Do not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to pigs. If you do, they may trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you to.
I hesitate to reply again to rebuke all your banal, non-erudite nonsense so that you can put some salve on your blinded eyes, because I am instructed not to waste my valuable talent and scarce time on the futility of educating swine. My time could be better put to use in actually creating technological solutions to problems than arguing with those who willfully commit the evils listed below:
There are six things that the Lord hates, seven that are an abomination to him: haughty eyes, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood, a heart that devises wicked plans, feet that make haste to run to evil, a false witness who breathes out lies, and one who sows discord among brothers.
He who walks with wise men will be wise, But the companion of fools will suffer harm.
Do not be bound together with unbelievers; for what partnership have righteousness and lawlessness, or what fellowship has light with darkness? Or what harmony has Christ with Belial, or what has a believer in common with an unbeliever? Or what agreement has the temple of God with idols?
Though they intended evil against You And devised a plot, They will not succeed.
Who devise evil things in their hearts; They continually stir up wars.
As for a rogue, his weapons are evil; He devises wicked schemes To destroy the afflicted with slander, Even though the needy one speaks what is right.
The thoughts of the righteous are just, But the counsels of the wicked are deceitful.
Deceit is in the heart of those who devise evil, But counselors of peace have joy.
"In a time of tranquility he will enter the richest parts of the realm, and he will accomplish what his fathers never did, nor his ancestors; he will distribute plunder, booty and possessions among them, and he will devise his schemes against strongholds, but only for a time.
Take no part in the unfruitful works of darkness, but instead expose them.
You desire and do not have, so you murder. You covet and cannot obtain, so you fight and quarrel. You do not have, because you do not ask.
Yet I must remember that Jesus spent most of his time with the afflicted because he said that was where the most productive work could be done. Or maybe the prostitutes were at least willing to listen because they were suffering. In any case, I will make one more attempt to try to educate the readers here. But I will not be able to help those who are arrogant, unteachable and determined to have corrupted minds, so there’s no benefit for me to continue going on and on after this. The fools can have the last word here in this thread, and the righteous will have the last laugh in the end.
I never thought I'd see a group of people more gullible and pathetic than the BSV crowd but, WOW.
Your reading comprehension is so low that you don’t even realize that I rebuked the BSV-fanboy @hv_ in my prior post (and several before that as well). I am not a BSV supporter. I am a Satoshi v0.5.3
immutable protocol supporter.
If you start with false premises (i.e. incorrectly presuming that I am a BSV advocate), then your dependent reasoning is flawed.
"There's hardly any reachable nodes on the network but secretly everybody is running SATOSHI'S IMMUTABLE 0.5.3 PROTOCOL and is waiting to hard fork to our secret shitcoin and dump their Core shitcoins!" Right........ lol. You fuckin short bus morons.
I wrote about that in the Steemit post I have linked several times in this thread. Of course you failed to read and/or understand, because your eyes and/or thinking are obscured with arrogance:
Everyone likes to claim that there are no Satoshi miners, but that is because they’re idiots who do not understand economics.
1. Craig Wright and others have profiled the Bitcoin network and discovered that only full nodes that contribute hashrate matter, e.g. that new blocks reach 98% of the hashrate nearly instantly but the delay is up to a minute to reach 98% of the entire P2P network. So I hope you’re not going to make that inane claim that the P2P network will not forward Satoshi protocol blocks. Obviously the hashrate that mines the Satoshi protocol fork will be connected to each other over a P2P network.
2. As I wrote (either upthread or in one of my linked posts), signaling means nothing. Miners/pools can change signaling with the flip of a switch. Money talks, BS walks. When miners see that have an opportunity to be enriched with SegWit booty, they have a decision to make. They can either cling to the nonsense that “user consensus” of the Core “soft fork” is more valuable than the backtested stock-to-flows model which I have shared upthread, or they can be wise and realize that Core is just a hardfork masquerading as a conniving deception named “soft fork” by Core. And we know what has happened to every Bitcoin hardfork— the free airdrop tokens are always sold because they have less value. The key point is the “
unforgeable costliness” valuation (which is what the backtested stock-to-flows model valuation is based on) and I will be explaining that in more detail below. Every hardfork loses that unforgeable costliness, because it has violated immutability. All the energy that was burned to make the chain up that point is lost by the chain that hardforks off. That is why Core had to use the deception of a “soft fork” and worthless “user consensus” to fool all of you into believing that it is not a hard fork. So that you will misattribute Bitcoin’s accumulated unforgeable costliness to Core when in fact it can only ever be correctly attributed to the one-and-only immutable protocol, because by definition a hardfork has broken immutability and thus there is no longer any Schelling point around which changes to the protocol are the one-and-only one. Only the immutable protocol can claim that role and valuation. Additionally if “user consensus” (aka kleptocracy and democracy) can mutate the protocol, then it can later mutate the token supply limit. Mutation of the protocol is a slippery slope that once started, has already destroyed the NAV in advance. People with a brain stem understand these simple, self-evident truths. Arrogant fools go on and on about the value of the herd, as they are herded towards the cliff:
For the same reason there are buffalo jumps in certain areas of the plains. Sheep are followers just like bison are followers-they don’t run looking at where they are going, they look at the animals in front of them and stay as close as they can. Sheep are not extremely bright when they are in a flight mentality. Being herded by aggressive dogs and people drive them to escape anyway they can.
Having said that, sheep will try and find a zigzag path down the side of any cliff before they jump. If you watch bighorn sheep come to a cliff they jump from side to side instead of straight down and they look like a pogo stick finding rock shelves to use as temporary brakes.
"But but the power-law distribution, and Segwit booty, and I personally know people who are just aching to dump all their Core shitcoins!!!!" Sounds really compelling lololol. You should start a Youtube channel from your parent's basement, we're all dying to see how far your conspiracy theories have gotten you in life!
Word salad is not evidence of a brain stem. You are committing every mental error cited in the following blog:
http://trilema.com/2018/how-to-piss-me-the-fuck-off-a-guide/
When you put a SegWit booty bug in many software clients that convinces users to spend their BTC to "anyone can spend" unrecognized addresses, then the Satoshi protocol is eventually incentivized to take those as donations. Never did the Satoshi protocol change. Some miners were duped into honoring Core protocol rules and Satoshi protocol can tolerate Core’s protocol rules until the booty piles up stinking high, then the Satoshi protocol will not have Nash equilibrium until the booty is take[n] and the bug is removed from the clients.
whoever cooked up this theory didn't read any of satoshi's writings, or vehemently disagrees with how satoshi's protocol was written. satoshi clearly envisioned new consensus rules being added to the protocol to fulfill new transactional use cases, enforced by consensus but backward compatible with older nodes---just like segwit. the forward compatibility he built into the protocol was quite elegant:
The nature of Bitcoin is such that once version 0.1 was released, the core design was set in stone for the rest of its lifetime. Because of that, I wanted to design it to support every possible transaction type I could think of. The problem was, each thing required special support code and data fields whether it was used or not, and only covered one special case at a time. It would have been an explosion of special cases. The solution was script, which generalizes the problem so transacting parties can describe their transaction as a predicate that the node network evaluates. The nodes only need to understand the transaction to the extent of evaluating whether the sender's conditions are met.
The script is actually a predicate. It's just an equation that evaluates to true or false. Predicate is a long and unfamiliar word so I called it script.
The receiver of a payment does a template match on the script. Currently, receivers only accept two templates: direct payment and bitcoin address. Future versions can add templates for more transaction types and nodes running that version or higher will be able to receive them. All versions of nodes in the network can verify and process any new transactions into blocks, even though they may not know how to read them.
Ostensibly you do not entirely grok technologically what you’re citing. I have emphasized the key phases with bold, underline. It’s true that Satoshi wrote above that nodes don’t need to know how to read the internal transaction format, but you are failing to read the stipulation he made:
“evaluating whether the sender's conditions are met.”SegWit puts the payee’s public key address in a format that Satoshi clients can’t understand, thus the transactions are “anyone can spend”. SegWit fails to adhere to the stipulation that Satoshi wrote that the sender’s conditions must be met. By putting the sender’s conditions in a format that nodes can’t understand, there’s no protection stating whom can spend the SegWit UTXO. Even in Satoshi’s immutable protocol, a valid Bitcoin script can be written that has no stipulation for a public key for spending the UTXO. This is essentially/conceptually what SegWit is.
And you are right about this not being theft in the Core blockchain, since it would be rolled back.
There could never be a theft on the "Core" blockchain in the first place because the vast majority of the network is enforcing consensus rules that would see that theft as invalid. Violating those rules is a hard fork. Very very very few nodes on the network are left running software that would validate this miner fork. We're literally talking about dozens of listening nodes. The vast majority of the network will literally just ignore the fork because it's just an invalid chain like any other hard fork.
Other than a long-range chain rollback (which is presumably impossible because it would require a sustainable 50+% attack, i.e. the basic security premise of proof-of-work), you’re correct that there will not be any theft because theft would require a hard fork, so thus everyone’s tokens always remain valid on the original chain (i.e. not on the hard-forked chain with the new protocol rules). IOW, Core address hodlers will not lose their Core shitcoins after the hardfork. And Legacy address hodlers will not lose their Legacy
BTC after Core hardforks. And Legacy address holders will also get a free airdrop of Core shitcoins because Core is hardforking off of Satoshi’s protocol, not vice versa.
But again you are ostensibly repeating your double-speak from your prior post which I corrected. You again in this post employ double-speak to confuse/deceive the readers (and yourself?) because you are ostensibly insinuating that when Satoshi’s immutable protocol removes the SegWit booty from the UTXO to restore a Nash equilibrium to Satoshi’s v0.5.3 protocol, that Satoshi’s
immutable protocol will have hard-forked off from the Core protocol. If that is what you think, you’re provably incorrect.
Satoshi’s immutable protocol has never stopped running. Protocol signaling is not meaningful (for the same reason that democracy and voting are not meaningful) because the only form of “signaling” that has
unforgeable costliness are blocks on the longest chain.
So the blocks that are adhering to Core’s protocol are also compatible with and thus adhering to Satoshi’s v0.5.3 protocol. Satoshi’s protocol continues to run side-by-side with Core’s protocol, because Satoshi’s protocol does not care if Core enforces who can spend SegWit UTXO. This is the “soft fork”. But it does not mean the Satoshi protocol has stopped running. It just so happens that Satoshi’s protocol does not care who spends those SegWit UTXO. But when that booty piles up stinking high, then Satoshi protocol miners have an economic incentive to start spending that booty to themselves. And in fact when the booty becomes too stinking large, there will be a power vacuum and no Nash equilibrium until a mining oligarchy (e.g. Craig’s group) initiates the Schelling point to start Satoshi’s defense mechanism “poison pill” that will force Core’s protocol to hard-fork off (actually fuck off!). At that point the Core protocol miners will see that as a violation of their protocol rules, so they will hardfork off from Satoshi’s protocol, thus completing the inevitable hard-fork that Core wanted to insidiously hide from the public by inventing the political manipulation known as “user consensus” and “soft-fork”.
Proof-of-work has no politics. Only the unforgeable costliness and longest chain matters. And fools are going to learn this the hard way.The proof that Core is hardforking off from Satoshi’s protocol and not vice versa, is that everyone who hodls legacy addresses will get both legacy
BTC and a free airdrop of Core shitcoins. Whereas, those who hodl Core SegWit addresses will get only the hardforked Core shitcoins and no legacy
BTC.
How much clearer could I explain that? Why are you incapable of accepting the truth?
Core needed to use a “soft fork” because they needed to attempt to fool everyone into thinking that voting and signaling has any value. And of course most people are idiots and will fall into the woodchipper where they belong just like sheep pushing each other over the cliff. Lol. So hilarious how dumb (i.e. nonobjective) most people are and how they whor(e)ship the collective herd. About that whor(e)shipping concept, please see the references to 1 Samuel 8 and 1 Samuel 15 in the following linked blog of mine:
https://steemit.com/religion/@anonymint/ethics-of-religion-money-and-bitcoinThe "Core" chain would be unaffected (except for maybe some congestion from the attacking miners leaving the network, same as Bitcoin Cash) so there would never be any rollback required. Anyone who would have you believe the Bitcoin network would accept miners stealing Segwit outputs is trying to bamboozle you. This would never ever happen based on the node distribution we see today.
The Core protocol miners will not accept the SegWit being spent to anyone. But the Satoshi protocol miners will.
Your claim about there not being any Satoshi miners is nonsense, because you do not understand the
unforgeable costliness model of Bitcoin’s valuation.
What will happen is the miners will leave the Core protocol in droves after Craig initiates (with their 3000 peta-hash/s mining farms) the Satoshi protocol defense mechanism that ostensibly Satoshi cleverly designed into the protocol and game theory. They will switch over to mining Satoshi’s protocol to partake in the booty. So the Core chain will lose so much hashrate that it will slow down to a crawl. And of course collapse in value in to ~0.
Meanwhile, the forking miners would need to pray that everyone installs software to remove Segwit. Who in their right mind would do that?
Lol. Money talks, BS walks. Changing a software client for huge mining farms is not a cost at all. The only issue is for the mining farm to decide which fork has the most value.
The whole scheme is at odds with the incentive design in Bitcoin.
You do not understand the valuation of Bitcoin. We do. You will lose everything.
Ask around. Nobody is going to adopt a hard fork where the miners steal all the Segwit outputs from users.
Yeah ask around to worthless idiots who collectively control only a small fraction of the
BTC wealth. Lol. Ask those who do not understand Bitcoin’s valuation model. Yeah ask fools and follow fools over the cliff. Hahaha.
At most, if you have some coins in 1xxxx addresses you might get some airdrop coins on the hard fork chain that you can sell. Chances are they will have no value, but anything is possible!!
Lol. This is going to be epic to watch all you Core supporters lose everything. My popcorn is ready. I wonder how you will behave after you have lost all your wealth? Who will you lash out at? Will you sue? Will you seek retribution via the government?
So, what would happen, in a market perspective, is that both chains would start with the same value
Disagree. The stock-to-flows valuation model is predicative and it instructs that the immutable coin with known future flow of token supply is exponentially more valuable than a mutable protocol.
I said they would start with the same value, at the time of the fork, not that they would keep the same value.
I keep referring to the “going for the gold” valuation model. This is based on the
unforgeable costliness of the accumulated energy to mine
BTC. Refer to the following very detailed blog for your edification (and also make sure you click the link to PlanB’s blog which my blog is discussing):
https://steemit.com/bitcoin/@anonymint/secrets-of-bitcoin-s-dystopian-valuation-modelThus my prior reply to you was a refutation of your claim that Core and Satoshi protocols start with the same value. Absolutely not. No fork of Bitcoin has ever started with the same value as Bitcoin.
The only double-speak from fools here is that those who have been hoodwinked by Core, believe that Core became Bitcoin, and that Satoshi’s protocol died and would be hardforking Core’s protocol if it came back. But that is because those fools don’t assimilate the details as I have explained it above and upthread. It is precisely the immutability of the protocol and the fact that Satoshi’s protocol never stopped, which gives Bitcoin
unforgeable costliness of accumulated burned energy and thus value. Bitcoin’s value does not originate from users, analogous to that gold’s value does not originate from how many impoverished people fondle some little bits of gold.
Wrong. Bitcoin is valuable because it has unforgeable costliness. Your analogy does not hold because Bitcoin has no competitors. No altcoin has unforgeable costliness.
Whatever value Bitcoin has as a transactional currency (or asset, if you prefer) for sheep to pump altcoins with is marginal, at best, but ultimately will tend toward zero.
We need to weigh down human behaviour on this event.
Only the behavior of the wealthy matter. The vast majority do not matter at all. They are worthless. 50% of the population only has 15% of the wealth. The top few percent has 34% of the wealth.
Ok, but how can we compare this to what happened to ethereum? I know they are different, but in the case of ethereum, the forked chain became the main one after some time. Today ethereum values 30x more than ethereum classic. Is there some difference (related to the PoW) in relation to ethereum?
Category error. Incomparable. You can’t compare a shitcoin that derives it
ephemeral (eventually going to ~0) “value” from fooling witless bunny rabbits to Bitcoin which derives its value from
unforgeable costliness.
The shitcoins exist as a way to extract the money from the hordes of fools in this world who are given fiat money by socialism, and siphon all that value into Bitcoin via
unforgeable costliness. And that is why the following is coming:
https://steemit.com/money/@anonymint/rise-of-hard-money-is-a-harbinger-of-misery <--- really you should read it.
Bitcoin is not your friend. It is a wrecking ball, here to destroy all the non-meritorious shit going on in the world these days.
Investors dont have a clue about immutability in the protocol
Then they won't be investors for very long. They will be bankrupted former speculators who did not do due diligence.
The wealthy investors know what is going on. Craig told them. I told them. The
trilema.com Bitcoin millionaire told them. Etc.. Word gets around amongst the uber wealthy.
But isnt Blockstream owned by AXA, which is linked to the Bilderberg group? There are probably some banking interests in LN. Personally I believe it will be a tug-of-war between the two chains, thats why I believe they will start on the same foot.
Satoshi was not our friend. He is the global elite. Of course this has all been planted to fool bunny rabbits and take all their wealth, and make them an angry mob that will lash out. This is how they will bring about their totalitarianism that is coming soon. They will make it so anyone who has
BTC is perceived to be a thief by the public (whilst they hodl so much
BTC surreptitiously because they are always above the law). Craig is one of their pawns apparently as is Blockstream.
I stated in the past and will reiterate for the first time on this blog, that Satoshi didn’t want the riff-raff on the store-of-value block chain because they are too vulnerable to the business cycle, because due to the power-law distribution of wealth, they expend a greater portion of their net worth. Thus a scaling block chain will be subject to much greater volatility of transaction demand and txn fees […] They will likely ending up owning Core with 3 addresses only, because they’re not reading this. Shssh don’t tell them. Because I bet the global elite want to bankrupt the large social media companies also, to make them even more dependent on the banksters. Or perhaps you’re correct that this coming SegWit donations event is the way the[to] transfer of ownership of Bitcoin from the idiots to the $billionaires who have served the global elite.
Craig’s points about the law are basically correct. Anonymous tokens (i.e. where proof of source of funds is not provable) will of course be banned from registered exchanges eventually, but that doesn’t mean they won’t still function decentralized for those who want to use them as a medium-of-exchange in a black market. And it’s possible that anonymous cryptocurrencies with “view keys” that enable authorities to verify lineage will not be banned. And he is correct that for those who want to transact in
Satan’s statism, they will
need to deal with the law and anonymity won’t help them.
I had several huge threads about this on bitcointalk.org. I was shouting and shouting. Nobody wants to listen. They prefer to think they know it all. Hehe.
Speaking of this, I am confident that Satoshi expected this outcome and designed for it. I think Blockstream was funded because those who created Bitcoin want this to happen. See Bitcoin is a means for bringing about the world government, because the nations and unemployed masses will turn against Bitcoin. But they will need 666 control to attempt to stop Bitcoin, not realizing that the global elite who control their nations are the same ones who created and unleashed Bitcoin. The 666 system will then be used to enslave them and never to actually stop Bitcoin, which the elite will own most of.
So the massive donations that kick all the “social consensus” idiots and Lightning Network users off of BTC, because they will only have Core shitcoins after that, will be another way to make the masses bitter and hate Bitcoin.
By disenfranchising the majority by playing on their ignorance, their idiotic belief in the nonsense of democracy, their belief that off-chain Lightning Networks will work out, and their belief that their vote and their existence is actually worth anything non-meritoriously.
Imagine now that all that BTC that was taken as donations will then be tainted as being “stolen funds” in the minds of snowflake idiots who think the governments must protect them against such imagined theft (when in fact the reality is they were sending transactions to the network that can be spent by anyone and allowed themselves to be fooled into thinking Core has any legitimacy). Yet you can imagine that some governments may actually try to trace those donated BTC and place capital control restrictions on such tainted BTC. This is yet another way the $trillionaires global elite can destroy the other lowly millionaires who want to transact and hodl BTC.
This is why I was writing in #7 and #8 in my prior two comment posts about the importance of making mining more accessible. And also to try to actually make a transactional cryptocurrency that will not kick most of the population off-chain to trustless systems. Because if we could get a billion people to actually use and be vested in cryptocurrency, then the masses would demand that cryptocurrency be not taxed and instead be treated as a currency by the nations. So then instead of banksters winning with their plan to make Bitcoin exclusive and a tool of the 666, we would win and put that wound of the forehead of the Beast as stated in Revelation. Well who knows, the masses are so easy to fool into accepting taxes that they think will only apply to the wealthy, which in fact only apply to them in the end.
PoS
Proof-of-shit aka proof-of-nothing has no value. All PoS shit will go to 0 eventually.
Fine. But the entire debt-based fiat system is based on stacking. Fiat money was debased from gold for decades, and its lack of PoW creates inflation. In a PoW perspective, fiat money have a negative value, as each bank note is a debt certificate.
What could prevent some banking cartel from going crypto and using stacking to reinvent their own system? Just food for thought.
Yes
humanity needs some form of fractional reserve system, else it collapses into a Dark Age, but the nation-states will fight to retain control over that. And Lightning Networks is a very poor technological attempt at putting fractional reserves on a blockchain. And proof-of-stake is just fiat, so of course the proof-of-stake system is a winner-take-all with the government as the winner. Btw, some people (e.g. the
trilema.com dude) have speculated that the U.S. Government is actually behind the curtain of Ethereum.
P.S. The correct term is ‘debasement’ of the monetary supply. Inflation in the monetary context applies to price inflation, which is not always perfectly correlated to the Quantity Theory of Money, because PUBLIC CONFIDENCE drives wild swings.
Anyway, this whole discussion is the old bickering between developers and miners again, nothing new on the front. To maximize profits, it would be better to hold both coins for some time and see which one have a better valuation, then dump the other.
That bickering was to fool you into thinking that
unforgeable costliness is not cardinal. Be fooled if you like falling over the cliff and into the woodchipper.
