools) are not cock-blocked by ideology. Innovation and evolution: from CPU mining, to GPUs, FPGAs and custom ASICs was free and unhindered all the way. However, some people would prefer a design that is deliberately crippled (read: micromanaged and prematurely optimised) to block these natural processes. AnonyMint himself argued extensively about entropic force and power law distribution -- so why the blind spot?

The blocks rewards are reduced over time because people suck, and make the bitcoin network suck. Instead of relying on what works, people just want everything to get done faster which doesn't really add up to anything but more money and energy being spent in the long run. The faster you make something, the more the stupid sheep like people who use bitcoin because they are parasites not because they care about the free market are going to simply want even faster. They just mindlessly consume everything in their environment, and now they're on bitcoin making mining even harder for the rest of us because they are so stupid they don't understand the risks involved in making mining hardware obsolete. These are the types of people who do steroids endlessly until their biceps are 40 inches around because they can't handle any other guy looking bigger than them. That's why we have a problem with bitcoin mining, not because mining is bad.

If you bothered to read the rest of my earlier you'd understand why bitcoin mining is a necessity. Data from star trek once said to a cryogenically unfrozen 20th century banker "In our society, if you want something, you simply ask for it". That's basically how it should work. You're getting caught on the idea of production, thinking that the work (production) needs to be equally distributed. You fail to see the problem with that though. There is actually better value in NOT HAVING TO WORK at times, and while we still need to work for SOMETHING the other times, we all come across times when it's easier just to take something to make our lives easier, but in that case it's only done with respect to who put it there, man or nature, and it's done without taking too much.

[practicaldreamer]

Would it be OK to just copy and paste from the Anonymity thread a post that I have just made in response to Anonymints trolling. Obviously no point me posting it on his self moderated thread .




"Quote from: AnonyMint on Today at 12:52:07 AM
...myopic socialist illogic.

Another great sound bite - that ultimately means absolutely nothing    More links to links to links of the same old same old same old  

I'll guarantee you this Anonymint - wherever you are located in the world if you turn a profit or otherwise derive an income from the national assets and people of the UK then you are liable to give something back to the UK in taxation - and you will pay your share , anonymous transactions or not - so don't rest too easy buddy   .

I'm sorry if for you that makes me some kind of Pol Pot - and I'm sorry if it doesn't sit easy for you, your overseas idyll and your unencumbered luxurious dissipation.

Call me old fashioned, but I like to call it social justice.

 [ps. seeing as how you are censoring posts on your own self moderated thread, I might as well just add here (in this open thread as I will not again post in a self moderated thread) that when you talk about your aversion to socialism, what you are really averse to is central administration, beauracracy and rationalisation of organisations. That is what you are describing at least - and then you are labelling it "socialism" to fit in with your preconceptions and your dogma. You can name drop Hegel as much as you like (have you ever actually read Hegel ?) but what you don't understand is that the debt crisis was fermented and unleashed by the free market economies. It had nothing to do with socialism - and it had nothing to do with you or anyone else being taxed. It had to do with greed, laissez faire economics and banking/financial (derivatives) deregulation.

    Do us all a favour will you Anonymint ? You are fooling no-one but yourself.]"




ps. I can now delete this reply from the Anonymity thread   - where it doesn't belong - cheers Blah.

[practicaldreamer]

"....the $150 trillion debt is not just some accounting ledger entry. Rather as I explained above, it is a reality of (the current vocations of) most people being not needed, i.e. uneconomic and not profitable. The accumulated size of the unprofitable vocations is $150 trillion. "

 No - the US has effectively borrowed from the world and given to the wealthy.

The size of global debt is roughly equal to the size of global wealth - and 10% of the world population own virtually all of it - the wealth that is, not the debt    (well, 85% of it - but you get the point) .

No dead weight - no cancerous tumours - no human beings that aren't needed - just greed.

[cAPSLOCK]

Well it seems anonymint has committed another temporary bitcointalk suicide.  Promising to "really sign off and see us on the other side" of presumably his magnum opus coin development.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=455141.msg5475768#msg5475768

I was briefly interested in what he had to say, but he is an unbalanced man, and quite an asshole to boot.

He likes to call people out for ad-hominem out of one side of his mouth, and then call people "low-IQ" "Betamales" out of the other.

He's butthurt for being ripped off selling BTC on paypal, and I believe it is in part because he was stolen from that he imagines this great scenario of clawback and the lives of all BTC holders being ruined by giant conspiracies within world governments.

He's a bright fellow, but not the genius he likes to portray.  He is hateful, exceedingly arrogant, and paranoid to an extent that must certainly interfere with a normal life.  I feel concern for his mental health.  But more I am concerned because (somewhat) intelligent aggressive unbalanced people like him with delusions of grandeur can sometimes be dangerous.

All that said, I predict his internet suicide, like all the others I've seen so far from him will last a few days, maybe a little more.

He always comes back pretty quicly after tearing up all the papers and storming off with all his toys.

Lol.

[AnonyMint]

He's butthurt for being ripped off selling BTC on paypal, and I believe it is in part because he was stolen from that he imagines this great scenario of clawback and the lives of all BTC holders being ruined by giant conspiracies within world governments.

Yet the lives of middle class are not ruined all over the world by the powerful entities. 

But that Holy Grail Bitcoin will save us, because it is pseudo-anonymous (WTF?!). Yeah, yeah I know all the batshit stupid diarrhea.

But more I am concerned because (somewhat) intelligent aggressive unbalanced people like him with delusions of grandeur can sometimes be dangerous.

Fear of Damned Facts.

And people wonder why altcoins must be launched anonymously.

[cAPSLOCK]

Stop teasing us by claiming you're leaving.

Lol....almost like he is talking to himself....  

You are both obviously low-iq primates, and as betamales you are destined to be shoved around by people with gigantic intellects like anonymint.  As has been discussed upthread the 3rd order spine factor of transceptive organisms all but dictates abject failure on the part of betamales to ever understand what sort of genius it takes to run a poorly formatted blog.

Aside from that, your lack of utilization of nested quotes shows your lack of ability when it comes to depth of thoughtscapes or even degrees of freedom and several other neosciency catchphrases I learn from watching Ted videos.

And singlebyte your seeming obsession with elipses is obviously planted by the NSA and it is unavoidable in the future that you will have your elipsetic code broken by quantum biological computers which already exist.

To be entirely honest your lack of nested quotes is only the beginnig as I do not even see any bulleted lists.

• Nested Quotes
• Bullet Lists
• NSA
• Quantum computers
• I am an alphamale
• Degrees of freedom
• Anti fragile egos
• Inability to dance well at all

By the way, no nested quotes are complete without full before/after parity

And as was discussed upthread, you have a low-IQ

You are also a betamale.

So until you can match my prowess and ability to type gigantic walls of text into a browser inexculpably full of overbig words designed to convince me I am smarter than you then I suggest you go back to your little room when the police will be soon coming to butt rape you for ever saying the word "bitcoin".  I on the otherhand will be developing the "one true coin" and will announce it somewhere noone will see because I hate everyone.

Ha.

[misternanyte]

i'm sick and tired of cowards thinking they're morally superior by either PURPOSEFULLY responding with completely fucking gibberish to throw me off and never actually answer my questions or points, OR... they just don't answer at all. I made some good points and you fucking morons in this thread are too retarded to respond.

[cAPSLOCK]

i'm sick and tired of cowards thinking they're morally superior by either PURPOSEFULLY responding with completely fucking gibberish to throw me off and never actually answer my questions or points, OR... they just don't answer at all. I made some good points and you fucking morons in this thread are too retarded to respond.

Wow.  You do a pretty good Anonymint imitation too!  Or were you serious?  If you were serious I find this particular argument easy to destroy...

The blocks rewards are reduced over time because people suck, and make the bitcoin network suck. Instead of relying on what works, people just want everything to get done faster which doesn't really add up to anything but more money and energy being spent in the long run. The faster you make something, the more the stupid sheep like people who use bitcoin because they are parasites not because they care about the free market are going to simply want even faster. They just mindlessly consume everything in their environment, and now they're on bitcoin making mining even harder for the rest of us because they are so stupid they don't understand the risks involved in making mining hardware obsolete. These are the types of people who do steroids endlessly until their biceps are 40 inches around because they can't handle any other guy looking bigger than them. That's why we have a problem with bitcoin mining, not because mining is bad.

If you bothered to read the rest of my earlier you'd understand why bitcoin mining is a necessity. Data from star trek once said to a cryogenically unfrozen 20th century banker "In our society, if you want something, you simply ask for it". That's basically how it should work. You're getting caught on the idea of production, thinking that the work (production) needs to be equally distributed. You fail to see the problem with that though. There is actually better value in NOT HAVING TO WORK at times, and while we still need to work for SOMETHING the other times, we all come across times when it's easier just to take something to make our lives easier, but in that case it's only done with respect to who put it there, man or nature, and it's done without taking too much.

That's just the classic "This area was really cool when it was our little secret when we moved here, but now that others moving in it sucks."

In fact your argument kinda goes more like: "There goes the neighborhood". As you don't seem to be comfortable with the kinds of new people moving in.

Fact of the matter is the Bitcoin network is designed to print money.  There is going to be stiff competition for that money.  Either take the risk to keep up or make your coins a different way like I do.

[jonald_fyookball]

Seeing that the manipulator, AnonyMint has a somewhat tyrannical habit of starting threads that look promising at the start, but are ruthlessly censored to shut out dissenting views, I've decided to repost here.

Feel free to post (or repost) replies as you see fit.

Self moderated threads are for pansies.
 

AnonyMint is full of shit.  He is anti-bitcoin , yet posts here constantly...   
pretends to care about cryptocurrencies, yet as smart as he tries to *appear*,
never offers any solutions.  I've seen his kind before and you can fool
some people sometimes, but you can't fool all the people all the time.

[jonald_fyookball]

Anony-shit spamming his link again from the warren buffet thread.   why are the moderators allowing this?

[practicaldreamer]

Anony-shit spamming his link again from the warren buffet thread.   why are the moderators allowing this?

+1 - its a joke.

[misternanyte]

Well, "people suck" is not really a technical argument for anything. If being right about something (that people suck) makes you miserable, then maybe try being wrong instead.

People suck because they want to regulate bitcoin and make it just like everything else. They are so parasitic they don't understand the importance of freedom, freedom that comes being able to do everything yourself. They are so braindead and zombie-like you can't make them understand ANYTHING.

Bitcoin mining is a very experimental idea. About that out-of-control competition causing mining equipment to become obsolete, why would it be risky? Could some "tragedy of the commons" happen? You haven't made the case. My earlier point was similar to the case for "Proof of Stake": that endless PoW mining is inefficient and structurally unnecessary. Bitcoin is an excellent example where a "rough diamond" is gradually optimised -- and that includes miners converging into pools and developing new technologies that are more efficient than the old CPU and GPU mining. Eventually, leaders naturally emerge, and the problem becomes political in nature, and the inflation becomes an Argentinian-style tax on savings. Then we should ask: what government services will the pool owners provide, in exchange for our bitcoin fees?

My point is that a pentium 133mhz uses about 15 watts of power at the maximum. Just because things get more complicated and smaller doesn't make them more efficient. Understand the value of being able to save money. Getting things done faster and faster is just chasing the dragon. There is actually a reason people get upset about the ASICminers being so expensive. They are unnecessary. If we kept it at GPU/CPU mining like with litecoin, well, you'd have litecoin profits with bitcoin That's the value of keeping old hardware. They may mine slower, but so what? The value is still there and I enjoy using litecoin.

Is it really that bad if someone gets forced out of mining because they don't have the technical skills to develop their own FPGAs and custom ASICs?

Yes. I don't like the fact that there are supposed scrypt asics in existence, now.

If people try and it turns out that they can't compete in that space, then it's not their calling. Try something different.

The fictional world of Star Trek is a vastly different situation from our earthly needs.

You are missing the point. Star Trek has nothing to do with whether or not you can place value on not always getting paid for what services you bring. Sometimes the value is in helping someone you love. Ideas such as property ownership is stupid. All it does is make big government get bigger and meaner and more evil. You just need to defend your living space you don't need the government putting invisible lines on it. It doesn't actually protect you from anything as your neighbors don't respect you to begin with and generally if someone violates your privacy or vandalizes your property the cops will take the criminals side. It's easy just to go find land where no one else is and just setup camp like the old settlers did. This was before banks had control of the entire continent of north america, however.

However, we don't need to be star trek staff to mine bitcoin and enjoy it. But we seem to be fast approaching it. Already they are talking about quantum technology, and it's making me sick. You know, there are actual ways you can do things completely anonymously, break up networks into pieces and prevent the NSA quantum computers from hacking your shit. No one wants to try though. And yeah I can make something useful like that, but no one will use it because everyone wants to recreate the tyranny they love to force onto others. So now we have banks using bitcoin which wasn't the point of bitcoin. I don't like the idea that banks have ANYTHING to do with bitcoin.

EDIT: I'd like to add that a pentium 3 500 will actually do everything you will ever need a PC to do. Video games like crysis aren't really most people's goal. And who cares about crysis anyways? It's a shitty game with poorly coded graphics rendering that hogs up your system's memory and wastes electricity. But look what they did with litecoin. We are using old mining hardware for FUN! But why stop at a 7970? Let's go back and figure out how to use opengl to hash. Use a different hashing aglorithm to get it done and use a pentium 3 500 in conjunction. Design web pages built to run efficiently on a pentium 3, and if the network grows enough, you'll get a lot more websites designed for that. The entire computer culture could shift back to efficiency and ease of use.There are still websites that keep the neat and clean look of the late 90's. And if the value of mining for some kind of crypto-currency is enough people will have no problem buying older systems and booting them back up again because they will make money. Old games that were extremely fun will also see the light of day again. And it would all save electricity.