|
AnonyMint (OP)
|
 |
April 04, 2014, 10:57:05 PM
Last edit: April 05, 2014, 12:32:57 PM by AnonyMint |
|
P.S. this thread is self-moderated, but I will only delete personal (meaning directed at a specific poster here) attacks, quoting the entire OP or other longish quote (noisy), or spam. I will not delete posts I disagree with, except for blablahblah who is so obnoxious that he is permanently banned from my life. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=400235.msg6075905#msg6075905I come across as overly self-important. It is because I tried to warn about the dangers of Bitcoin (while being fair to also praise its virtues) and in the process I had to shout over a lot of hurt feelings. And this hardened my resolve. Sorry this is not overconfidence, it is uber confidence because it is based in fact checking not in wishful careless arbitrary dreaming. Because when I spend a year digging into the details of something, I make many key insights and discoveries. And you all do not know what I discovered technologically because I haven't revealed it. Why should I give you my secret recipes when in fact you would piss on them any way. The only way forward is to prove you wrong. Sorry this is not a desire to be a jerk. It is a desire to do what is best for mankind, a desire to get wealthy doing it, and a desire to build a bigger ecosystem with more people like you profiting and smiling.
Now on to the analysis...
Well if this is the bottom it is U shaped, not V, which is what I predicted upthread.
The price action seems to be very quiet, so not much to talk about from a TA perspective.
First a math point about relating adoption rate to price. Peter R confirmed upthread with a chart that proxies for adoption, N, are tracking price = N x N. And if adoption is growing by rate R per year, then it grows R x R rate in two years. Thus we can say that the annual rate of price increases is proportional to the biannual rate of adoption. You see when our Y axis is logarithmic (e.g. log 10 on chart Risto shows) then exponentiation becomes additive and thus linearly proportional.
So I've been FA thinking about why Bitcoin adoption is likely declining, i.e. as I showed a log-logistic curve fit.
As I explained in that linked post, the slope of the price increase was 0.33 before July 2011, and has been 0.09 since January 2012 until now. So it had already declined. The question is was the early period an aberration or part of the trend?
SlipperySlope had been fitting a logistic curve to Bitcoin's price, because technology which spreads out to the masses typically has that S shape of exponential adoption. The key factor is that logistic adoption rate (slope) increases until the midway point, i.e. at 50% of the adoption before decreasing. Whereas, log-logistic adoption rate (slope) is maximum at the start and is always declining. This is a very important distinction because logistic means we can expect Bitcoin's price rate of increase to accelerate, whereas log-logistic we can expect the rate of price appreciation to slow further (as it already did slowing from 0.33 to 0.09 after July 2011).
I gave the explanation that money is power-law distributed and thus we should expect the greatest serious network effects on adoption at the beginning because the power investors come in the earliest. The log-logistic (cumulative distribution function) curve corresponds to the power-law distribution.
I had an epiphany in my dream last night that there is a simpler explanation which also corresponds to the power-law distribution of money as follows.
"Most people who learn about Bitcoin, don't adopt it".
Why? Because it doesn't fulfill a general need. The need it fulfills is very specific to a white male, hate central banking demographic. It doesn't have fast transactions, doesn't have consumer protection, the money is difficult to secure, it is technically challenging to use, etc..
A consumer adopted item such as a washing machine has logistic adoption curve because every person who hears about wants it. Thus maximum word-of-mouth is reached at 50% of adoption. Whereas, for Bitcoin maximum rate of effectiveness of word-of-mouth was when only the correct demographic was listening back before July 2011. Now as Bitcoin tries to speak to the masses, they mostly don't care.
Thus if you want to build a Bitcoin killer altcoin, you simply make sure it is something every person will want to do.
I have experience doing such things, as I created an application that had 1 million users and 1% of the internet back in late 1990s. Before that I was involved with what became Corel Painter and I helped bring it to 1 million global units and also the first $million milestone in Japan. The key thing is I sought out that company, not them finding me. I have always been attracted to paradigm shift technology and thinking about how to make it easier for people and thus increase adoption rates.
My reputation doesn't matter. I won't be using it any way. What matters here is determining what is really going on. Because an investor without the correct interpretation of reality is destined to lose money.
If there was a black budget team who designed Bitcoin, it appears they may have failed in their analysis. It appears they have no way to get the masses interested. But let's see if that changes as offchain services and fiat masks such as Bitpay and Coinbase proliferate.
Put Coinbase and Bitpay together and you have both the consumer and the merchant, you don't need the block chain any more. Also the mining is already centralized. How much more obvious could it be?
And during this time our core development team and Foundation have been doing what to ameliorate this outcome? Meeting with the CIA and CFR.
And then I wake up to see this at the top of the Google search for "Bitcoin price":
http://gigaom.com/2014/04/04/this-week-in-bitcoin-the-push-to-get-the-currency-in-the-hands-of-the-consumer/
And so again I will challenge Risto according to our original focuses when we first met each other back in 2007. What are you doing about this? I know what I am doing. And you know I warned you about this outcome from Day 1 when you shouted to me that Bitcoin was becoming very important. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
The forum strives to allow free discussion of any ideas. All policies are built around this principle. This doesn't mean you can post garbage, though: posts should actually contain ideas, and these ideas should be argued reasonably.
|
|
|
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction.
|
|
Pente
|
|
April 04, 2014, 11:05:05 PM |
|
I don't get it.
How do I store value in a brainwallet with just Bitpay & Coinbase if there is no blockchain?
How do you prevent a inflation & a dilution of value without the blockchain?
How do you prevent a government shutdown of a centralized location without the blockchain?
|
|
|
|
|
|
AnonyMint (OP)
|
|
April 04, 2014, 11:05:24 PM |
|
"Most people who learn about Bitcoin, don't adopt it".
Why? Because it doesn't fulfill a general need.
New technology almost never fills a general need. It creates a need in a place where no need previously existed, until society begins to reshape itself because the new technology has forced a space for itself. Using a tired analogy, what need did the internet fill in society? We could shop in stores. We could send letters via fax and mail. We could call people over a telephone. There was no gaping "need" for access to generally useless information 24/7. We can only answer the question in retrospect. What about social networking? Were Facebook and Twitter created to fulfill a societal need? Can you imagine trying to pitch twitter to the world? "Hey guys, you know how you really NEED and WANT to post 140 character messages online? Well now you can!" Notwithstanding whether I am correct or not, the key distinction in my mind is that nearly everyone who learns about a washing machine or smart phone, wants one. There are those who said, "I don't need that, I will stick with the hand washing or the feature phone", but this is just denial. Eventually they realize they were wrong as their neighbors are more productive. Whereas, the resistance to Bitcoin is justified, i.e. "why would I want that, I already have Paypal and I don't want the negatives of Bitcoin". I am thinking about what advantage does Coinbase + Bitpay have over Paypal? The key is that the consumer pays the fees instead of the merchant. Thus more merchants will prefer it. Why will customers prefer that? Then I got to thinking. The problem with Paypal is there are too many competitors. The elite want to control this new digital money system. What if you combined Paypal + Bitpay! Then you can see the founder of Paypal is the main angel investor in Bitpay. This is all about getting more merchants and customers into the digital fiat system. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
hurricandave
Legendary
 Offline
Activity: 966
Merit: 1003
|
|
April 04, 2014, 11:50:07 PM |
|
Well, I may not be as eloquent but as for making a single starting point, of why or what need, can or does, Bitcoin propose to implement. In my view one may be as an international conductor of value. As you have stated the customer pays the transaction fee. So far this fee has historically been low when compared to the fee assessed by international monetary exchanges. As well as the equivalent exchange handling fee assessed by credit card companies with regards to international purchases made as point of transaction in a country other than the originating account billing address.
Coinbase is the interface to which I have some degree of experience with. I would point out that their fees for purchasing Bitcoin are similar to what a merchant pays for credit and debit card use. Where as, if I wanted to purchase an item in Austria and I am American, I would need to exchange my USD currency at a fee per transaction that has historically been well above 5% of the value of the exchange. With the adoption of Bitcoin that conversion fee is no longer collected by an exchange desk. I believe that was part of the same argument made for the adoption of the Euro, except the Euro is not accepted at the check out counter of retailers world wide anymore than Bitcoin is at this point in time. Bitcoin is a potential monetary equalizer in the electronic retail environment with the ability to also be adopted world wide by walk in merchants as well.
|
|
|
|
|
|
mgburks77
|
|
April 04, 2014, 11:51:13 PM |
|
Regarding change:
Ultimately the question is more along the lines of "Is technology liberating or a means to oppress?".
Any type of organization necessarily requires a limitation of degrees of freedom so why does organization ever occur in the first place? Is technology the result of organization or is it cause of greater organization?
From questions like this we can establish some baseline principles upon which to guide ourselves.
It may be that technology is not a means of human liberation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
AnonyMint (OP)
|
|
April 05, 2014, 12:09:15 AM |
|
Regarding change:
Ultimately the question is more along the lines of "Is technology liberating or a means to oppress?".
Cross posting an excerpt from an ongoing discussion in another thread... 1. I generally disagree with this one. Never in the history of mankind has the average Joe won in mass, IMHO. Somehow I don't believe it will magically happen now that Bitcoin is around.
Bitcoin is a technology. Most every time the benefits of a new technology, properly applied, have benefited the average Joe sooner or later. Risto it appears you excel on "counting" games, but when it comes to logic it appears you over generalize (or choose the simplest understanding for efficiency) and this causes you to make mistakes. I suck at board games but I appear to excel at seeing all the conceptual issues in full range of depth and extracting the generative essence. Our brains appear to be wired differently. That appears to make you better at finding arbitrage opportunities than me (but gives you no advantage in timing market moves), but my skill appears to make me a superior visionary than you. I don't excel mentally with anything that requires me to interact with my external sensors. I excel with short I/O tape and then let my mind run on it, although normally my reading comprehension is very high but don't expect me to interact in parallelized real-time with my I/O i.e. that game you mentioned upthread (I tried while getting sleepy and only managed 16000 after several tries perhaps I would do better if I put some thought into how I should be calculating the move probabilities on that grid, but it appears to come naturally to you?). I had the following insight before, but no one prompted me to share it. It is difficult for me to keep track of all my ideas. Contemplate that the technologies which benefit the masses are those which have individual scope; whereas, those which subject the masses to greater extortion via the collective have collective scope. For example, washing machines have only individual scope and were rapidly (logistically) adopted across the breadth of the developed world. Whereas, nuclear power and nuclear weapons can't be individualized and have further enslaved us in the collective. The internet (networking in general) is a mix of individual empowerment and collective enslavement. What does anonymity do in theory? In theory it makes it possible to have all the individual empower without any (most) of the collective enslavement. This is why I am so obsessed with making sure we have anonymity, not just in our money but in every aspect of the internet. The technology I am working on is not only applicable to crypto-currency. I want to change the entire internet to make it asymmetrically more of an individual empowerment. Throughout history we had anonymity in our money because it was physical. Now Bitcoin comes along with a fully traceable public ledger and we give up asymmetric power to the collective. This alarmed the shit out of me!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I said to myself a year ago, "hell no! not if I can do anything about it". In geek speak, "you just don't get it". The other asymmetric problem specific to Bitcoin is it uses ASICs thus mining is in the hands of the few, and also there is nothing in the design which economically discourages large pools thus one pooltwo or three pools now controls more than 50% of the hash rate. Bitcoin has already fallen and can NEVER be a benefit to the individual. Sorry! Just wishing it to be not so is foolish. I don't have a vendetta against crypto-currency, rather I am logically analyzing the situation. And attempting to fix it. I was frankly initially shocked that you were so dismissive and uninterested (and others even attacked me for wanting to improve the situation), but then I realized it is because you guys don't think on a deep level as I do or you are blinded by your speculative fever and vested interests as owners of Bitcoins. And thus you walk right into the honey pot so designed to trap you. (And there are both technical and political reasons improvements to these issues can NEVER be back ported into Bitcoin. Sorry!) P.S. the other fundamental driver of asymmetric power of the collective on the internet is the client-server model instead of P2P. It is a fact that a physical multifurcating network is more efficient than a fully connected mesh topology, i.e. running a smaller pipe from the water district to each house increases the cost and back pressure than running a main line and then multifurcating branches off it (cross-sectional area reduces by the square of the proportional diameter decreases). However, the transfer of data on the internet does not obey that physical law because we don't charge for data according to the path it takes. However the challenge is the efficient, redundant DHT storage and serve of data for a purely P2P internet. That is a more difficult technical hurdle. P.S.S. I predicted a couple of weeks ago the IRS ruling would be what it is and that it would cause the price to dive. The post is some where in my public archives on bitcointalk. |
|
|
|
|
AnonyMint (OP)
|
|
April 05, 2014, 12:14:42 AM |
|
Coinbase is the interface to which I have some degree of experience with. I would point out that their fees for purchasing Bitcoin are similar to what a merchant pays for credit and debit card use. Where as, if I wanted to purchase an item in Austria and I am American, I would need to exchange my USD currency at a fee per transaction that has historically been well above 5% of the value of the exchange. With the adoption of Bitcoin that conversion fee is no longer collected by an exchange desk.
Bitpay is taking over (3X adoption increase month-on-month compounded!). And you pay the exchange rate (plus some fudge factor to hide Bitpay's fees in the exchange rate). Thus now you are paying through the nose twice. And Peter Thiel's wallet is getting fatter. |
|
|
|
|
AnonyMint (OP)
|
|
April 05, 2014, 12:18:01 AM
Last edit: April 05, 2014, 12:29:07 AM by AnonyMint |
|
Btw, I don't expect the "yes" vote to be higher than the "BTC" vote.
One goal I have is to put it on record how dumb (myopic/mass mania/groupthink/vested interest/incapable) the "BTC" majority is. So later when my warnings come true, I can say "I told ya so".
My other goal is to tell the "yes" voters, they will soon have better alternative(s). Keep the faith.
You will also find that many "BTC" votes will be just irrational hate towards me personally. It is good to feed their hate and let them vent it. You will note they can't make one rational argument in this thread. Even I have promised not to delete any arguments I disagree with. You see they are really feeble and helpless (and shameless).
My message to Peter Thiel is, "you think you can win with the feeble on your side?".
P.S. I feel justified calling out Thiel and (my friend) Risto, because they both put themselves in the position of being leaders of the "BTC". W.r.t. to Risto, I am merely trying to encourage him to use his resources wisely.
|
|
|
|
|
twiifm
|
|
April 05, 2014, 12:36:37 AM |
|
Interesting article.
On one hand you have merchants using Bitpay. These merchants don't want to hold BTC. They convert it to fiat before it touches their account. They are BTC sellers
On the other side you have hoarders who don't wanna to spend BTC because they are buying it for speculation.
As more merchants accept BTC thru Bitpay; this creates an asymmetry of sellers over buyers. This puts a lot of selling pressure on BTC driving the price down.
So at some point the future the price will be driven low enough where there is an equilibrium of sellers vs buyers in order for BTC stabilize. But if a better tech comes along like Ripple, BTC might just go extinct.
|
|
|
|
|
|
AnonyMint (OP)
|
|
April 05, 2014, 12:53:55 AM |
|
Humor timeout... Notice the deer are allowed passage (see sign in distance)  With anonymity, let's be the freerange, agile deer. TPTB can spend forever regulating (pointing at) shadows. > Yep = TECHNOCRACY > Good one, AnonyMint! LOL > > >> Date: Fri, 4 Apr 2014 01:01:33 -0400 >> Subject: humorous photo showing government banning everything/freedom >> From: AnonyMint >> To: xxxxxxx >> >> Do not proceed: >> >> Attachment: noway.jpg >>  |
|
|
|
|
thaaanos
|
|
April 05, 2014, 12:59:05 AM |
|
People don't adopt when they learn about bitcoin because people are not confident on securing digital assets. people have experience with - crashed hdds
- broken/burned/lost flash disks
- scratched CD/DVDs
- files erased by viruses
- passwords/keys forgotten or lost
Why do you think people keep buying printers? |
|
|
|
|
7thKingdom
Member
Offline
Activity: 107
Merit: 10
|
|
April 05, 2014, 01:02:39 AM |
|
AnonyMint, what is your opinion of the value of Bitcoin as a hedge against the dollar?
You say that one of the major problems with bitcoin is that, to the average consumer, it doesn't fill a real need. With the way Bitpay and Coinbase operate, bitcoin has essentially become a "digital fiat system". And I certainly see your point. Bitcoin is 100% pegged to the dollar, and to most people, it doesn't really offer any practical advantage over the current system. As is, it is unnecessary, and as such, it can not grow at a similar adoption rate as new technology that fills an immediate need, like the washing machine.
So if we buy into your log-logistic adoption rate and admit that growth is slowing, how would any impending economic instability play into the equation? Because if I remember correctly, you have written in the past about economic cycles and how we are due for a serious downturn towards the second half of 2015 (forgive me if I am wrong, it was a while back than I recall reading it). If this is true, how would this effect the bitcoin economy (and the crypto scene as a whole)? Wouldn't such a downturn create a void, a need, that bitcoin would then fill, thereby increasing the rate of adoption vs before the economy went south and that need was there? The entire ecosystem as it exists now, this "digital fiat system" as you put it, with merchants only "accepting" bitcoin through companies like bitpay and then immediately turning it into fiat, would change, would it not?
I'm interested to hear your thoughts on bitcoins role in such a scenario.
|
|
|
|
|
|
AnonyMint (OP)
|
|
April 05, 2014, 01:03:03 AM |
|
I forgot to put in the OP that if the log-logistic adoption curve fit I did is correct, it predicts BTC price to rise 10X every 16 to 20 months, just not the 12X per year appreciation "to the moon". And predicts that rate to slow again after another 2 years. Thus I don't expect BTC > $10,000 before 2016. And I never see BTC ≥ $100,000 (low probability of occurrence) because growth rate will be roughly 1/16 of current after $10,000, certainly $1 million is fantastical delusion.
|
|
|
|
|
mgburks77
|
|
April 05, 2014, 01:04:52 AM |
|
I think it's pretty clear that the answer to the question asked by the OP is yes. BTC is a fiat system in all respects except overt endorsement by a state but as soon as the protocol meets specific criteria, and that is being worked on as we speak, it will be incorporated by the fiat system and receive that endorsement. It seems like that is the end game as viewed from the perspective of entities such as the Bitcoin Foundation, and other big players.
I also agree that true anonymity and ubiquitous individualized mining are essential elements of any cryptocurrency that will escape government regulation, something which is synonymous with being coopted by the fiat system, and become a tool of individualized use. If any technical advance can be liberating, this is the path it will necessarily take. Anything less is submission.
I cannot be convinced that this wasn't the goal of the creators of btc all along. The tale of Satoshi Nakamoto is rubbish. There's real money behind the development of bitcoin, it never would have gotten this far without it. The reason for the covert nature of it's development is that despite it's shortcomings the protocol and the idea that spawned it is truly revolutionary, so it has to be managed carefully or it could blow up in the face of whoever presents it to the world. Once the technology is proven the truth about who created will emerge.
I'm still not sure that collectivized production ie civilization is the best outcome for humanity or that any technology can be individualized. Even something as seemingly innocuous as a washing machine does lock the individual into collective production.
Also I am pretty sure that human genius is the product of forces utterly beyond our control. Life is a biochemical system, the individualized components have no degree of freedom beyond what is allowed by the movement of the other components of the system.
The idea of human "liberation" may not be possible. Not sure where that leaves us yet.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
AnonyMint (OP)
|
|
April 05, 2014, 01:35:34 AM
Last edit: April 05, 2014, 02:05:17 AM by AnonyMint |
|
So if we buy into your log-logistic adoption rate and admit that growth is slowing, how would any impending economic instability play into the equation?
Without anonymity we are toast. Is Bitcoin anonymous? Will the Bitcoin block chain even have a liquid anonymous market any more by 2016 when it matters to us? Or will everything be registered in Coinbase, Bitpay, Paypal, etc... Because the governments have no choice but to increase revenues as we collapse into a global debt default. And the more they tax + confiscate wealth, the more the GDP will collapse. Thus the more they will need to take from wealth. It is a downward spiral. Very scary. According to Martin Armstrong's very high placed sources, the Fed has already told the banks not to expect a bailout next big crash (which should be 2016). They are going to let this sucker downward spiral but with capital controls so that government can pay the debt and obligations while private pensions and banks implode taking all the wealth down with them. The USA is temporarily bouncing up and stock market might even double before Sept 2015. But this is just capital fleeing the emerging markets and rushing back to the reserve currency for one last hooray before the whole mess collapses. Gold hoarding causes a collapse in the velocity of money V in the equation M x V = GDP, thus GDP collapses. It is Mad Max directed outcome because the world is $223 trillion in debt + $1000 trillion in derivative swaps to hold up pension plans & finance + $1000 trillion in unfunded promises to society (welfare, pensions, etc). P.S. $4 trillion of it has been unaccounted for in the USA Federal budget and is called the "black budget". Imagine what the " Fourth Branch" of government can do with $4 trillion. Catherine Austin Fitts' point that government intentionally designs in failure when it is in its best interest but can act very swiftly when that is in its best interest (i.e. the best interests of the elite "Fourth Branch of Government" who capture the government). She talks about the $4 trillion black budget. I highly recommend listening to the audio interview. She is very articulate and gets directly to the point. She was former Assistant Security of HUD in the USA government. She was also a major player on Wallstreet. So she has insider connections. Janet Napolitano once told her to prepare for mass voilence and upheavel in the USA after 2016. http://www.dailypaul.com/314402/complete-breakdown-of-financial-controls-in-us-government-says-austin-fittsJanet Napolitano was the former head of the Homelust (hands down your child's pants) ScrewUrity department. The well known mainstream Bill Moyers did a documentary on the Fourth Branch of the USA government: http://billmoyers.com/episode/the-deep-state-hiding-in-plain-sight/If you listen to both Bill Moyer's video and Fitt's audio interview, you will drastically increase your understanding. More here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=455141.msg5704180#msg5704180 |
|
|
|
|
mgburks77
|
|
April 05, 2014, 01:39:16 AM |
|
It is not personal identity that is important, but rather reputation.... Interesting idea, must digest thanks for links! It's difficult to locate this type of content |
|
|
|
|
farnsworth7
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 31
Merit: 0
|
|
April 05, 2014, 02:30:27 AM
Last edit: April 05, 2014, 02:49:36 AM by farnsworth7 |
|
AnonyMint, thanks for this very interesting thread. I'm not sure I agree with everything you write, but you do make very valid points. Without anonymity we are toast.
Why do you think anonymity is so important for mankind ? Is it based on the assumption that anonymity gives more freedom to individuals ? I tend to think giving individuals more freedom is not sufficient to make a better world. I believe an essential key for a better life on earth is related to the quality of the interactions between individuals, ie the quality of the collective mechanisms. Because human is a social animal, you know  Don't you think global transparency in financial systems (thanks to a traceable public ledger) might be a good thing ? (To help fight corruption, for instance) (by the way sorry for any grammar mistake, english is not my native language) |
|
|
|
|
|
MahaRamana
|
|
April 05, 2014, 02:45:53 AM |
|
Without anonymity we are toast.
I don't think the elites will allow the propagation and popularisation of a crypto that ruins their plans. There are many things they can do, the first of which is to allow bitcoin to take the lead. You once used the analogy of the shift from MySpace to Facebook to justify the fact that we could shift to another crypto, but Facebook has accepted allegiance to the elites and the elites have accepted Facebook in their planning. This is very clear by the way it is shutting off all pages that the mainstream don't like or that are too critical to the elites. The difference in our case is that the elites will not accept a currency that frees the people and thus the shift will never happen. If they allow bitcoin, it means that either 1. bitcoin is a creation of their master(s) and its purpose is further enslavement or 2. they found ways to use it to their own advantage. In any case the people are enslaved by the power grabbers and I think it is only wishful thinking to believe we can change this by launching some specific new crypto. Because the governments have no choice but to increase revenues as we collapse into a global debt default. And the more they tax + confiscate wealth, the more the GDP will collapse. Thus the more they will need to take from wealth. It is a downward spiral. Very scary.
We have been hitting the peak of numerous natural resources while demographics are strongly up worldwide and consumption of land, water, rare minerals, energy resources etc... is completely unsustainable. The fact is that GDP must collapse. The elites only want to make sure that they have or create as much power as possible through and after the GDP collapse and are planning accordingly. It is unavoidable. Bitcoin either was part of or is being integrated in the planning of the elites. Actually, the elites do have the choice in front of defaults : inflation. But they probably prefer to do some rounds of confiscation first to lower the power of the wealthy outside of their ranks. |
|
|
|
|
|
AnonyMint (OP)
|
|
April 05, 2014, 02:48:32 AM
Last edit: April 05, 2014, 03:48:28 AM by AnonyMint |
|
AnonyMint, thanks for this very interesting thread. I'm not sure I agree with everything you write, but you do make very valid points.
I don't expect readers to agree with my perspective, because by definition the bulk of society is not freaking out (yet). Because the powers-that-be have been very successful in hiding the truth. If I can merely touch your consciousness, you will be more prepared than if I had not gotten your attention. I can't expect you to completely shift your perspective. It took me years. As you dig more (if you do), you will very likely find your eyes peel back. Again I urge readers to listen to the Catherine Austin Fitts and Bill Moyer's interviews. Perhaps start with the Bill Moyer one since it is easier to listen to and more immediately convincing. The Fitts interview is more damning (especially the latter 2/3). Feel free to express disagreement. Please try to expend some effort to dig and actually evaluate (for your own benefit of course). Without anonymity we are toast.
Why is anonymity so important for mankind ? Don't you think global transparency in financial systems might be a good thing ? (To help fight corruption, for instance) This is the most difficult thing for people to understand because we are so accustomed to the normalcy of society. We just can't conceive of the notion that the regulators are captured by those being regulated. And that voting can't change it. The Bill Moyers video explains this very professionally. I highly recommend it. Global transparency is the way you promote the Deep State corruption to globalized power. That will be an even worse outcome. Because again, the regulators and the regulated are two heads of the same monster. Anonymity is the only way the individual can opt-out of that unfixable (evil) symbioses that is going to torch the earth after 2016. Note gold is anonymous except it reduces trade because it can't be moved or divided into smaller pieces and them recombined easily. Requires smelter, assay, etc. thus it isn't really autonomous (that isn't a misspelling, autonomy isn't not same concept as anonymity). And transport is risky. By opting-out of the taxation, confiscation, and corrupt regulation, we can prevent the evil symbioses from destroying all capital and locking down humanity in evil symbiosis. It is a release valve that will abate the symbioses and end it. Because prosperity will gravitate to what can't be destroyed, where everything else is being destroyed symbiotically. You really have to understand the keyword: symbiotic. The Bill Moyer's video explains it well. To understand the symbioses more algorithmically, please read this summary I wrote yesterday: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=400235.msg6060440#msg6060440I think that was fairly well written. One of my better posts. Please click to read it. I do believe that after a great crisis and suffering, the youth of the world will restore normalcy and then we can regulate again. But this will eventually fail again. Any way, the interim transition is going to get very nasty and we need anonymity to abate an overshoot into the abyss of totalitarianism. Because even if the people tried to organize now, they don't understand and can be easily fooled. The only interim solution is to opt-out. This is more than " a little bit dangerous". (sorry needed some music, the topic is getting too intense) |
|
|
|
|
mgburks77
|
|
April 05, 2014, 02:55:52 AM |
|
Wrong! The commons means knowledge takes control. For example, physics assures us that energy is neither created nor destroyed, so it is only the lack of knowledge production that makes energy finite or scarce. And I am not referring to perpetual motion machines, rather to more efficiency and automation of extraction of energy through greater innovation due to faster propagation of knowledge. This interests me on several levels. The technical term "the commons" denotes a social organization that consisted of individualized production and no political system to coerce cooperative behavior. The concept of social control via political economy didn't exist yet. When it emerged the commons were enclosed and converted into private property and the population was reduced to bondage. We typically think of this as "the human condition" and have resigned ourselves to it's inevitability. This sort of belief is due to social conditioning and I do not share it. If a similar organization can be restored for mass society via adroit use of technical means to defeat those who would protect rent seeking and usury with coercive force I'm all for it. It also interests me on a cosmological and philosophical level in regard to the function of life, information, and consciousness as a physical means to degrade energy differentials in the wave function. It is in this regard that my doubts about the possibility of absolute freedom to express one's will lie. However there is probably a way to balance the conflict between the individual and the collective and maximize what we experience as "free will" and this way is through greater understanding of the world around us and how it functions according to materialistic definitions. I think perhaps that this is what we are both after? |
|
|
|
|
|
mgburks77
|
|
April 05, 2014, 03:07:46 AM |
|
put simply we need anonymity because the state is abusive
|
|
|
|
|
|
thaaanos
|
|
April 05, 2014, 03:19:10 AM |
|
I agree with mgburks77 here, the more individuals become cells in a larger system, whether hierarchical or networked it doesn't matter. They sacrifice degrees of freedom (free will) to the superstructure. I think only the top layer can enjoy free will or "liberty", it's inevitable, but not unacceptable.
|
|
|
|
|
farnsworth7
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 31
Merit: 0
|
|
April 05, 2014, 03:21:02 AM |
|
I understand that part of the elite is abusive, and we could opt-out of the system that sustain these evil elites, to stop giving them power. And anonymity in cryptocurrencies might give us this freedom. That makes sense.
But this freedom is not sufficient at all to build a better system, is it ? What happens next ? Anarchy ? Freedom alone is not a solution.
|
|
|
|
|
|
AnonyMint (OP)
|
|
April 05, 2014, 03:23:19 AM
Last edit: April 05, 2014, 03:43:29 AM by AnonyMint |
|
Without anonymity we are toast.
I don't think the elites will allow the propagation and popularisation of a crypto that ruins their plans. There are many things they can do, the first of which is to allow bitcoin to take the lead. If they are going to tax + confiscate, they will drive wealth away from non-anonymous Bitcoin directly to the anonymous coin. Eventually they checkmate themselves. I think this is it. They are going to lose. They can try to stop the protocol, but we can cloak it. Don't underestimate us hackers. We have math on our side, and we are very good at math. Some details will be forthcoming. You once used the analogy of the shift from MySpace to Facebook to justify the fact that we could shift to another crypto, but Facebook has accepted allegiance to the elites and the elites have accepted Facebook in their planning. This is very clear by the way it is shutting off all pages that the mainstream don't like or that are too critical to the elites.
They will drive people away from Facebook to our anonymous Amigobase.com (I own that domain, nothing there just a future project maybe) once they start abusing Facebook identities. I also own coolpage.com Their model is peaking and being exposed. Our time is coming into view now. I can see it clearly. The difference in our case is that the elites will not accept a currency that frees the people and thus the shift will never happen.
If they allow bitcoin, it means that either 1. bitcoin is a creation of their master(s) and its purpose is further enslavement or 2. they found ways to use it to their own advantage.
In any case the people are enslaved by the power grabbers and I think it is only wishful thinking to believe we can change this by launching some specific new crypto.
Maybe so, but defeatism is not my cup of tea. Like I said, let all the feeble people stay in Bitcoin and Bitpay. Let's see if Peter Thiel can win with that base of non-doers. I like the odds of the coin that has all the super smart and motivated doers working on it constantly night and day. Not this gridlock Bitcoin. Because the governments have no choice but to increase revenues as we collapse into a global debt default. And the more they tax + confiscate wealth, the more the GDP will collapse. Thus the more they will need to take from wealth. It is a downward spiral. Very scary.
We have been hitting the peak of numerous natural resources while demographics are strongly up worldwide and consumption of land, water, rare minerals, energy resources etc... is completely unsustainable. The fact is that GDP must collapse. The elites only want to make sure that they have or create as much power as possible through and after the GDP collapse and are planning accordingly. It is unavoidable. Bitcoin either was part of or is being integrated in the planning of the elites. Actually, the elites do have the choice in front of defaults : inflation. But they probably prefer to do some rounds of confiscation first to lower the power of the wealthy outside of their ranks. Agreed all you wrote except I don't agree there is a peak in sustainability. The problem is knowledge was impeded by the corrupt system, thus we stopped increasing production of what we needed and produced Wallmart consumerism instead. It is actually the debt that causes the misallocation of resources. The same happened to the fall of Rome. The debt caused overintensive farming, then they polluted their irrigation. Same in Greece, overproduction of goats due to debt, then they had desertification. mgburks77 quoted me on this: Wrong! The commons means knowledge takes control. For example, physics assures us that energy is neither created nor destroyed, so it is only the lack of knowledge production that makes energy finite or scarce. And I am not referring to perpetual motion machines, rather to more efficiency and automation of extraction of energy through greater innovation due to faster propagation of knowledge.
Malthusians have always ended up fools. They have never been correct. Don't fall into that propaganda malaise. It is unhealthy for your brain. I care about you. Please try to snap out it. I don't say this as a personal attack at all. I know that people who care about the environment really think there is sustainability problem. And I know they think that those who don't are evil. But I guarantee you, there is no sustainability problem. It is all lies. I can surely convince you if I have enough time, but I don't. So let's not fight about this please. No bad feelings. I care about the environment, but I am not worried. |
|
|
|
farnsworth7
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 31
Merit: 0
|
|
April 05, 2014, 03:35:05 AM |
|
I agree with mgburks77 here, the more individuals become cells in a larger system, whether hierarchical or networked it doesn't matter. They sacrifice degrees of freedom (free will) to the superstructure. I think only the top layer can enjoy free will or "liberty", it's inevitable, but not unacceptable.
A superstructure will always exist. Complete freedom is an illusion. We can not break free from the laws of physics, from our emotions, or from the need for a coherent human society (we are social animals). The best thing we can do is make our "prison" more enjoyable, ie make a society that is fairer for everyone. But we will always be individual cells in a body called mankind. I think we need to accept that, and stop believing freedom is the holy grail, because 1. it doesn't exist 2. it would not even solve anything. |
|
|
|
|
|
AnonyMint (OP)
|
|
April 05, 2014, 03:44:31 AM |
|
MahaRamana please re-read the end of my reply. I added examples about Rome and Greece. History is your guide that debt is the cause.
|
|
|
|
|
AnonyMint (OP)
|
|
April 05, 2014, 03:50:39 AM |
|
Don't you think global transparency in financial systems (thanks to a traceable public ledger) might be a good thing ? (To help fight corruption, for instance)
The corrupt own the regulators. So they escape and yet the public ledger can be used to take everything from us. This is an asymmetric advantage for corruption. They trick us into believing it is for our own good. They are so clever at fooling us. |
|
|
|
|
twiifm
|
|
April 05, 2014, 03:51:59 AM |
|
I agree with mgburks77 here, the more individuals become cells in a larger system, whether hierarchical or networked it doesn't matter. They sacrifice degrees of freedom (free will) to the superstructure. I think only the top layer can enjoy free will or "liberty", it's inevitable, but not unacceptable.
A superstructure will always exist. Complete freedom is an illusion. We can not break free from the laws of physics, from our emotions, or from the need for a coherent human society (we are social animals). The best thing we can do is make our "prison" more enjoyable, ie make a society that is fairer for everyone. But we will always be individual cells in a body called mankind. I think we need to accept that, and stop believing freedom is the holy grail, because 1. it doesn't exist 2. it would not even solve anything. I agree. I think its all about the rules. In a game like Monopoly eventually there will one winner and everyone loses. In a game like Rock-Paper-Scissors each player takes turn winning (not good example but I can't think of another game that doesn't allow concentration of power) The inevitable end of free market Capitalism is monopoly & the opposite Communism/ Socialism doesn't work either. What is the optimum system? Nobody knows yet. But we all know what we have doesn't work. |
|
|
|
|
|
thaaanos
|
|
April 05, 2014, 03:54:38 AM |
|
I don't say this as a personal attack at all. I know that people who care about the environment really think there is sustainability problem. And I know they think that those who don't are evil. But I guarantee you, there is no sustainability problem. It is all lies. I can surely convince you if I have enough time, but I don't. So let's not fight about this please. No bad feelings. I care about the environment, but I am not worried.
Are you sure this is not wishful thinking? Because you know/fear/block that if in our future we hit scarcity in resources we are going be regulated like never before. I fear that we will even lose liberties that never knew we had, like liberty to breath, mate, move, sleep, not die a random death. Think about the way of life of astronaut, it is the future, and it wont matter if you are on the planet or not. |
|
|
|
|
|
mgburks77
|
|
April 05, 2014, 04:00:20 AM |
|
What is the optimum system? *Decentralized political economy and mix of individualized artisan quality production and automation to replace consumerism and authoritarian top down control of collectivized production. |
|
|
|
|
|
AnonyMint (OP)
|
|
April 05, 2014, 04:01:29 AM
Last edit: April 05, 2014, 04:17:06 AM by AnonyMint |
|
Wrong! The commons means knowledge takes control. For example, physics assures us that energy is neither created nor destroyed, so it is only the lack of knowledge production that makes energy finite or scarce. And I am not referring to perpetual motion machines, rather to more efficiency and automation of extraction of energy through greater innovation due to faster propagation of knowledge.
[snip] The technical term "the commons" denotes a social organization that consisted of individualized production and no political system to coerce cooperative behavior. The concept of social control via political economy didn't exist yet. When it emerged the commons were enclosed and converted into private property and the population was reduced to bondage. [snip] If a similar organization can be restored for mass society via adroit use of technical means to defeat those who would protect rent seeking and usury with coercive force I'm all for it. [snip] However there is probably a way to balance the conflict between the individual and the collective and maximize what we experience as "free will" and this way is through greater understanding of the world around us and how it functions according to materialistic definitions. I think perhaps that this is what we are both after? You need to quote the rest of the key point: I am quite flabbergast that Eric S. Raymond (self-professed to have 150 - 170IQ, the creator of the "open source" movement) could get the logic so wrong on the coming Knowledge Age. In his critique of Jeremy Rifkin's book, The Zero Marginal Cost Society, he misses the key generative model of open source, which is that the source is always changing. The enslavement of knowledge by capital is due to the transactional cost of the propagation of creations. As we lower that friction, knowledge takes over. And he apparently fails to comprehend capital can't buy knowledge because thought isn't fungible, and this becomes more evident as the diversity of innovation becomes more fine-grained. The claim that the material input costs will be significant relative to the marginal cost of distributing more copies of intellectual property is wrong because the only costs in material production that can't be reduced asymptotically to 0 at economy-of-scale and automation are the knowledge inputs. Thus knowledge is infinitely more valuable than material production at the asymptote. The only reason that capital has been able to enslave the knowledge portion of the cost in the material cost is due to inability of fine-grain, autonomous knowledge to control the creative outputs of material production. The 3D printer changes this because the printer will be in every person's home. The commodity value relative to knowledge value of raw material inputs will fall asymptotically to 0 [snip] The point is that due to networks effects on knowledge propagation, material costs will decline towards 0 relative to the value society will assign to the knowledge. Knowledge was only enslaved because knowledge did not have the control over creation. Industrialization had control over the knowledge. Computer changed that for software. The home 3D printer changes it for everything else. This polarity is reversing (inverting) as we speak. You will a massive change to the world. This is why most of you don't understand that structure you think is relevant is no longer relevant. What is the optimum system? *Decentralized political economy and mix of individualized artisan quality production and automation to replace consumerism and authoritarian top down control of collectivized production. Careful. I agree but not sure if you were leaning Marxist. It won't be done for free. The Marxist slant is very wrong. Eric Raymond explained that very well and I didn't disagree. |
|
|
|
|
thaaanos
|
|
April 05, 2014, 04:05:09 AM |
|
What is the optimum system? *Decentralized political economy and mix of individualized artisan quality production and automation to replace consumerism and authoritarian top down control of collectivized production. Nah... the optimum system is *disconnection* isolation, not integration MahaRamana please re-read the end of my reply. I added examples about Rome and Greece. History is your guide that debt is the cause.
Those examples are totally unbased |
|
|
|
|
|
AnonyMint (OP)
|
|
April 05, 2014, 04:15:18 AM |
|
What is the optimum system? *Decentralized political economy and mix of individualized artisan quality production and automation to replace consumerism and authoritarian top down control of collectivized production. Nah... the optimum system is *disconnection* isolation, not integration Go ahead. You will be very impoverished compared to those who leverage the specialization and cooperation. You will produce everything yourself from raw resources, dig up your own ore, build your own smelters, etc. And forget 3D printing, because you want to be disconnected from knowledge. You want to go back to a caveman? That is what you are saying. I hope you realize. MahaRamana please re-read the end of my reply. I added examples about Rome and Greece. History is your guide that debt is the cause.
Those examples are totally unbased I have canonical citations on those but hard to dig them up. I don't feel like being bothered at the moment. It is a fact that Rome collapsed due to environmental degradation due to debt caused overintensive farming which lead to the inability to produce enough to sustain. But Rome's collapse had many facets, yet this was one of the fundamental factors. I had also a citation about pottery records showing farming was still increasing right up until the collapse. Also have much documentation about the environmental degradation and as always this caused the marginal utility of debt to go negative because the marginal increase in production from farms went negative. Don't forget that Rome was entirely agriculture based. That was the reason the empire existed to build roads and military security to increase commerce from agriculture. Do you have any reason to believe this is wrong? |
|
|
|
|
AnonyMint (OP)
|
|
April 05, 2014, 04:17:43 AM |
|
Computer changed that for software. The home 3D printer changes it for everything else. Added that to prior post. Key point. |
|
|
|
|
twiifm
|
|
April 05, 2014, 04:22:41 AM |
|
What is the optimum system? *Decentralized political economy and mix of individualized artisan quality production and automation to replace consumerism and authoritarian top down control of collectivized production. Decentralized political economy --- Is this like feudalism? Individualized artisan production -- Pre Industrial production? I was thinking more in line of stimulus. Like QE, but direct to private enterprise for the purpose of entrepreneurship or job creation. Entrepreneurs capitalized from the Feds money without banks in the middle. Fed owns equity in the business. Then ring fence speculative trading or only allow cash based speculation without derivatives. Let the hedge funds gamble but not on leveraged instruments. If they go bust it doesn't drag down the rest of the system Maybe Job Guarantee? Govt as employer of last resort. I don't know. Its a tough thing to ponder |
|
|
|
|
|
mgburks77
|
|
April 05, 2014, 04:24:09 AM |
|
Decentralized political economy --- Is this like feudalism? more like prior to feudalism Individualized artisan production -- Pre Industrial production? post industrial |
|
|
|
|
|
AnonyMint (OP)
|
|
April 05, 2014, 04:25:36 AM |
|
Careful. I agree but not sure if you were leaning Marxist. It won't be done for free. The Marxist slant is very wrong. Eric Raymond explained that very well and I didn't disagree.
I recognize the validity of some marxian analysis but I'm more of a radical individualist and opportunist than anything ideological, though. Quite disillusioned, don't believe in much but myself anymore. I think I will be able to do more by coding than talking. I think it is difficult for you all to visualize what I am talking about, until you actually interact with it in reality. |
|
|
|
|
mgburks77
|
|
April 05, 2014, 04:29:01 AM |
|
Careful. I agree but not sure if you were leaning Marxist. It won't be done for free. The Marxist slant is very wrong. Eric Raymond explained that very well and I didn't disagree.
I recognize the validity of some marxian analysis but I'm more of a radical individualist and opportunist than anything ideological, though. Quite disillusioned, don't believe in much but myself anymore. I think I will be able to do more by coding than talking. I think it is difficult for you all to visualize what I am talking about, until you actually interact with it in reality. Sounds amazing. I can't wait. |
|
|
|
|
|
AnonyMint (OP)
|
|
April 05, 2014, 04:32:59 AM |
|
Concrete example of the Knowledge Economy. You produce a 3D printing design for a car. I buy it using anonymous coin, print it and drive it around. I improve it and publish my improvement. Did you see the fixed a guy's face with 3D printing? You see the knowledge will take over. The knowledge will improve everything so fast at 1000s of iterations of new designs per day or week. We will be living Jetsons life within 10 to 20 years. There is absolutely no problem once we kick the bastards off our virtual lawn using anonymity so they can't extort from us any more using the government force. They can't afford to put a thug policeman inside of every home on earth. |
|
|
|
|
AnonyMint (OP)
|
|
April 05, 2014, 04:37:33 AM |
|
Guys love to create stuff. Guys are going to love the new economy. And women are going to love you.
|
|
|
|
|
mgburks77
|
|
April 05, 2014, 04:39:52 AM |
|
I was thinking more in line of stimulus. Like QE, but direct to private enterprise for the purpose of entrepreneurship or job creation. Entrepreneurs capitalized from the Feds money without banks in the middle. Fed owns equity in the business. Then ring fence speculative trading or only allow cash based speculation without derivatives. Let the hedge funds gamble but not on leveraged instruments. If they go bust it doesn't drag down the rest of the system
Maybe Job Guarantee? Govt as employer of last resort.
I don't know. Its a tough thing to ponder There are a lot of moving parts to take into consideration. Something like that I would see as a stopgap measure at best because it doesn't really get to the basis of the problem, because leveraged trading is far from the only way that capital is misallocated by our society. |
|
|
|
|
|
mgburks77
|
|
April 05, 2014, 04:40:51 AM |
|
Guys love to create stuff. Guys are going to love the new economy. And women are going to love you.
Huzzah!  I like it |
|
|
|
|
|
twiifm
|
|
April 05, 2014, 04:41:11 AM |
|
Decentralized political economy --- Is this like feudalism? more like prior to feudalism Individualized artisan production -- Pre Industrial production? post industrial Whats prior to feudalism? Empires or tribalism? How would you unravel our modern systems to obtain this state? |
|
|
|
|
|
thaaanos
|
|
April 05, 2014, 04:44:15 AM |
|
Go ahead. You will be very impoverished compared to those who leverage the specialization and cooperation.
You will produce everything yourself from raw resources, dig up your own ore, build your own smelters, etc. And forget 3D printing, because you want to be disconnected from knowledge.
You want to go back to a caveman? That is what you are saying. I hope you realize.
More like smaller societies physically disconnected, not each on his own. Culture/Art you know is an oppressive beast and a topic untouched yet. Knowledge isn't everything. I have canonical citations on those but hard to dig them up. I don't feel like being bothered at the moment.
It is a fact that Rome collapsed due to environmental degradation due to debt caused overintensive farming which lead to the inability to produce enough to sustain. But Rome's collapse had many facets, yet this was one of the fundamental factors. I had also a citation about pottery records showing farming was still increasing right up until the collapse. Also have much documentation about the environmental degradation and as always this caused the marginal utility of debt to go negative because the marginal increase in production from farms went negative.
Don't forget that Rome was entirely agriculture based. That was the reason the empire existed to build roads and military security to increase commerce from agriculture.
Do you have any reason to believe this is wrong?
Rome's collapse was political, cultural and scientific stagnation after the initial breakthroughs that made them an empire. Greece collapse was as ever the internal strife, we worship Eris. |
|
|
|
|
|
mgburks77
|
|
April 05, 2014, 04:44:26 AM |
|
Concrete example of the Knowledge Economy. You produce a 3D printing design for a car. I buy it using anonymous coin, print it and drive it around. I improve it and publish my improvement. Did you see the fixed a guy's face with 3D printing? You see the knowledge will take over. The knowledge will improve everything so fast at 1000s of iterations of new designs per day or week. We will be living Jetsons life within 10 to 20 years. There is absolutely no problem once we kick the bastards off our virtual lawn using anonymity so they can't extort from us any more using the government force. They can't afford to put a thug policeman inside of every home on earth. Sounds like you are talking about post scarcity, I'm in |
|
|
|
|
|
mgburks77
|
|
April 05, 2014, 04:44:59 AM |
|
Decentralized political economy --- Is this like feudalism? more like prior to feudalism Individualized artisan production -- Pre Industrial production? post industrial Whats prior to feudalism? Empires or tribalism? How would you unravel our modern systems to obtain this state? I'm referring to stateless society edit: Here's a nice example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Icelandic_Commonwealth |
|
|
|
|
|
twiifm
|
|
April 05, 2014, 04:46:45 AM |
|
I was thinking more in line of stimulus. Like QE, but direct to private enterprise for the purpose of entrepreneurship or job creation. Entrepreneurs capitalized from the Feds money without banks in the middle. Fed owns equity in the business. Then ring fence speculative trading or only allow cash based speculation without derivatives. Let the hedge funds gamble but not on leveraged instruments. If they go bust it doesn't drag down the rest of the system
Maybe Job Guarantee? Govt as employer of last resort.
I don't know. Its a tough thing to ponder There are a lot of moving parts to take into consideration. Something like that I would see as a stopgap measure at best because it doesn't really get to the basis of the problem, because leveraged trading is far from the only way that capital is misallocated by our society. Yeah I know there's a lot of moving parts. That's why it's hard to design a system that incorporate everything. I don't see leveraged instruments as capital misallocation. I see de-leveraging as contributor to liquidity crisis. I wouldn't outlaw derivatives just ring fence them |
|
|
|
|
|
AnonyMint (OP)
|
|
April 05, 2014, 04:49:38 AM |
|
Go ahead. You will be very impoverished compared to those who leverage the specialization and cooperation.
You will produce everything yourself from raw resources, dig up your own ore, build your own smelters, etc. And forget 3D printing, because you want to be disconnected from knowledge.
You want to go back to a caveman? That is what you are saying. I hope you realize.
More like smaller societies physically disconnected, not each on his own. Culture/Art you know is an oppressive beast and a topic untouched yet. Knowledge isn't everything. I am talking everyone can connect to everyone without a bastard freeloading middle man (who captures the State to help him maintain in his monopoly). We have to get rid of centralized exchange. We move to P2P, etc.. Each person's work is their own. No one takes a transaction fee or cut of the action! Rome's collapse was political, cultural and scientific stagnation after the initial breakthroughs that made them an empire.
Greece collapse was as ever the internal strife, we worship Eris.
Your talking effects. I was talking cause. The cause was as always centralization of power, and too much debt. The ill effects of debt is knowledge stagnates and everyone does dumb xerox copy shit. And this monotonicity causes the appearance of resource scarcity. If everyone is figuring out how to consume and no one is figuring out how to innovate, then it isn't surprising that consumption outstrips efficiencies of resource extraction. Fact is that the 2000 year price of commodities has always trended downwards. This will not stop. Iron used to be a precious metal. |
|
|
|
|
AnonyMint (OP)
|
|
April 05, 2014, 04:58:47 AM |
|
Decentralized political economy --- Is this like feudalism? more like prior to feudalism Individualized artisan production -- Pre Industrial production? post industrial Whats prior to feudalism? Empires or tribalism? How would you unravel our modern systems to obtain this state? No we are not going backwards. Material costs will trend towards zero relative to knowledge value, because knowledge will propagate in diverse fine-grained interactions of creations. Thus we don't need to go backwards. This is a totally new way to organize ourselves distributed without top-down control, because the economics of production have suddenly been ameliorated by the computer and 3D printing. |
|
|
|
|
thaaanos
|
|
April 05, 2014, 04:58:53 AM |
|
Go ahead. You will be very impoverished compared to those who leverage the specialization and cooperation.
You will produce everything yourself from raw resources, dig up your own ore, build your own smelters, etc. And forget 3D printing, because you want to be disconnected from knowledge.
You want to go back to a caveman? That is what you are saying. I hope you realize.
More like smaller societies physically disconnected, not each on his own. Culture/Art you know is an oppressive beast and a topic untouched yet. Knowledge isn't everything. I am talking everyone can connect to everyone without a bastard middle man. We have to get rid of centralized exchange. We move to P2P, etc.. Each person's work is their own. No one takes a transaction fee or cut of the action! Maybe everyone talking to everyone is not optimal. Maybe some Ideas should never meet. Why work anyway, lets all get a hobby or something. Not everything is about economy, production, transaction Rome's collapse was political, cultural and scientific stagnation after the initial breakthroughs that made them an empire.
Greece collapse was as ever the internal strife, we worship Eris.
You talking effects. I was talking cause. The cause was as always centralization of power, and too much debt. I was thinking the same about your post, anyway Greece never had centralization until 19 century. You could say that the city states were a token of decentralized world |
|
|
|
|
|
thaaanos
|
|
April 05, 2014, 05:00:40 AM |
|
Decentralized political economy --- Is this like feudalism? more like prior to feudalism Individualized artisan production -- Pre Industrial production? post industrial Whats prior to feudalism? Empires or tribalism? How would you unravel our modern systems to obtain this state? No we are not going backwards. Material costs will trend towards zero relative to knowledge value. Thus we don't need to go backwards. This is a totally new way to organize ourselves distributed without top-down control, because the economics of production have suddenly been ameliorated by the computer and 3D printing. Unless we make everything out of graphene I don't see that happening. You will still need to get the "ink" |
|
|
|
|
|
AnonyMint (OP)
|
|
April 05, 2014, 05:01:44 AM |
|
thaaanos I don't think you want to join us. Take care my friend. I bet you will change your mind later.
I don't have time to argue about the intricacies of how debt causes failure. I am sure you will find it was debt that caused Greece's failure. From your name, I assume you are from that area of the world?
Good luck and no bad feelings okay. We can agree to disagree.
|
|
|
|
|
AnonyMint (OP)
|
|
April 05, 2014, 05:04:30 AM
Last edit: April 05, 2014, 05:16:58 AM by AnonyMint |
|
Unless we make everything out of graphene I don't see that happening. You will still need to get the "ink"
Relative value of knowledge compared to the cost of ink will trend asymptotically towards infinity. Or stated the other way, the cost of ink relative to what you earn from knowledge, will trend asymptotically towards ZERO. Click the link in the post below and look at the chart. >So @esr, how do you align the long tail of maintenance into the sunk v marginal cost framework? Er, simply by observing that it is neither of those things and can’t be jammed into that framework. He makes it clear that he didn't even consider that the lower transactional propagation cost of digital distribution of editable creations increases the frequency, granularity, and autonomy of those maintenance edits. He apparently doesn't remember that Metcalfe's or Reed's Law says that as the number of those editing nodes increases, then the value of the knowledge network increases squared.See the interconnections are what causes the knowledge value to scale non-linearly at n^2. You will miss out on that because you want to be isolated. You don't have math on your side. |
|
|
|
|
mgburks77
|
|
April 05, 2014, 05:09:37 AM |
|
Decentralized political economy --- Is this like feudalism? more like prior to feudalism Individualized artisan production -- Pre Industrial production? post industrial Whats prior to feudalism? Empires or tribalism? How would you unravel our modern systems to obtain this state? No we are not going backwards. Material costs will trend towards zero relative to knowledge value. Thus we don't need to go backwards. This is a totally new way to organize ourselves distributed without top-down control, because the economics of production have suddenly been ameliorated by the computer and 3D printing. Unless we make everything out of graphene I don't see that happening. You will still need to get the "ink" All sorts of materials can be used in additive manufacture. Plastics, metals, glass, even chocolate. Even better there are bio-materials being developed which will be used to print organs for transplant etc. Maybe some day we will understand how to utilize base particles to manufacture objects made from any solid material on the periodic table. |
|
|
|
|
|
thaaanos
|
|
April 05, 2014, 05:20:20 AM |
|
[Relative value of knowledge compared to the cost of ink will trend asymptotically towards infinity. Or stated the other way, the cost of ink relative to what you earn from knowledge, will trend asymptotically towards ZERO.
I would disagree here, because "ink" producers will be a monopoly while "design" producers will move in a highly competitive field. Current analogy, How much does it cost me to print a book instead of buying it? (disregarding the fact that it doesn't need printing) thaaanos I don't think you want to join us. Take care my friend. I bet you will change your mind later.
I don't have time to argue about the intricacies of how debt causes failure. I am sure you will find it was debt that caused Greece's failure. From your name, I assume you are from that area of the world?
Good luck and no bad feelings okay. We can agree to disagree.
Join what? Yes I am Greek and can say have intuitive knowledge in our history. I just don't like it when people weaken good ideas by reinforcing them with biased facts @mgburks77 I would place my bets on graphene and the rest of nano-carbons for the forseeable future |
|
|
|
|
|
AnonyMint (OP)
|
|
April 05, 2014, 05:21:36 AM |
|
I was thinking more in line of stimulus. Like QE, but direct to private enterprise for the purpose of entrepreneurship or job creation. Entrepreneurs capitalized from the Feds money without banks in the middle. Fed owns equity in the business. Then ring fence speculative trading or only allow cash based speculation without derivatives. Let the hedge funds gamble but not on leveraged instruments. If they go bust it doesn't drag down the rest of the system
Maybe Job Guarantee? Govt as employer of last resort.
I don't know. Its a tough thing to ponder There are a lot of moving parts to take into consideration. Something like that I would see as a stopgap measure at best because it doesn't really get to the basis of the problem, because leveraged trading is far from the only way that capital is misallocated by our society. You don't fix the power vacuum of democracy with financialization trickery. The only way is to fundamentally change the economics of production and creativity and by removing the ability of the collective to tax private property. In this new world, everything you create is yours. Nobody takes a cut of your action. You trade your knowledge goods in the open market. This is already happening in software. Now we move to the next stage of this transition. Those who get on this bandwagon are the new wealthy of the world. |
|
|
|
|
AnonyMint (OP)
|
|
April 05, 2014, 05:26:12 AM |
|
Join what?
Ahem. I guess you will know soon eh.  Any way I am describing an imminent paradigm shift underway. It will come from many people and directions (I don't know who they are, this is a natural movement of society). I just happen to be involved in one aspect of that. Yes I am Greek and can say have intuitive knowledge in our history.
I just don't like it when people weaken good ideas by reinforcing them with biased facts
Let's get into this later. I would like to learn more from you and I think we can hash it out to realize that the power vacuum of democracy and debt were the essential cause. Those terms need definitions and I don't want to go endlessly into that discussion now. Some Iron Laws of Political Economics |
|
|
|
|
AnonyMint (OP)
|
|
April 05, 2014, 05:37:10 AM |
|
[Relative value of knowledge compared to the cost of ink will trend asymptotically towards infinity. Or stated the other way, the cost of ink relative to what you earn from knowledge, will trend asymptotically towards ZERO.
I would disagree here, because "ink" producers will be a monopoly while "design" producers will move in a highly competitive field. Current analogy, How much does it cost me to print a book instead of buying it? (disregarding the fact that it doesn't need printing) You didn't understand the scaling math. You expect someone to corner the market of ink? Okay the knowledge producers will simply substitute other materials. The raw tangible materials are not scarce. The virtual (even anonymous) knowledge is. The raw material producers can't do their business competitively without the knowledge. We can design bots which bore into ground and mine ore following the highest grade veins with no stripping ratio 100X more efficiently. Those idiot monopolists will be holding worthless open pit mines. Our zillions of tiny autonomous bots will be mining it out from under them. The bastards have no chance. Checkmate. Knowledge is power. What do they have? All they ever had was our inability to organize ourselves decentralized so that we don't need them. Now we have it. We don't need them any more. |
|
|
|
|
thaaanos
|
|
April 05, 2014, 05:41:26 AM |
|
I understand what you mean on the new paradigm and believe that it will happen,
but I cannot pinpoint what market force will drive the cost price of "ink" down, and not scale arbitrary in tandem with the "design"
The ink producers can and will create a cartel, based on the physical scarcity of prime materials, much like ie oil right now.
Oil is probably a perfect analogy of "ink" as it feeds every other industry, and yet it dominates the price of the products.
The cartel will not be based on the efficiency of their operation, rather on the "Rights" to mine, and we fall back to the scarcity of Land
|
|
|
|
|
|
AnonyMint (OP)
|
|
April 05, 2014, 05:44:03 AM |
|
They can stop the innovation. For example, they do something society hates, then hackers spread a 3D printer design for a bot that subverts what ever they are doing.
They will be defeated because in 1 hour 1 million people can make bots at any spot in the world and put them to shame.
They maintain their monopolies only because individuals can't take action.
Once individuals can take direct action, it is game over for them.
If there was a bot design now to stop the shit going on in Syria, do you think the people wouldn't 3D print it now?
Of course the people will rise up with rage once they have the tools to do so.
|
|
|
|
|
mgburks77
|
|
April 05, 2014, 05:49:39 AM
Last edit: April 05, 2014, 06:04:31 AM by mgburks77 |
|
You don't fix the power vacuum of democracy with financialization trickery. Well, since the calamity of WWII we've seen the collapse of Bretton Woods and the Nixon Shock. The direct purpose of removing USD peg to gold was in order to be able to debase the currency and leverage debt. The wave of technical developments developed to facilitate the ensuing financialization of the US economy are the basis for what technical systems we have now. US foreign policy is informed by the need to outright rob the developing world to prop up the system. We use the IMF shell game to make loans to defaulting nations solely as a pretext to seize their wealth. When that well runs dry they will have a choice: Start a war with a BRIC nation or strip the domestic population. Considering the BRIC nations are not an existential threat to the US and if left to their own devices will simply strip their own populations and leave the US alone the logical target is domestic population. When severe economic crisis becomes apparent they will become an existential threat to to the state so by that point they will be killing two birds with one stone when they take down their own population. Conclusion: the inevitable effect of sovereign debt crisis is well understood at the top of the food chain and they have been working for decades to trap all of the exits for when they decide to draw the nets in. They've built a massive security apparatus that is clearly targeted toward the domestic population so it's easy to see now what the plan has been all along. US decline has been apparent since it's peak right after WWII when the US commanded fully 1/2 of the world's capital. The post war era has been a series of desperate gambles to try and hold one to an decaying empire. That, in a nutshell, is a description of the foolishness that has destroyed the US and turned into what it is today, a tinpot despotism that can't manage it's spending. |
|
|
|
|
|
BenAnh
|
|
April 05, 2014, 05:52:02 AM |
|
P.S.S. I predicted a couple of weeks ago the IRS ruling would be what it is and that it would cause the price to dive. The post is some where in my public archives on bitcointalk.
And you don't think it's with a bit of luck at all with your prediction? Don't tell me this is the only time you predicted correctly in your life! For smart investors it's not one-time shot but they can predict with accuracy on a consistent basis. Let's say you've invested in 10 companies and possibly more than half will fail but this doesn't mean you fail at all as long as the rest makes more of a profit than your loses. I'd like to know what your prediction is when the next price will go up with a degree of certainty. Maybe if you think you will predict correctly then bet your savings or your life on it. I can BS about the next move and if it's wrong then so what; however if it's right then I will let everyone know about it. Bitcoin has not reached a tipping point yet where mass adoption is what we look for due to its complexity over its affordability plus its efficiency. It has to reach 15% including innovators and early adopters out of either 7 billions or simply connected people with internet access on earth or even if you do the math on a particular country (Should learn how Apple and Google reach the mass with their math). We are no where near that number and it doesn't matter what math formula you're going to use. |
|
|
|
|
|
AnonyMint (OP)
|
|
April 05, 2014, 05:52:33 AM |
|
Cartels can't sustain without a powerful military backing them up. Men are naturally competitive and cartels have to be able put all the other men down.
How can they finance their military if they can't tax us because we are anonymous?
And how can they finance their businesses if we refuse to buy their overpriced raw materials when we can use knowledge to route around them?
They become impotent.
|
|
|
|
|
AnonyMint (OP)
|
|
April 05, 2014, 05:54:55 AM |
|
You don't fix the power vacuum of democracy with financialization trickery. Well, since the calamity of WWII we've seen the collapse of Bretton Woods and the Nixon Shock. The direct purpose of removing USD peg to gold was in order to be able to debase the currency and leverage debt. The wave of technical developments developed to facilitate the ensuing financiailization of the US economy are the basis for what technical systems we have now. US foreign policy is informed for by the need to outright rob the developing world to prop up the system. We use the IMF shell game to make loans to defaulting nations solely as a pretext to seize their wealth. When that well runs dry they will have a choice: Start a war with a BRIC nation or strip the domestic population. Considering the BRIC nations are not an existential threat to the US and if left to their own devices will simply strip their own populations and leave the US alone the logical target is domestic population. When severe economic crisis becomes apparent they will become an existential threat to to the state so by that point they will be killing two birds with one stone when they take down their own population. Conclusion: the inevitable effect of sovereign debt crisis is well understood at the top of the food chain and they have been working for decades to trap all of the exits for when they decide to draw the nets in. They've built a massive security apparatus that is clearly targeted toward the domestic population so it's easy to see now what the plan has been all along. Wow best summary I've read ever of why the West will attack its own citizens. |
|
|
|
|
thaaanos
|
|
April 05, 2014, 05:55:25 AM |
|
It ends up to the "Rights" to extract the resources, assuming government still stands it can call upon the same decentralized infrastructure as hackers do. If government and no regulation of resources is in place then we end up in uncontrolled resource grab race, not a good idea.
It's not easy to decentralize physical resources management, we can of course move to planned economy for that part of the industry and operate it at cost.
|
|
|
|
|
|
AnonyMint (OP)
|
|
April 05, 2014, 05:57:05 AM |
|
How can the government stand if it has no income?
Remember relative value of knowledge will be 1000X higher then the rest of the economy. So their taxes on the dummies won't help them against the value of what we (knowledge workers, i.e. hackers) are creating.
Knowledge is power. Bots, etc..
It isn't an uncontrolled resource grab. Who ever can defend the resource and produce it will. Society will allow those who produce efficiently to continue. Society will attack those who try to build empires.
The raw resources are going to be so devalued, that isn't going to be that attractive to fight over them.
The 1000X value will be in creating knowledge. People won't be bothered with stealing resources such a low value added activity by that time.
|
|
|
|
|
thaaanos
|
|
April 05, 2014, 06:03:14 AM |
|
Oil is food, Oil is materials, Oil is Energy, Oil is what backs USD
Oil is what you can't print. Oil is your Tax.
|
|
|
|
|
|
AnonyMint (OP)
|
|
April 05, 2014, 06:11:09 AM |
|
Oil is food, Oil is materials, Oil is Energy, Oil is what backs USD
Oil is what you can't print. Oil is your Tax.
You can't seem to agree that knowledge will 1000X more valuable than those raw materials. You have entirely missed the point of my post here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=495527.msg6065144#msg6065144So I think we will stop the discussion now. I don't have more time. Let them raise the price of oil to $1 million per liter. Our knowledge value will rise proportionally. Then I (and others) will be earning $1 trillion per day. It is the value-added to raw inputs that is relevant. With mass production, the value-added of knowledge was amortized over the capital cost of the factory and millions of xerox copies. Now the creations will change 1000s of variants per day or minute. The value-added is unfathomable. It is the speed of the propagation of creation of product innovation that destroys (devalues) their control. |
|
|
|
|
thaaanos
|
|
April 05, 2014, 06:12:53 AM |
|
It isn't an uncontrolled resource grab. Who ever can defend the resource and produce it will. Society will allow those who produce efficiently to continue. Society will attack those who try to build empires.
He (Goverment) who can defend the resource and allow the production will cover it's expenses on Defending it and Producing it. The more you try to subvert them the more you make said resource costier. Society (Goverment) will not attack itself. You can't let free market manage scarce resources and expect 1000X falling behind in the cut. Maybe you dislike the idea but only with a planned economy you can get there. In short I don't believe the market dynamics will allow you the 1000X. Exhibit A pair of shoes costs about the same as a CPU, is the technology or the Patents or the Work to reach a CPU anywhere near a pair of shoes? Or a dinner in a reastaurant? |
|
|
|
|
|
AnonyMint (OP)
|
|
April 05, 2014, 06:13:45 AM |
|
No you need to re-read my prior post. You don't comprehend relative value created by decentralized creation and sharing of creations at speed-of-light over the internet.
|
|
|
|
|
pungopete468
|
|
April 05, 2014, 06:14:28 AM |
|
@ AnonyMint
Hypothetically, if a new crypto was invented today; one which offered anonymity and could only be mined by CPU, do you think there is enough time left to make a difference? Do you think that a year and a half to two years would make enough of a difference to cushion the impact of the world bearing down on us? I'm concerned that we're already out of time and can only brace for impact.
I tend to agree with just about everything I've read in this thread and I hate it because it really magnifies the scope of our situation. Bitcoin was created for a reason; a damn good reason. Be your own bank, make anonymous transactions; it's your money and nobody can tell you how to spend it, nor do they have any business knowing how much you have. Bitcoin should indeed be mined by CPU only and Bitcoin should be mined rather than purchased...
Coinbase has my info, there is no anonymity for me. When everything falls apart, they can come for me.
I don't care about the price of Bitcoin, it's nothing more than a speculative investment now. I feel despair right now because I'm living within an irrational system where the only logical outcome is complete and total collapse. I feel like every attempt to secure wealth is an act of futility. We're all just ducking and covering before the bright burning flash. I fear the new world will be unrecognizable and hostile when compared against the one before it.
I've been thinking about history, reading quotes from Russia and Germany written by some of the citizens who were taken from their homes and hauled away. I fear history will repeat itself and this time there will be no intervention. Nature will run its course. How many people will walk quietly into the night only to face their death as a prisoner? There's no room in the new world for the poor or middle class, what they're asking for is genocide...
2016 is the year, I've been saying it now for 2 years. There's no way to be ready for it, we just need to do the best we can. I hope I'm wrong...
|
|
|
|
|
|
.
..1xBit.com Super Six.. | ▄█████████████▄
████████████▀▀▀
█████████████▄
█████████▌▀████
██████████ ▀██
██████████▌ ▀
████████████▄▄
███████████████
███████████████
███████████████
███████████████
███████████████
▀██████████████ | ███████████████
█████████████▀
█████▀▀
███▀ ▄███ ▄
██▄▄████▌ ▄█
████████
████████▌
█████████ ▐█
██████████ ▐█
███████▀▀ ▄██
███▀ ▄▄▄█████
███ ▄██████████
███████████████ | ███████████████
███████████████
███████████████
███████████████
███████████████
███████████▀▀▀█
██████████
███████████▄▄▄█
███████████████
███████████████
███████████████
███████████████
███████████████ | ▄█████
▄██████
▄███████
▄████████
▄█████████
▄██████████
▄███████████
▄████████████
▄█████████████
▄██████████████
▀▀███████████
▀▀███████
▀▀██▀ | ▄▄██▌
▄▄███████
█████████▀
▄██▄▄▀▀██▀▀
▄██████ ▄▄▄
███████ ▄█▄ ▄
▀██████ █ ▀█
▀▀▀ ▄ ▀▄▄█▀
▄▄█████▄ ▀▀▀
▀████████
▀█████▀ ████
▀▀▀ █████
█████ | ▄ █▄▄ █ ▄
▀▄██▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
▀ ▄▄█████▄█▄▄
▄ ▄███▀ ▀▀ ▀▀▄
▄██▄███▄ ▀▀▀▀▄ ▄▄
▄████████▄▄▄▄▄█▄▄▄██
████████████▀▀ █ ▐█
██████████████▄ ▄▄▀██▄██
▐██████████████ ▄███
████▀████████████▄███▀
▀█▀ ▐█████████████▀
▐████████████▀
▀█████▀▀▀ █▀ | .
Premier League
LaLiga
Serie A | .
Bundesliga
Ligue 1
Primeira Liga | | .
..TAKE PART.. |
|
|
|
|
AnonyMint (OP)
|
|
April 05, 2014, 06:16:55 AM |
|
pungopete468 that is why I am going to shut up now. How can I program if I am always defending the conceptual idea.
Agreed we are running out of time.
Signing off.
Pay attention to your private messages.
Don't despair. You will soon have something.
|
|
|
|
|
thaaanos
|
|
April 05, 2014, 06:19:41 AM |
|
pungopete468 that is why I am going to shut up now. How can I program if I am always defending the conceptual idea.
Agreed we are running out of time.
Signing off.
Pay attention to your private messages.
ok I shut up let you to work. EDIT:But when you are done I reserve the right to fork it, and make your coin rusty |
|
|
|
|
7thKingdom
Member
Offline
Activity: 107
Merit: 10
|
|
April 05, 2014, 06:54:05 AM |
|
pungopete468 that is why I am going to shut up now. How can I program if I am always defending the conceptual idea.
I don't think you have to defend the conceptual ideas so much. When the time comes they will stand on their own merit (plus, you've already put out a plethora of great information for anyone interested in exploring the concepts discussed here and elsewhere on the forums). |
|
|
|
|
Zarathustra
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1162
Merit: 1004
|
|
April 05, 2014, 07:52:52 AM |
|
What is the optimum system? *Decentralized political economy and mix of individualized artisan quality production and automation to replace consumerism and authoritarian top down control of collectivized production. Nah... the optimum system is *disconnection* isolation, not integration +1000 Whoever denies this truth is a collectivist. In a million years there was never found labor division beyond the nuclear community. |
|
|
|
|
trainingsengineering
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 12
Merit: 0
|
|
April 05, 2014, 11:40:45 AM |
|
They maintain their monopolies only because individuals can't take action.
You really hit home here. This is very true. When people have the tools to take action, they will do it. |
|
|
|
|
Corazon79
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 46
Merit: 0
|
|
April 05, 2014, 12:46:07 PM |
|
Don't you think global transparency in financial systems (thanks to a traceable public ledger) might be a good thing ? (To help fight corruption, for instance) http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-26865695There are no ramifications even when corruption is proven and openly admitted to by offenders in public office. For example, in Britain the other day, Culture Secretary Maria Miller apologised to MPs for her attitude towards an inquiry into her expenses. The Commons Committee on Standards ordered her to repay £5,800 to cover over-claiming of mortgage expenses after she failed to cut her claims as interest rates fell. Miller actually made around £1 million in capital gains from the appreciation in real estate/property values after making these fraudulent claims. If a member of the UK public committed a similar offence, they would probably face around six years in jail. For Miller, a simple apology was enough to avoid imprisonment. |
|
|
|
|
|
thaaanos
|
|
April 05, 2014, 01:04:14 PM |
|
A public ledger of transactions if augmented with more info about the transaction will certainly help to have a clearer understanding of where the economy goes. Instant statistics! probably an economist's wet dream.
The transparency of the blockchain will make it more difficult for Politicians to distort the reality. I think it is a great Idea (public ledger) on it's own.
I wouldn't easily discard that notion in searching for anonymity.
|
|
|
|
|
|
AnonyMint (OP)
|
|
April 05, 2014, 01:13:36 PM |
|
I am happy to inform that Eric says I am not banned as long as I can remain respectful and has allowed my input to be considered. I posted another summary of my idea. http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=5558&cpage=1#comment-479608Thanks. A refutation would be more helpful.
The point is about the relative value of the autonomous knowledge (capital) economy versus the vertically integrated (monetary) capital economy. As the autonomy of creation increases in both granularity and speed-to-market (Linus principle of "publish often"), the number of nodes of sharing increases and the value of that knowledge sharing network increases by the nodes squared. We have chart confirmation of that law with the history of the Bitcoin price.
Specific example would be sharing a 3D printing design, and others autonomously iterating on that design. The design is open source. Music compositions, medical art, etc.
Thus the vertically integrated economy falls in relative value. How can you reason that we will pay the same or significantly for something produced by the economy that will be worth relatively much less than it had been?
With mass production, the value-added of the knowledge input was amortized over the capital cost of the factory and millions of produced copies. Thus the knowledge networking value was insignificant. Whereas, when knowledge can directly create with near real-time publishing, the knowledge networking value increases by the square and outstrips any startup costs. Moreover, incremental edits amortize the startup costs over many knowledge networking connections, and the value is the square of the connections.
The key is that open source knowledge is always changing and the knowledge workers benefit from autonomously iterating each other's designs, because the value of the network increases by the square of the participants who share. Metcalfe's (or Reed's) Law is at the heart of why sharing creates more value for all participants. That is not saying all nodes connect with all other nodes, rather the value scales proportional to the square. |
|
|
|
|
AnonyMint (OP)
|
|
April 05, 2014, 01:26:00 PM
Last edit: April 05, 2014, 01:44:53 PM by AnonyMint |
|
thaaanos, I appreciated the discussion with you upthread. Please for time being limit your posts to 1 per day, because you are starting to repeat yourself, and remember you agreed to let me go program. If you have a significantly new argument, feel free to post it. A public ledger of transactions if augmented with more info about the transaction will certainly help to have a clearer understanding of where the economy goes. Instant statistics! probably an economist's wet dream.
We don't need economists. The free market can anneal to optimized fitness when we don't obstruct it. There is nothing to be gained. And we lose our privacy asymmetrically to the fatcats who will always be immune from any totalitarianism. The transparency of the blockchain will make it more difficult for Politicians to distort the reality.
I don't agree, but it is irrelevant because Bitcoin will end up offchain fractional reserves. There is no way we are going to force a public ledger on the fatcats. The best we can shoot for is an anonymous ledger so we can opt-out of collective madness and keep our individual privacy. If you want that kind of 666 tracking system, you go ahead and signup for government tracking. Some of us here don't want that, and we don't want to hear about it. You can make another thread for people who want the NWOcoin. I think it is a great Idea (public ledger) on it's own.
I wouldn't easily discard that notion in searching for anonymity.
Sorry that idea is going no where here in this thread. The focus of this thread has clearly morphed and is now about the anonymous, automonous, privacy, individual rights coin. There are a lot of us who want that. As far as I can surmise based on the votes and comments upthread and in my private message inbox, those who vote "yes" have listened to you and we didn't agree. |
|
|
|
|
AnonyMint (OP)
|
|
April 05, 2014, 01:34:55 PM |
|
blablahblah, 3D printers can print themselves. Grow up man.
It's called debate and I'm not letting this point slide. Please show evidence of 3d printers that can fully self-replicate, including printing their own embedded electronics, or your claim is busted. I've seen the cool viral advertising where they print replacement plastics which are then assembled with manual labour, but AFAIK the only fully self-replicating things in existence, which are integrated enough to call machines, are biological. Or virtual. Come on. You're talking about "material production at the asymptote" and stuff. This one should be a breeze. Graphene may change that, and nano-printing, but it's not that what bothers me... If you take a look at current printing market status you will see that the printer costs as much as a ink cartridge replacement. Everything will be solved once you have even 1% of humanity doing autonomous knowledge production full-time. The first computer was so clunky that they had to test 1000s of vacuum tubes if one malfunctioned: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ENIAC We are at the cusp. And you are going to swept away. |
|
|
|
|
thaaanos
|
|
April 05, 2014, 01:43:41 PM |
|
Regarding Nerwork Value
How that Value translates into Price? My copy of linux which is very valuable to me, I got for free. I pay more for useless shit like bumber stickers, and flowers.
I put my trust in the Open Source, but not my money. Why I behave this way? (actual question).
Is there some inhibition in me to exchange physical tokens for virtual things? Is virtual micropayment going to ease this inhibition?
Will I put more money to creators if I have a 3d printer to create physical things?
The shift to a new paradigm has a lot of friction inside me.
Yes I know Last post truly. Feel free to delete my noise.
|
|
|
|
|
|
AnonyMint (OP)
|
|
April 05, 2014, 01:49:25 PM
Last edit: April 05, 2014, 02:16:08 PM by AnonyMint |
|
I am interested to read your posts and reply. Feel free to post again next day as you collect your thoughts for a while.
You would gladly pay a micro payment for downloading Linux if you knew you were supporting the developers, because you want to see it continue to improve and bug fixes to be made.
There are several business models which can fund open source. The business models that work depend on the granularity of creation. Linux is a huge (in man-years) monolithic creation, so it is limited to mostly corporate sponsorship funding models, e.g. RedHat. I expect this will be the crux of Eric Raymond's argument if he refutes me.
Some creations don't need to be modularized, e.g. composing a song isn't a huge initial investment. For the more complex creations, it is about getting our technologies of creation modularized. I was working on a computer language to do that by employing higher-order semantics from higher-kinded typing with pure functional programming, before I got sidetracked on Bitcoin. I will get back to that later.
So the idea is in order for you to make creations, you need to contribute micro payments to the modules you use in your mashup creation. An honor system will work because in the knowledge economy, reputation becomes so important. Who wants to use your modules if you are destroying the value of the economy or if you modules are usually of poor quality.
Your inhibition should decline when the modulars get smaller and more closely correlated to specific need you have to complete a project of yours. You will then see the creative value ("genius") in the person who created it and feel a symbiotic vibe, almost a personal connection with them.
As the modules get smaller, the politics decreases, because you can always find a module and culture to your liking.
Degrees-of-freedom is so elemental to attaining peace and prosperity.
This should be fun, it should be social, it should be friendly.
It is about freedom-of-choice, diversity, fitness.
|
|
|
|
|
AnonyMint (OP)
|
|
April 05, 2014, 03:01:50 PM |
|
Another reason that transaction fees don't work. I finally had a spare moment to contemplate the variables.
A key factor is the block size. If the block size is unlimited (and bandwidth is an insignificant cost), then unless miners have a monopoly they will accept transactions with fees as low as don't constitute a DoS attack, in order to maximize revenue.
In other words, they would have no pricing power at all (a Tragedy of the Commons) and the system would devolve into a partial-monopoly in order to gain pricing power.
A partial-monopoly in this case is enough % of the network hashrate to delay transactions (by that % of blocks) which do not include a sufficient fee.
If we limit block size, then the system doesn't scale.
If we let the Bitcoin foundation decide when to increase block size, then they control the economic market function, i.e. we've centralized Bitcoin.
Let us assume unlimited block size and partial-monopolies. Thus the transaction fee can always be forced higher in order to generate more revenue for the miners. Thus Bitcoin devolves (as coin rewards diminish) to a system that presents spenders with a choice between include a very high transaction fee or accept an ever increasing delay for confirmation. This will exacerbate as coin rewards diminish and volume of transactions increase.
If we instead assume limited block size, then the Bitcoin foundation will set the transaction fees, not the market.
Bitcoin is a broken design.
|
|
|
|
merkin51
Member
Offline
Activity: 95
Merit: 10
|
|
April 05, 2014, 03:15:54 PM |
|
I read through this thread and have to say, even though I think I only completely understood about 20% of it, it is quite a fascinating read. Is this ultimate anonymity coin actually a reality, or is it just an unobtainable crypto dream? Is the knowledge and skillset out there in the coder community? Are people already working on such a coin? Will it be ready by 2016?! |
|
|
|
|
romneymoney
Full Member
Offline
Activity: 193
Merit: 117
HODL
|
|
April 05, 2014, 03:29:41 PM |
|
Interesting article.
On one hand you have merchants using Bitpay. These merchants don't want to hold BTC. They convert it to fiat before it touches their account. They are BTC sellers
On the other side you have hoarders who don't wanna to spend BTC because they are buying it for speculation.
As more merchants accept BTC thru Bitpay; this creates an asymmetry of sellers over buyers. This puts a lot of selling pressure on BTC driving the price down.
So at some point the future the price will be driven low enough where there is an equilibrium of sellers vs buyers in order for BTC stabilize. But if a better tech comes along like Ripple, BTC might just go extinct.
I would argue that there is at least one technologically better crypto-coin out there already just based on the number of alt-coins and the innovation and skills behind some of them. BTC has the momentum in mind share, which is far more important vs. tech specs in this competition currently. I'd stop short of predicting BTC is the dominant coin indefinitely, but it seems to be for the foreseeable future. |
|
|
|
|
mgburks77
|
|
April 05, 2014, 03:36:57 PM |
|
They maintain their monopolies only because individuals can't take action.
You really hit home here. This is very true. When people have the tools to take action, they will do it. this is the critical point |
|
|
|
|
|
AnonyMint (OP)
|
|
April 05, 2014, 03:49:37 PM
Last edit: April 06, 2014, 05:54:31 AM by AnonyMint |
|
Discussion continues over at the blog of the creator of "open source". http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=5558&cpage=1#comment-479716There is very limited ‘knowledge networking value’ for carrots. Extrapolate from there. What does agriculture have to do with network value of knowledge creation?
Do carrots have anything to do with open source business models?
Carrots will continue their downward spiral of relative value. Iron used to be a precious metal. Commodities have trended downward in price for millennia. If knowledge can be unleashed from vertical integration gridlock, those trends should accelerate.
The refutation I expect is that there are many contributors to Linux and to aggregate value and then distribute it to the contributors requires business models such as corporate sponsorship. I agree a dearth of modularity is a barrier, but it doesn't apply to all types of creations. And I was working on higher-kinded semantics computer language to hopefully improve modularity.
Even for Linux we could ponder a pay-per-download micro payment with a new crypto-currency, then have a list of contributors ranked by LOC and distribute to them. Not sure if that works, but I am not going to try to pretend I'm as omniscient as you and know all the limitations of ingenuity of mankind. |
|
|
|
Corazon79
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 46
Merit: 0
|
|
April 05, 2014, 04:08:38 PM |
|
I think it would be interesting to write an essay about some of these issues, to get everything together in one place.
If anybody wants to contribute some thoughts, I have just corrected my Bitmessage contact details in my profile. I didn't realise before, but the address had been cut short when I tried to paste it in...
|
|
|
|
|
|
AnonyMint (OP)
|
|
April 05, 2014, 04:12:59 PM
Last edit: April 06, 2014, 05:56:02 AM by AnonyMint |
|
http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=5558&cpage=1#comment-479742Performers and analysts are earning tips from their YouTube videos. These seed creative thought, which spawn other creations.
We will be able to produce all the food, raw materials, and energy we need with robots. There is no reason the price shouldn't trend towards zero, once the robots can build more robots.
The activity that can't be automated is creativity and knowledge creation. Thus it should rise in relative value.
|
|
|
|
DieJohnny
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1639
Merit: 1006
|
|
April 05, 2014, 04:44:39 PM |
|
My biggest complaint with your post is that you fail to address the more unsavory side of bitcoin and that it is bitcoins limited supply, speculative investment, Ponzi scheme similarities.
Bitcoin never was worth billions because it is agrees transaction tool, anyone that says otherwise is a fool or a propagandist.
The greed of humanity is hardly played out yet with bitcoin, bitcoin will drop in price only until the new wave of speculative coin buyers sweep in and start throwing mor money at these coins.
The actual purchasing power and transaction coolness of bitcoin is a stupid sideshow and isn't worth talking about as a legitimate mainstream feature until 2025
|
Those who hold and those who are without property have ever formed distinct interests in society
|
|
|
|
AnonyMint (OP)
|
|
April 05, 2014, 05:05:31 PM
Last edit: April 06, 2014, 05:57:15 AM by AnonyMint |
|
DieJohnny, I have addressed it, such as in my very first thread Bitcoin : The Digital Kill Switch over a year ago. In the following quoted post which comes from upthread, I had written about the need for perpetual debasement to fund mining (because transactions fees is broken design for several reasons): The upside is a 0 transaction fees design is a very attractive feature for consumers and merchants. And with a cpu-only coin, the debasement is going right back to the users of the coin any way. And it enables such a coin to be obtained autonomously without any other party nor exchange necessary. Even Bitcoin is being debased by 11% annually now. Of course exchanges should still be available, but they should P2P decentralized. No more Mt.Gox! I had an entire thread about Bitcoin as Ponzi scheme in November 2013, although my view has somewhat moderated since there. Also I have repeatedly stated glaring weaknesses in Bitcoin such as the 10 to 60 minute transaction delay. Of course those issues need to be corrected in any altcoin that seriously wants to achieve widespread decentralized adoption. Are you not interested at all in crypto-currency? Just curious. |
|
|
|
|
mgburks77
|
|
April 05, 2014, 05:07:46 PM
Last edit: April 05, 2014, 07:00:31 PM by mgburks77 |
|
Interesting article.
On one hand you have merchants using Bitpay. These merchants don't want to hold BTC. They convert it to fiat before it touches their account. They are BTC sellers
On the other side you have hoarders who don't wanna to spend BTC because they are buying it for speculation.
As more merchants accept BTC thru Bitpay; this creates an asymmetry of sellers over buyers. This puts a lot of selling pressure on BTC driving the price down.
So at some point the future the price will be driven low enough where there is an equilibrium of sellers vs buyers in order for BTC stabilize. But if a better tech comes along like Ripple, BTC might just go extinct.
I would argue that there is at least one technologically better crypto-coin out there already just based on the number of alt-coins and the innovation and skills behind some of them. BTC has the momentum in mind share, which is far more important vs. tech specs in this competition currently. I'd stop short of predicting BTC is the dominant coin indefinitely, but it seems to be for the foreseeable future. I think a lot of that is due to inertia. There are definitely some technical weakenesses inherent to the protocol that leave it vulnerable to a currency that fits the criteria set forth by the OP, namely true anonymity and ubiquitous mining. If anyone could produce currency simply by participating in the network, perhaps on their mobile device but definitely without special gear, there will be widespread adoption and the redundency characteristics of a decentralized network. This "network effect" coupled with true anonymity makes what is essentially a "weaponized currency" that can counter fiat, which is itself a weaponized currency. Not by attacking the status quo but by providing an innovation that produces a better system for knowledge accumulation and transmittal to the next generation. Humans are opportunistic and will take care of the granular details of massive social change on their own terms once the tool needed is available. It has always been this way. Thus the eternal arms race between the individual and the collective advances a step and levels the field for the individualized knowledge production specialist. The more I consider the possibilities the more excited I am! Is this ultimate anonymity coin actually a reality, or is it just an unobtainable crypto dream? Is the knowledge and skillset out there in the coder community? Are people already working on such a coin? Will it be ready by 2016?! It is in it's beginning but I'm confident it will be realized. It's too revolutionary not be produced by those who share the vision of human liberation. The "next step in human evolution" so to speak |
|
|
|
|
|
mgburks77
|
|
April 05, 2014, 05:28:48 PM
Last edit: April 05, 2014, 06:55:35 PM by mgburks77 |
|
P2P decentralized If this characteristic can be adopted for the platform it will only enhance the effects I mentioned briefly in my previous commentary. The crooked and incompetent exchange system is another weakness of btc that stands in the way of further adoption. My biggest complaint with your post is that you fail to address the more unsavory side of bitcoin... Cutting out the "middle man" reduces the insulating factor between individuals transacting a financial interaction. Much of the crime that exists is due to the social alienation that is inherent in those brought up in a corrupt system. Most people know that the current social order is a mask for an exploitative relationship between capital and producers so they feel justified in looking out for themselves, and rightly so I might add. So this platform not only represents a technical innovation it represents the potential for massive social change and liberation from enslavement to various flavors of collective production yet leverage the network effect for it's benefit in knowledge accrual and transmission. Maybe mankind can leverage technical innovation to escape the cycle of wave function collapse. I'm starting to think it is a possibility. If so a society with very little interpersonal conflict ie crime is possible. |
|
|
|
|
|
mgburks77
|
|
April 05, 2014, 06:40:18 PM |
|
In other words, a so-called "bitcoin killer" currency will live up to all of the expectations many had for bitcoin but which never materialized when actually implemented. Instead what emerged was cartelization, centralized control of development, and interest from big financial players who want the same kind of guarantees offered by the fiat system.
A digital version of the current financial topology is innovative in that it satisfies many demands that currently exist so it is desirable but it isn't revolutionary and I think that was the hope many had for bitcoin when it was originally presented. You can see that hope is still alive in much of the bullish commentary you can read on this and other venues regarding the potential of bitcoin as the original cryptocurrency.
when they see the new concept realized they will immediately adopt
|
|
|
|
|
|
AnonyMint (OP)
|
|
April 05, 2014, 06:55:56 PM
Last edit: April 05, 2014, 07:07:31 PM by AnonyMint |
|
Check this thread often for more details and news on the project.
I request we not discuss in this thread about any specific altcoin or altcoin project in this thread, because according to forum rules that should occur in the Altcoin forum. We can discuss about features we would like to see in an altcoin. We can compare and contrast with Bitcoin. Any post related to the OP is welcome, but I really didn't want to hear that we should make a traceable public ledger so that we can make public officials honest. Nothing will ever make politics honest.  That is proximately as convincing as putting lipstick on a pig. |
|
|
|
|
pungopete468
|
|
April 05, 2014, 07:09:23 PM |
|
In other words, a so-called "bitcoin killer" currency will live up to all of the expectations many had for bitcoin but which never materialized when actually implemented. Instead what emerged was cartelization, centralized control of development, and interest from big financial players who want the same kind of guarantees offered by the fiat system.
A digital version of the current financial topology is innovative in that it satisfies many demands that currently exist so it is desirable but it isn't revolutionary and I think that was the hope many had for bitcoin when it was originally presented. You can see that hope is still alive in much of the bullish commentary you can read on this and other venues regarding the potential of bitcoin as the original cryptocurrency.
when they see the new concept realized they will immediately adopt
I agree with this. Bitcoin was a great leap in the right direction, but it's never going to live up to solving the problems it was invented to solve. Sure, it did solve some important issues, but anonymity and decentralization are key pillars that Bitcoin failed to preserve. The Bitcoin community isn't just following Bitcoin for the name... If a new protocol is written to incorporate true decentralization and real anonymity then the migration from Bitcoin to the new protocol will be swift. Obviously Bitcoin will be propped up by big money, they have an interest in Bitcoin. Bitcoin is the most powerful tool for financial tracking ever invented. If other tools are developed to assist in tracking the flow of Bitcoins then it could be used to single out and isolate individuals based on parameters that would be defined by the authority who monitors the network. Bitcoin was invented as a tool to enhance personal freedom; it looks as if it can only serve as a tool to enhance oppression. Anonymity is protection for the individual, decentralization is protection for the network... |
|
|
|
|
|
.
..1xBit.com Super Six.. | ▄█████████████▄
████████████▀▀▀
█████████████▄
█████████▌▀████
██████████ ▀██
██████████▌ ▀
████████████▄▄
███████████████
███████████████
███████████████
███████████████
███████████████
▀██████████████ | ███████████████
█████████████▀
█████▀▀
███▀ ▄███ ▄
██▄▄████▌ ▄█
████████
████████▌
█████████ ▐█
██████████ ▐█
███████▀▀ ▄██
███▀ ▄▄▄█████
███ ▄██████████
███████████████ | ███████████████
███████████████
███████████████
███████████████
███████████████
███████████▀▀▀█
██████████
███████████▄▄▄█
███████████████
███████████████
███████████████
███████████████
███████████████ | ▄█████
▄██████
▄███████
▄████████
▄█████████
▄██████████
▄███████████
▄████████████
▄█████████████
▄██████████████
▀▀███████████
▀▀███████
▀▀██▀ | ▄▄██▌
▄▄███████
█████████▀
▄██▄▄▀▀██▀▀
▄██████ ▄▄▄
███████ ▄█▄ ▄
▀██████ █ ▀█
▀▀▀ ▄ ▀▄▄█▀
▄▄█████▄ ▀▀▀
▀████████
▀█████▀ ████
▀▀▀ █████
█████ | ▄ █▄▄ █ ▄
▀▄██▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
▀ ▄▄█████▄█▄▄
▄ ▄███▀ ▀▀ ▀▀▄
▄██▄███▄ ▀▀▀▀▄ ▄▄
▄████████▄▄▄▄▄█▄▄▄██
████████████▀▀ █ ▐█
██████████████▄ ▄▄▀██▄██
▐██████████████ ▄███
████▀████████████▄███▀
▀█▀ ▐█████████████▀
▐████████████▀
▀█████▀▀▀ █▀ | .
Premier League
LaLiga
Serie A | .
Bundesliga
Ligue 1
Primeira Liga | | .
..TAKE PART.. |
|
|
|
|
mgburks77
|
|
April 05, 2014, 08:18:49 PM |
|
Anonymity is protection for the individual, decentralization is protection for the network... quite so! that's catchy, I like it |
|
|
|
|
rdnkjdi
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1256
Merit: 1009
|
|
April 06, 2014, 12:47:38 AM |
|
I've spent the time to read all six pages - but I do not claim to understand more than 20% of it. I reserve the right to modify, post more, or retract some off the cuff thoughts. Your talking effects. I was talking cause. The cause was as always centralization of power, and too much debt. The ill effects of debt is knowledge stagnates and everyone does dumb xerox copy shit. And this monotonicity causes the appearance of resource scarcity.
If everyone is figuring out how to consume and no one is figuring out how to innovate, then it isn't surprising that consumption outstrips efficiencies of resource extraction.
This is my favorite practical quote of this entire thread. Most of the population owes 50% of their paycheck to central control (Home loan + car loan) not to mention taxes. Debt is a form of slavery. Centralized forces are able to create debt with little to nothing and enslave those who owe them. The amount of wealth (energy) that is generated from middle class is put directly into the debt system is probably close to 50% (& this is outside of taxes). Separating the ego, the postulating, the theoretical, the practical, the political out of this thread is intense enough to outright depress me in even trying to create a legitimate response on some of my thoughts. But as someone with an average IQ, average knowledge and reasonable gut senses I'd like to make a few statements that I reserve the right to retract / modify. 1.) The masses care less than you think they do. They are perfectly happy to donate 50 - 75% of their life force (energy\time) to the powers that be (debtors they owe + taxes) in exchange for a lifestyle they have been trained to think they want. My ex gf had a 12% car loan, payed 30% of her salary in rent for a place she didn't need. And credit card debt to boot. 2.) The masses are less intelligent than you give them credit for. Trying to explain the idea of financial independence - or that you'd be happier with a less nice car and less nice house - and two weeks off of every month a year to the AVERAGE person is like trying to explain math to a cow. 3.) The masses are less creative than you give them credit for. They WOULD RATHER make Xerox copies all day than innovate. Innovation involves risk, fear, unknowns that a 9 to 5 job doesn't. 4.) The masses are not competent enough to take control of their banking. My first experience with bitcoin was getting scammed. Second was wasting money on GPU hardware I gave up on because it was a pain in the a$$. Third was getting my computer hacked and my BTC-E account taken over for two weeks. If I could summarize. One of the biggest reasons the government / financial system is able to oppress or enslave the masses. The reason coinbase + bitpay is taking over is because they take into account the apathetic, unintelligent, uncreative attributes that make up 70 - 80% of the masses. To further my point - there was a lot of talk about Linux. Comparing it to Windows - Linux is probably better than Windows in a million different ways. But because it didn't take into consideration the lack of intelligence, lack of creativity and total apathy of the masses. Windows succeeded where it did not. Windows will always be inferior to Linux - but it focused on being a crutch for the masses. Where linux was unwilling to substitute power for simplicity, security for ease of use, stability for ease of adoption. Linux/unix probably contributes more to wealth when you look at the servers running it as a back end make up most of our internet. But that wealth went to those who focused on adoption for the masses (Apple, facebook, Google, etc) I see the Coinbase/Bitpay as the same situation. My BTC-E account was hacked because I was a moron - Coinbase didn't let me be a moron so my account was safe. Until decentralization can take into account the attributes of the masses - which is what centralized forces do - they will not be able to productively harness the energy that comes with controlling their time & energy. Which in the end - is wealth. |
|
|
|
|
goin2mars
Member
Offline
Activity: 112
Merit: 10
|
|
April 06, 2014, 01:22:49 AM
Last edit: April 06, 2014, 03:32:13 AM by goin2mars |
|
A public ledger of transactions if augmented with more info about the transaction will certainly help to have a clearer understanding of where the economy goes. Instant statistics! probably an economist's wet dream.
The transparency of the blockchain will make it more difficult for Politicians to distort the reality. I think it is a great Idea (public ledger) on it's own.
I wouldn't easily discard that notion in searching for anonymity.
Using the example of a business owner, these are probably the most painful words I've ever had shoved in front of my eyes. How can you expect that a publicly available and accessible blockchain would ever help me out, or be in my favor? Excluding the grand talk of governments and elites for the sake of this more targeted argument . . what happens when my competition becomes aware of the other businesses I work with to every minute financial detail? Bedlam is what happens. To willingly put my competition in a stance that would simply allow them to buy-out my suppliers by tracking their transactions with me, compel my customers to work with them instead (by again discovering what they are buying and sell it to them), or uncover private company information relating to proprietary processes (By introducing yourself, an original competitor, to me as a simple equipment supplier that needs to know about my processes in order to sell me the right things). . you're asking the world to burn. You're putting people in the unemployment line, because I'm losing money. A public ledger isn't one of the greatest contributions that bitcoin has provided, it's the biggest weakness. It's where Satoshi stopped in my eyes. Software may be open source, but the processes by which Quaker Oats or Wellbutrin are created are not. It would be insane to ask that it would ever be. You may use the example of 3d printers to refute this, but there are and always will be processes that are in competition due to something crucial that printers can never provide. Things like plant seeds or pre-grown plants, bred animals, pharmaceuticals, that specific taste to your food that's not like everything else, and knowledge inside my head (and how it gets there) will never be be able printed by sheer definition of what they are - unique. These are just a few examples, but they're endless. You can print a fork but you can't print the uniqueness in these examples (though you can still print unique things). You can open source software, but as I read before in this thread -- it's always changing. To this effect, uniqueness is preserved. You can, at some point, make the processes open source due to their relative value decreasing, but the mind through which they were introduced can never be open sourced. New uniqueness will eventually replace the old. It can never be a completely open door though, because for every one mind . . there is another with different ideas about the same thing. You telling me that these types of things don't matter and are actually a good thing -- by having a public blockchain -- is totally wrong. To say otherwise is piercing holes in anything that can, or ever has, held value. Without some form of privacy . . the value just leaks out. There's no incentive to adopt. Provably so, with the three main parties involved with bitcoin today being a small consumer base, one man shops that are desperate for an edge, and investors. The former two are not particularly concentrated sources of value, so this leaves little for investors to play on. The next step is real business money. The only way to invite this, I see, is by allowing privacy from competition. |
|
|
|
|
|
mgburks77
|
|
April 06, 2014, 01:41:04 AM |
|
I've spent the time to read all six pages - but I do not claim to understand more than 20% of it. I reserve the right to modify, post more, or retract some off the cuff thoughts. Your talking effects. I was talking cause. The cause was as always centralization of power, and too much debt. The ill effects of debt is knowledge stagnates and everyone does dumb xerox copy shit. And this monotonicity causes the appearance of resource scarcity.
If everyone is figuring out how to consume and no one is figuring out how to innovate, then it isn't surprising that consumption outstrips efficiencies of resource extraction.
This is my favorite practical quote of this entire thread. Most of the population owes 50% of their paycheck to central control (Home loan + car loan) not to mention taxes. Debt is a form of slavery. Centralized forces are able to create debt with little to nothing and enslave those who owe them. The amount of wealth (energy) that is generated from middle class is put directly into the debt system is probably close to 50% (& this is outside of taxes). Separating the ego, the postulating, the theoretical, the practical, the political out of this thread is intense enough to outright depress me in even trying to create a legitimate response on some of my thoughts. But as someone with an average IQ, average knowledge and reasonable gut senses I'd like to make a few statements that I reserve the right to retract / modify. 1.) The masses care less than you think they do. They are perfectly happy to donate 50 - 75% of their life force (energy\time) to the powers that be (debtors they owe + taxes) in exchange for a lifestyle they have been trained to think they want. My ex gf had a 12% car loan, payed 30% of her salary in rent for a place she didn't need. And credit card debt to boot. 2.) The masses are less intelligent than you give them credit for. Trying to explain the idea of financial independence - or that you'd be happier with a less nice car and less nice house - and two weeks off of every month a year to the AVERAGE person is like trying to explain math to a cow. 3.) The masses are less creative than you give them credit for. They WOULD RATHER make Xerox copies all day than innovate. Innovation involves risk, fear, unknowns that a 9 to 5 job doesn't. 4.) The masses are not competent enough to take control of their banking. My first experience with bitcoin was getting scammed. Second was wasting money on GPU hardware I gave up on because it was a pain in the a$$. Third was getting my computer hacked and my BTC-E account taken over for two weeks. If I could summarize. One of the biggest reasons the government / financial system is able to oppress or enslave the masses. The reason coinbase + bitpay is taking over is because they take into account the apathetic, unintelligent, uncreative attributes that make up 70 - 80% of the masses. To further my point - there was a lot of talk about Linux. Comparing it to Windows - Linux is probably better than Windows in a million different ways. But because it didn't take into consideration the lack of intelligence, lack of creativity and total apathy of the masses. Windows succeeded where it did not. Windows will always be inferior to Linux - but it focused on being a crutch for the masses. Where linux was unwilling to substitute power for simplicity, security for ease of use, stability for ease of adoption. Linux/unix probably contributes more to wealth when you look at the servers running it as a back end make up most of our internet. But that wealth went to those who focused on adoption for the masses (Apple, facebook, Google, etc) I see the Coinbase/Bitpay as the same situation. My BTC-E account was hacked because I was a moron - Coinbase didn't let me be a moron so my account was safe. Until decentralization can take into account the attributes of the masses - which is what centralized forces do - they will not be able to productively harness the energy that comes with controlling their time & energy. Which in the end - is wealth. Upwards to 40-50% of "9-5 jobs" will be replaced by automation or software by 2030. http://www.technologyreview.com/view/519241/report-suggests-nearly-half-of-us-jobs-are-vulnerable-to-computerization/The point you are missing is that the security that the masses crave is an illusion. The promises made by the G20 nations represent a massive amount of unfunded liabilities that are going to have to be covered. The USD is backed by the "faith and credit" of the USA. If the tax base is unemployed and added to welfare rolls that are unfunded it is easy to see that what backing USD has is going straight out the window. There is no real security there. It's a lie and a house of cards. The thing you aren't seeing is the masses will have to change their perspective if they want to survive. Also, they will need the right tool for the job. |
|
|
|
|
DieJohnny
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1639
Merit: 1006
|
|
April 06, 2014, 01:46:04 AM |
|
Are you not interested at all in crypto-currency? Just curious.
Looks like i have some reading to do, thanks for your linked posts. I do think that bitcoin-like exchange of assets represents the future of transactions, however, it is not what makes Bitcoin valuable, primarily due to the very things you bring up. The masses simply won't use it and have no incentive or even easy way to do so. Bitcoin will always have its primary source of value be in a speculative asset, my opinion here is strongly on the word ALWAYS right now. Again, primarily for reasons you outline. Customers want convenience and speed with their transactions, not just rage-against-the-machine motivations. Do we really think that banks won't respond to the Bitcoin phenomenon of instantaneous, secure, low-cost transfers? Nobody that has a reasonable point of view seriously believes that current systems won't respond to the features that bitcoin provides. Yes it will probably include trusted services, but as you have pointed out Bitcoin cannot accomplish any sort of convenience without trusted services, so Bitcoin enthusiasts are again delusional thinking these services are the killer features of Bitcoin. The ONLY reason Bitcoin has the value it has is because of its scarcity and its untouchable nature. It is the first of its kind and will likely have serious value 50 years from now precluding world war. I don't think anything about Bitcoin tells me it would survive a world war. There will be some alt-coins that will survive, but again not because they present any sort of transaction-like competitive advantages. Traditional banks will win this transaction war, there is no doubt in my mind that Bitcoin will not win a transaction war. Banks, PayPals, Amazons, Apples all won't sit idly and watch crypto-like currencies eat into their mainstream revenue. In five years, transactions for banks will be good-enough that the average consumer moving into bitcoin won't make sense for their financial systems will be good enough. Bitcoin will only become mainstream when everyone owns one simply to hedge against their own countries currency, not because they want to buy something fast with it (the exceptions would be niche purchasers like Porn). So I buy Bitcoin only as a speculative play. I do like its transaction capabilities, I have bought a lot of stuff with Bitcoin, but only because I chose purchasing stuff over selling to reduce my holdings risk. I have had enough conversations with "normal" people that I know these txn features have limited drawing power. If I ever have had a friend buy a Bitcoin, it has only been because I created a small glimmer in their eye that it might be worth $10k some day. Bitcoin does not need mainstream adoption, it doesn't need even a fraction of the general population to be wildly valuable. Bitcoin will grow on greed and speculation alone for a long time to come. It is enough for penny stocks, internet boom 1.0, precious metals, and countless other speculative assets, it will be enough for Bitcoin. Transactions only serve as the ultimate excuse for governments to allow it to live. Transactions are only the secret protection that allows Bitcoin to live wave after wave of speculative bubble. Greed and speculation alone are enough to propel Bitcoin to 250 billion dollars or more. It has happened to countless stocks in companies that hit the speculative mother load, how many people do I know that own Apple stock, or Microsoft, or Cisco, or GE. In all reality very few of my entire circle own any stocks via direct brokerage purchase. Maybe a lot via their 401k or their mutal fund, but they wouldn't even know if those investements used any shares of Apple. Bitcoin will be no different, worth 500 billion and you may know 10 people that own them. |
Those who hold and those who are without property have ever formed distinct interests in society
|
|
|
|
AnonyMint (OP)
|
|
April 06, 2014, 04:00:05 AM |
|
Eric presented his refutation and I replied. This pretty much cements it for me. http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=5558&cpage=1#comment-480217> For Rifkin’s predictions to come true it would not suffice for knowledge creation to rise in value. For his predictions to come true, material goods would have to fall to zero marginal cost. That will not happen, because atoms are heavy. Mea culpa I haven't read the book. I indicated in my linked refutation, that I wouldn't agree with any Communist basis and agree with Eric's critique on that aspect. For the conceptual idea to scale, there must be symbiosis between individual gain and collective gain, per the Eric's Inverse Commons in the Magic Cauldron.
For example, one could argue that any initial start-up cost for a creation couldn't be offset by the knowledge network value of incremental edits because the initial creator is not directly receiving the return on investment. My counter logic is there may be business models dealing with modularity or diminishing trail of appreciation (citation) that when combined with micro payments can route remuneration backtracked to the creators. Moreover the non-monetary square law scaling of the Inverse Commons applies in that participants gain the return of the creations and incremental improvements of their brethren. It is a mesh topology N-highway of sharing. My belief is that according to gift culture Eric outlined, the community is aligned towards acknowledging sources especially when the act of doing so is only an insignificant (automated) micro payment or other remuneration models the ingenious may develop. Insignificant micro payments then aggregate to the creators at the rate of the participants squared. The squared law seems to be so powerful and at the heart of why the Inverse Commons is the "only known positive scaling law of software engineering" as so eloquently and astutely noted by Eric. That audio of Eric is permanently imprinted in my primary consciousness. I can never forget random "monkeys beating on the code" can outperform the cathedral of closed source (which I want to extend to vertical integration in general).
Also I noticed in the Bitcoin and now especially in the Dogecoin community, there is much more tipping and donations than I know about in the fiat world. The participants understand that to make their ecosystem grow, they need to reward participation. That is not Communism because it is an individual decision, no Max Weber central authority is holding a gun to each of our heads. You can see in my linked discussion thread, the participants are rallying the concepts and refining them perhaps better than I could, or at least differently and scaling requires diversity.
Atoms are heavy but that is lacking information. How heavy? Relativity is all the matters here. I never wrote zero, I wrote relative value is trending asymptotically towards zero.> You are just as wrong as anyone who around 1900, observing the steep fall in marginal cost of manufactured goods, predicted that food would become effectively free. In fact food declined from say a third or half of someone's income to something on the order of a tenth now in the developed world. The third world didn't industrialize so was devalued. The industrial economy was more valuable than the agricultural economy, and to survive the agricultural economy had to move to higher economies-of-scale and automation, thus significantly lowering relative prices.
And now the Knowledge Age economy is devaluing the Industrial and Agricultural age economies. Food is maybe a hundredth of my income and that is the future. |
|
|
|
|
pungopete468
|
|
April 06, 2014, 04:25:40 AM |
|
I'm confused... How can the atomic mass of an atom determine the value of the element? How much is radioactive waste worth? The heaviest atoms in the periodic table are the least valuable...
The argument about food costs in the 1900's isn't an argument at all. Firstly because some food actually is free, secondly because the current methods of food production aren't necessarily an accurate representation for the methods of food production at a future point in time. Modifying variables will alter the product of any equation.
I don't understand the inability to grasp that the world and everything in it is subject to change. When food becomes effectively free; it will be a direct result of decreasing the relative difficulty of obtaining the types of foods that one might want and the difficulty of obtaining the source of those food types...
Oh well...
|
|
|
|
|
|
.
..1xBit.com Super Six.. | ▄█████████████▄
████████████▀▀▀
█████████████▄
█████████▌▀████
██████████ ▀██
██████████▌ ▀
████████████▄▄
███████████████
███████████████
███████████████
███████████████
███████████████
▀██████████████ | ███████████████
█████████████▀
█████▀▀
███▀ ▄███ ▄
██▄▄████▌ ▄█
████████
████████▌
█████████ ▐█
██████████ ▐█
███████▀▀ ▄██
███▀ ▄▄▄█████
███ ▄██████████
███████████████ | ███████████████
███████████████
███████████████
███████████████
███████████████
███████████▀▀▀█
██████████
███████████▄▄▄█
███████████████
███████████████
███████████████
███████████████
███████████████ | ▄█████
▄██████
▄███████
▄████████
▄█████████
▄██████████
▄███████████
▄████████████
▄█████████████
▄██████████████
▀▀███████████
▀▀███████
▀▀██▀ | ▄▄██▌
▄▄███████
█████████▀
▄██▄▄▀▀██▀▀
▄██████ ▄▄▄
███████ ▄█▄ ▄
▀██████ █ ▀█
▀▀▀ ▄ ▀▄▄█▀
▄▄█████▄ ▀▀▀
▀████████
▀█████▀ ████
▀▀▀ █████
█████ | ▄ █▄▄ █ ▄
▀▄██▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
▀ ▄▄█████▄█▄▄
▄ ▄███▀ ▀▀ ▀▀▄
▄██▄███▄ ▀▀▀▀▄ ▄▄
▄████████▄▄▄▄▄█▄▄▄██
████████████▀▀ █ ▐█
██████████████▄ ▄▄▀██▄██
▐██████████████ ▄███
████▀████████████▄███▀
▀█▀ ▐█████████████▀
▐████████████▀
▀█████▀▀▀ █▀ | .
Premier League
LaLiga
Serie A | .
Bundesliga
Ligue 1
Primeira Liga | | .
..TAKE PART.. |
|
|
|
|
AnonyMint (OP)
|
|
April 06, 2014, 05:30:49 AM |
|
http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=5558&cpage=1#comment-480286> We’re still a long way from solving the shortage of skilled labor, as anyone who has ever needed a plumber can attest. I am in the Lazarus Long camp that says there is nothing the government can't unimprove if it can touch it. Plumbing is not an extremely highly skilled activity, at least without the kafkaesque, labyrinth of building codes that must be navigated in some jurisdictions. Of course I am not arguing that building best practices aren't a good idea if done in the free market. I strongly suspect the supply of plumbers is restricted by the onerous licensing requirements which mismatch the education level of someone who wouldn't be bored out their freakin' mind to pursue that career. I was an autodidact plumber when I was 5 years old. Currently it is difficult to find a plumber in the post-BRICs NICs portion of the developing world, because the debt was driven sky-high by the Fed's ZIRP carry trade and uneconomic construction is going full tilt (to implode globally 2016 in a massive conflagrapocalypse).
I expect the discussion will likely digress to the usual pissing politics, so I won't participate further unless there is a solid refutation of my salient point about knowledge networking scaling faster than vertical integration.
|
|
|
|
|
AnonyMint (OP)
|
|
April 06, 2014, 05:50:21 AM |
|
Anonymity is protection for the individual, decentralization is protection for the network...
quite so! that's catchy, I like it Agreed that should probably be adopted as a slogan. And both posts were astute, eloquent, and added understanding for interested readers. This is high knowledge (quality) community. |
|
|
|
|
AnonyMint (OP)
|
|
April 06, 2014, 06:15:48 AM |
|
I think it would be interesting to write an essay about some of these issues, to get everything together in one place.
If anybody wants to contribute some thoughts, I have just corrected my Bitmessage contact details in my profile. I didn't realise before, but the address had been cut short when I tried to paste it in...
Corazon79 has experience interfacing with established mass media. |
|
|
|
rdnkjdi
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1256
Merit: 1009
|
|
April 06, 2014, 06:35:22 AM |
|
I've spent the time to read all six pages - but I do not claim to understand more than 20% of it. I reserve the right to modify, post more, or retract some off the cuff thoughts. Your talking effects. I was talking cause. The cause was as always centralization of power, and too much debt. The ill effects of debt is knowledge stagnates and everyone does dumb xerox copy shit. And this monotonicity causes the appearance of resource scarcity.
If everyone is figuring out how to consume and no one is figuring out how to innovate, then it isn't surprising that consumption outstrips efficiencies of resource extraction.
This is my favorite practical quote of this entire thread. Most of the population owes 50% of their paycheck to central control (Home loan + car loan) not to mention taxes. Debt is a form of slavery. Centralized forces are able to create debt with little to nothing and enslave those who owe them. The amount of wealth (energy) that is generated from middle class is put directly into the debt system is probably close to 50% (& this is outside of taxes). Separating the ego, the postulating, the theoretical, the practical, the political out of this thread is intense enough to outright depress me in even trying to create a legitimate response on some of my thoughts. But as someone with an average IQ, average knowledge and reasonable gut senses I'd like to make a few statements that I reserve the right to retract / modify. 1.) The masses care less than you think they do. They are perfectly happy to donate 50 - 75% of their life force (energy\time) to the powers that be (debtors they owe + taxes) in exchange for a lifestyle they have been trained to think they want. My ex gf had a 12% car loan, payed 30% of her salary in rent for a place she didn't need. And credit card debt to boot. 2.) The masses are less intelligent than you give them credit for. Trying to explain the idea of financial independence - or that you'd be happier with a less nice car and less nice house - and two weeks off of every month a year to the AVERAGE person is like trying to explain math to a cow. 3.) The masses are less creative than you give them credit for. They WOULD RATHER make Xerox copies all day than innovate. Innovation involves risk, fear, unknowns that a 9 to 5 job doesn't. 4.) The masses are not competent enough to take control of their banking. My first experience with bitcoin was getting scammed. Second was wasting money on GPU hardware I gave up on because it was a pain in the a$$. Third was getting my computer hacked and my BTC-E account taken over for two weeks. If I could summarize. One of the biggest reasons the government / financial system is able to oppress or enslave the masses. The reason coinbase + bitpay is taking over is because they take into account the apathetic, unintelligent, uncreative attributes that make up 70 - 80% of the masses. To further my point - there was a lot of talk about Linux. Comparing it to Windows - Linux is probably better than Windows in a million different ways. But because it didn't take into consideration the lack of intelligence, lack of creativity and total apathy of the masses. Windows succeeded where it did not. Windows will always be inferior to Linux - but it focused on being a crutch for the masses. Where linux was unwilling to substitute power for simplicity, security for ease of use, stability for ease of adoption. Linux/unix probably contributes more to wealth when you look at the servers running it as a back end make up most of our internet. But that wealth went to those who focused on adoption for the masses (Apple, facebook, Google, etc) I see the Coinbase/Bitpay as the same situation. My BTC-E account was hacked because I was a moron - Coinbase didn't let me be a moron so my account was safe. Until decentralization can take into account the attributes of the masses - which is what centralized forces do - they will not be able to productively harness the energy that comes with controlling their time & energy. Which in the end - is wealth. Upwards to 40-50% of "9-5 jobs" will be replaced by automation or software by 2030. http://www.technologyreview.com/view/519241/report-suggests-nearly-half-of-us-jobs-are-vulnerable-to-computerization/The point you are missing is that the security that the masses crave is an illusion. The promises made by the G20 nations represent a massive amount of unfunded liabilities that are going to have to be covered. The USD is backed by the "faith and credit" of the USA. If the tax base is unemployed and added to welfare rolls that are unfunded it is easy to see that what backing USD has is going straight out the window. There is no real security there. It's a lie and a house of cards. The thing you aren't seeing is the masses will have to change their perspective if they want to survive. Also, they will need the right tool for the job. I understand the idea of technological unemployment. The issue I see is the relationship the masses have with the centralized powers that be. The masses give those that hold centralized power their bite. While economics may weaken the masses. It doesn't take away the fact that they have a sayso in the direction the world goes. Confiscation of wealth, etc. So perhaps we are back at square one. I'm understanding better the term opt out as opposed to taking away or interference with centralization powers that be directly. Still. To an extent does the idea of money not come from it being acknowledged by all people as such? Gold, clamshells, fiat, or bitcoin? Until now bitcoin adoption (&speculation) is what has driven the value. Even if you are knowledge wealthy - it doesn't translate into personal wealth. In fact - often the biggest contributors to global wealth ... or increased global efficiency / energy are not monetarily rewarded in any way. Did anybody see that the Mozilla CEO - guy who invented javascript was fired for donating money to politically incorrect initiative? The masses may be contributing less and less to global wealth. But they are able to make paupers out of the men who have created massive knowledge wealth for the entire world. They are still able to dictate who deserves financial and status accolades for their perceived contributions to society. |
|
|
|
|
|
AnonyMint (OP)
|
|
April 06, 2014, 06:35:35 AM |
|
It's the breakout
The shape of the low on April 3 would qualify as a U shaped bottom as I had called for. However, I was expecting a U with a much longer duration say weeks.
So I am not convinced this isn't another bull trap.
Any way, as you know it doesn't matter for me, because I showed with the log-logistic curve fit that Bitcoin will be drastically underperforming certain altcoins. The only reason for me to invest in Bitcoin is for diversification, but I diversify right into the coin which is tracked by my friendly Obama and I have no idea how bad what he has on tap against people of net worth. I heard from Armstrong that high-level sources say 70% taxes. That wouldn't be as bad as the totalitarianism that follows after imploding the economy with 70% taxes. I just offer this thought, "you didn't build that".
Still waiting to hear from Risto in a private message. His opportunity is slipping away. |
|
|
|
goin2mars
Member
Offline
Activity: 112
Merit: 10
|
|
April 06, 2014, 06:55:11 AM |
|
Upwards to 40-50% of "9-5 jobs" will be replaced by automation or software by 2030. http://www.technologyreview.com/view/519241/report-suggests-nearly-half-of-us-jobs-are-vulnerable-to-computerization/The point you are missing is that the security that the masses crave is an illusion. The promises made by the G20 nations represent a massive amount of unfunded liabilities that are going to have to be covered. The USD is backed by the "faith and credit" of the USA. If the tax base is unemployed and added to welfare rolls that are unfunded it is easy to see that what backing USD has is going straight out the window. There is no real security there. It's a lie and a house of cards. The thing you aren't seeing is the masses will have to change their perspective if they want to survive. Also, they will need the right tool for the job. What defeats your rebuttal in this case to me is that the 50-60% implied rate of continued success is still "good enough" based on his original argument. This is telling me, as part of the masses in this one, that in a decade and a half I'll have a 50-50 shot at losing my job . . so in the very least only half the illusion is fake. Note the wording there . . no pun intended. Coupling this with the idea that most things (like food) should have a significant loss in relative value (thus becoming more affordable as per prev. discussion in this thread) . . then I would logically conclude that my government would just increase taxes . . successfully allowing our game to continue. From this standpoint . . I'd need more to be able to agree with you, because if 50% lose their jobs, taxes double, and my ability to get food and live in a home becomes increasingly lower (like to the point where I can afford double taxes) then I'm still missing your point because it still appears as if nothing would be too damning (even though I personally share your opinion). Maybe we could expand into a more detailed breakdown? Do you have any more examples? |
|
|
|
|
CoinCube
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1946
Merit: 1055
|
|
April 06, 2014, 06:55:23 AM |
|
I am still stunned that the Metcalfe model so accurately corresponds to the actual market cap over 4 years and over 1,000,000% growth in market cap. The plot confirms for me that the value of bitcoin comes from the network of people who use it. If we keep finding new ways to use bitcoin, the rest will take care of itself.  I am not sure if bitcoin's adoption is slowing yet, but as cryptocurrency's values seem to follow Metcalfe's it seems sure to do so in the near future. Bitcoin's deflationary nature causes holding not spending. The new tax implications from the IRS and relatively high costs of replacing spent coins on an exchange will further exacerbate this trend. If Metcalfe's law holds this will progressivly slow the use of the currency and thus hold down its value. The stage seems set for a more nimble competitor to arise solve these priblems and eventually take the crown. |
|
|
|
|
AnonyMint (OP)
|
|
April 06, 2014, 06:58:04 AM
Last edit: April 06, 2014, 08:49:45 AM by AnonyMint |
|
But as someone with an average IQ, average knowledge and reasonable gut senses...
Your observations are correct and clearly stated. 1.) The masses care less than you think they do...
2.) The masses are less intelligent than you give them credit for...
3.) The masses are less creative than you give them credit for...
4.) The masses are not competent enough to take control of their banking...
Yup. We know that. I know I said that before and even recently. That is why I said anonymity is about opting-out of the collective madness. I don't expect everyone under the Bell Curve to use a smarter currency (at least not at the start), rather I am expecting the smartest to use such innovations if they come to reality and since the rest will destroy themselves, then eventually everyone who wants to survive and prosper is forced to learn and come over our way (or perish). |
|
|
|
|
AnonyMint (OP)
|
|
April 06, 2014, 07:31:06 AM |
|
In the following quoted post which comes from upthread, I had written about the need for perpetual debasement to fund mining (because transactions fees is broken design for several reasons): The upside is a 0 transaction fees design is a very attractive feature for consumers and merchants. And with a cpu-only coin, the debasement is going right back to the users of the coin any way. And it enables such a coin to be obtained autonomously without any other party nor exchange necessary. Even Bitcoin is being debased by 11% annually now. Of course exchanges should still be available, but they should P2P decentralized. No more Mt.Gox! In addition to the explanation at the above link inside the above quote, perpetual debasement is not a problem if there are no taxes as follows. http://armstrongeconomics.com/2014/04/05/lagarde-part-ii/Increasing the money supply will NOT be inflationary when you are offsetting that by raising taxes. If the total money supply is $1,000 and I tax you 20% leaving you $800, increasing the money supply at $1,500 and raising taxes to 50% is still deflationary for you end up with less – $750. Absolutely everything is balanced. This is why the cause and effect scenarios fail every time – it is a bell curve in everything. Armstrong forgets to make the point that increasing the money supply can increase the general price level causing income, capital gains, and VAT taxes to be higher, while there no net gain in purchasing power.
Thus increasing the money supply even while holding taxes constant, actually eats purchasing power. Whereas increasing money supply with no taxes at all, would not harm purchasing power. |
|
|
|
|
AnonyMint (OP)
|
|
April 06, 2014, 07:58:07 AM
Last edit: April 06, 2014, 08:47:47 AM by AnonyMint |
|
I understand the idea of technological unemployment. The issue I see is the relationship the masses have with the centralized powers that be. The masses give those that hold centralized power their bite.
While economics may weaken the masses. It doesn't take away the fact that they have a sayso in the direction the world goes. Confiscation of wealth, etc.
So perhaps we are back at square one. I'm understanding better the term opt out as opposed to taking away or interference with centralization powers that be directly.
Still. To an extent does the idea of money not come from it being acknowledged by all people as such? Gold, clamshells, fiat, or bitcoin? Until now bitcoin adoption (&speculation) is what has driven the value.
[snip]
Although I agreed in No Money Exists Without the Minority, but consider that not everyone on earth has to use the same type of money, e.g. each country has its own independent currency and (hopefully but I doubt it) independent central banks. I posit a major advantage over national currencies of such a smarter currency used by the smartest who want to opt-opt of the sinking Titanic, is that is straddles all borders, doesn't require the weak to pollute it, and could within years (based on Bitcoin experience) have the same or greater population of a smaller country. Given those differences and the cleverness of those who use it networked on the internet for more powerful network effects than physical currencies, it can I hopefully work as a liquid unit-of-exchange and store-of-value (but not an heirloom, please use gold for that function when you need it). Cpu-only coin may not suffer from Bitcoin's log-logistic declining rate of adoption and may instead take on the usual technology logistic adoption wherein the adoption rate accelerates until reaching 50% adoption. Why? Because who doesn't think it is leave your computer on while sleeping and receive some technobabble money. Even Grandad might get a kick out of that. They wouldn't even notice any significant change to their electric bill because other household appliances consume much more than their computer. However, making a cpu-only algorithm has escaped all those who tried, as far as I know. I have studied many algorithms that attempted to accomplish this and they all fail in some way. The closest I found was the Cuckoo Cycle by tromp. The problem it has it that it only requires memory. And memory can be scaled along with a lower cost processor cores such as the Atom or a custom ASIC that has a DRAM interface for each processing core. Cuckoo Cycle is really only GPU resistant. Also the Cuckoo Cycle white paper admits it is runs faster on multiple threads, even if slightly sublinear when doing so, thus the specialized Tilera CPUs for servers should kick ass on the cpus we use on our computers on a hash rate per $ and per Watt basis. Also I am not confident that some algorithm couldn't subvert the Cuckoo Cycle hash because it is ordered setup. For example, I envisioned using bit strings in place of empty memory locations. |
|
|
|
|
AnonyMint (OP)
|
|
April 06, 2014, 08:20:04 AM
Last edit: April 06, 2014, 08:43:38 AM by AnonyMint |
|
What defeats your rebuttal in this case to me is that the 50-60% implied rate of continued success is still "good enough" based on his original argument. [snip] Coupling this with the idea that most things (like food) should have a significant loss in relative value (thus becoming more affordable as per prev. discussion in this thread) . . then I would logically conclude that my government would just increase taxes . . successfully allowing our game to continue. [snip] Maybe we could expand into a more detailed breakdown? Do you have any more examples? Short answer: ask the Wiemar subsequently Nazi Germans how it worked out for them. Longer answer: taxing over the Laffer limit during an economic downturn is not an equilibrium. Capital is hoarded, it spirals downward into an abyss, and everything grinds to a halt. See the prior post I made which had a link to a blog post by Martin Armstrong which elaborates on that. The 47% technological unemployment predicted by Oxford U, can have multiple outcomes. - Govt dissolves itself, we radically increase knowledge networking, everyone finds a new job. Yahoo!!
- Govt gets involved taxing, we use anonymity to dissolve govt and radically increase knowledge networking, everyone finds a new job. Yahoo!!
- Govt stays involved but not higher taxes, we don't figure out how to accelerate knowledge networking for most, so 47% unemployment.
- Govt gets involved by taxing, capital goes into hiding, the unemployment goes to 80% (other 20% work as thugs for the govt) and we euthanize everyone.
The range of outcomes is some where between those in varying degrees. Why does the government involvement matter on who finds a new job in high tech? Because for as long as the government will give you everything for free, why should the masses be bothered! This another reason there aren't more plumbers. No one has to do unglamorous jobs, because Obama and Europe and Canada provide social safety nets. Heck in Europe you only have to work 35 hours a week, you can't be fired, and you get 1 or 2 months paid vacation a year. And in some countries, they sleep in the office lounge chair in the afternoon or go to meetings at a fine restaurant. Meanwhile lately I'm working 14-18 hours a day, haven't had a shower in 2 months, haven't shaven, wearing the same stinky short pants for past 3 months since my washing machine isn't at this location, and eat tuna fish sandwiches so I don't have to leave the cave. I am a managing to get my jogs and sprints in, and still seem to attract the ladies when I do out to eat looking and smelling like a stinky caveman. Thank God I am in a country where the women love to eat stinky dried fish. I swear it seems they can't even smell it, whilst my odor is intoxicating me while I am trying to move away ("stay back, this cave dwelling beast is not fit for human consumption at this time"). |
|
|
|
|
AnonyMint (OP)
|
|
April 06, 2014, 09:25:37 AM
Last edit: April 06, 2014, 09:49:55 AM by AnonyMint |
|
I want to encourage everyone to present alternative points-of-view. Groupthink will not serve us well. We need to check and re-check our rationality and supporting data. [snip]
There will be some alt-coins that will survive, but again not because they present any sort of transaction-like competitive advantages. Traditional banks will win this transaction war, there is no doubt in my mind that Bitcoin will not win a transaction war. Banks, PayPals, Amazons, Apples all won't sit idly and watch crypto-like currencies eat into their mainstream revenue. In five years, transactions for banks will be good-enough that the average consumer moving into bitcoin won't make sense for their financial systems will be good enough.
Banks' technical capabilities might reach global reach (but I very much doubt that too), but they have an insurmountable problem. The governments are going to institute capital controls in order to trap wealth and tax it to death as the global economic implosion proceeds. Ditto war is rising and trading with the enemies' citizens will not be allowed on the official banking systems (note the recent sanctions against Russia). Here look how bad it is getting already with HSBC. And I see they have no prayer of supporting the volume of tiny micro payments any time soon (VISA only sales to 6000 txs per second now), nor getting significant penetration into all NICs emerging markets. Here where I am, if someone in the grocery lane is holding a card instead of cash, I run to the next queue because it adds about 5 minutes delay to the transaction. The derelict card readers are only at every 3rd register (some broke or don't work or timeout over and over) and it just isn't well integrated into the POS here. And this is at ShoeMart mall, which is the largest and one of the most modern mall chains in the country which also has malls in China. Hong Kong has a very efficient electronic swipe payment system used by most of the population there. But this is not in every country in the world. You can argue this doesn't affect the mainstream, but who is left to hold up the F.U.B.A.R. global economy if we rely on the oblivious n00bs who are sucking the tit of social welfare and hdea lth systems. Possibly the only real economy standing will be ours. Or if the banks can keep 80% market share of that demographic which is 20% of productivity = 0.8 x 0.2 = 16% GDP share. We will take 20% market share of that demographic which is 80% of productivity = 0.2 x 0.8= 16% GDP share. If the socialism overshoots into the abyss, then the banks can take 80% of 0% productivity. Also I don't assume we can't do transactions better than they can. We have to learn how to play to our decentralized advantage. I think we will find ways, but my logic doesn't depend on it. For example, how will Paypal ever stop fraud wherein someone reversed the charge on 2 BTC I sold them? Banks don't trust each other, and that fragmentation will get worse not better. As the global economy gets worse, fraud and theft is going to skyrocket. Banks are going to be stealing from their depositors with bail-ins. Who the hell is going to trust a bank? Mt.Gox is an early indicator of what is coming to every bank near you. As for transaction speed, I think it is technically possible to get to 30 seconds or lower with decentralized proof-of-work crypto-currency. The technical issue is orphan rate. [snip]
Bitcoin does not need mainstream adoption, it doesn't need even a fraction of the general population to be wildly valuable. Bitcoin will grow on greed and speculation alone for a long time to come. It is enough for penny stocks, internet boom 1.0, precious metals, and countless other speculative assets, it will be enough for Bitcoin. Transactions only serve as the ultimate excuse for governments to allow it to live. Transactions are only the secret protection that allows Bitcoin to live wave after wave of speculative bubble.
Greed and speculation alone are enough to propel Bitcoin to 250 billion dollars or more.
[snip]
I also estimate around $10,000 is roughly the top for Bitcoin. Might reach $50,000 at most, but that is less likely. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
thaaanos
|
|
April 06, 2014, 11:01:58 AM |
|
A public ledger of transactions if augmented with more info about the transaction will certainly help to have a clearer understanding of where the economy goes. Instant statistics! probably an economist's wet dream.
The transparency of the blockchain will make it more difficult for Politicians to distort the reality. I think it is a great Idea (public ledger) on it's own.
I wouldn't easily discard that notion in searching for anonymity.
Using the example of a business owner, these are probably the most painful words I've ever had shoved in front of my eyes. /snip/ The next step is real business money. The only way to invite this, I see, is by allowing privacy from competition. In a networked services oriented economy, getting your business transactions transparent, is IMHO an absolute must for free market to work optimally Remember you can also see what all your competitors are doing also, are the gains not greater than the loses?. But that doesn't mean you can easily identify who, all you may know is that he is a competitor if anonymity or pseudonymity is working. |
|
|
|
|
jabo38
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1232
Merit: 1001
mining is so 2012-2013
|
|
April 06, 2014, 11:47:27 AM |
|
I have read the post and have reflected some, here are some ramblings. I think the point that bitcoin has an adoption problem is way over looked. Bitcoin has a huge adoption problem. If it was going to be big, it would have already done it by now. Seriously. It has been around for 5 years. In the tech world, it is a grandfather. Here is a chart of M-Pesa verses Bitcoin. This is what it looks like when a successful platform takes off and gains traction.  What has M-Pesa done then? For starters, it has appeal to the points of interest that matter. As mentioned in the original post, bitcoin really only works for white, philosophically slanted, techno males. In Africa, M-Pesa appeals to all normal consumers. Furthermore, the governments and the large banks and the businesses all have a reason to adopt it. M-Pesa has taken over half of Kenya's economy by meeting the needs of the points of interest. Bitcoin just isn't meeting needs. I don't need to explain why businesses and people don't really want to adopt bitcoin. It is slow, difficult to use.... and current existing systems for the average consumer work pretty well. For bitcoin to be bigger than Visa, it needs to be better and that simply isn't the case and won't ever be the case. Case 1: I need an extra computer, need to put special programs on it, need to put bitcoin in cold storage and if I ever spend a bitcoin, then transfer the money to a new account and have that in cold storage. Case 2: Ask my bank to mail me a credit card. It does, now I can pretty much make purchases around the world instantly, oh yeah, with insurance. Are you kidding me? For bitcoin to become popular, it would need to be a platform that the government likes, the businesses like, and the people like. In this way, it isn't doing so well. Governments are weary, they should be. Governments are legitmized more or less by three factors. They control the money in that area and help regulate the economy. They provide security via police and army. They provide social services. Take away the money, and now governments aren't nearly as powerful. But.... one thing about bitcoin is amazing. It is the blockchain. In this way, a much better financial system can be built. Lets think for a minute. In a thousand years from now, I gather we won't have money in the way we do know. Who knows? But think about 20 or 50 years from now. Can you imagine anybody using anything but a new and revolutionary technology to pay for things. It surely won't be what we have now. It will be digital, it will be safe, it will be instantaneous, it will be efficient and so on and so on. It will be better than the system we have now in every single way. The blockchain at some point very well might be a part of that. With the advent of the blockchain, governments and banks are being faced with a dammed if I do, and dammed if I don't scenerio. Changes are coming. New forms of digital payment will be safer, faster, cheaper, and more efficient and the first one's to adapt will see benefits the first. But eventually, as I mentioned sooner or later they will be weakened. Some people say bitcoin can't be beat, that it has the first mover advantage. I think that is silly. I have written about this before. Visa/Mastercard does more transactions in 5 minutes than bitcoin did in 2013. Furthermore, The bitcoin market cap right now at the point of writing this is a little less than 6 billion. That is nothing. Facebook paid 19 billion for whatsapp. Whatsapp!!!!! A free text messaging app has totally outclassed bitcoin in value. Essentially, what I am saying is bitcoin has a 0.001% market share in the world's economy (not sure on the numbers there, just made them up, but the point remains the same). Bitcoin hasn't been widely adopted and won't be, but it will lead to a 2.0 platform or 3.0 platform that will be much better than what we have now. The 2.0 platform that wins is one that appeals to governments, appeals to businesses, and appeals to the consumer. For instance, bitcoin needs to beat the credit card model. Right now my credit card gives me money I don't have! It gives me insurance if a purchase is bad, and it gives me miles I can use to buy free plane tickets! And it does it all in seconds. I pay my balance each month and pay no interest. It is a big win for me as a consumer. (Now, I realize that businesses are sticking it to me with higher prices because of this, but that isn't what they average consumer sees). The government wins with credit cards because now there is a digital trail in which businesses have to pay taxes on. Businesses ultimately win because some people spend money they wouldn't have had in the first place. Please tell me how bitcoin can make the consumer, the business and the government happy? I am guessing it can't or it already would have. In someways it provides some anonymity, but we all know that isn't exactly the case. It is good for sending money overseas for sure, but that isn't going to be enough. Now let me give you a hypothetical 2.0 system. It would be one that allows the US government to act like coinbase and sell it's dollars into cryptocurrency. It would be a system that charges no fees so that businesses would like it, and it would have to be one that consumers would like, maybe giving them anonymity and security. We simply don't have that right now, but I think there are lots of people working hard to make that come true. If such a platform is made, but with even more appeal to business, government, and consumers, it will be widely adapted. If that platform can even get a 1% market share, it will be much larger than bitcoin hands down. |
|
|
|
|
AnonyMint (OP)
|
|
April 06, 2014, 11:57:48 AM |
|
Here is all the prior work I did on Bitcoin's adoption curve. Most of you can't picture in your head as I (and some others here probably) can, so I need to show you chart for you to get that "Ah ha" epiphany. I lack the math software to do a proper log-logistic curve fit. Here follows my eyeballing and rough fit to the change in slope. The run from Oct to Jul 2011 had a slope of 2/7mos and from Jan 2012 to Jan 2014 had a slope of 2/24 mos. The cumulative distribution function shown superimposed in blue below is 1/1+(1/x)^0.5. Thus from x=0 to x=0.25 for the Oct to Jul 2011 run has a slope of 1/1+sqrt(1/0.25) = 1/3 = 0.33 and from Jan 2012 to Jan 2014 is from x=0.25 to x=0.50, thus 1/1+sqrt(1/0.5) = 0.41. So 0.33-0 = 0.33 and 0.41 - 0.33 = 0.08. And 0.33/0.08 = 4 and 24/7 = 3.5. So we can see ratios of the slopes match closely. So this is a reasonable curve fit as the proportional vertical heights also match. A quantitative fit would be more accurate. The accurate fit is probably a bit less steep in the early portion and less flat in the latter. So this would be more favorable than the one I overlaid. Any way, if this theory is correct, then you can clearly see that Bitcoin will stop rising as fast and that it is due to fall down in price significantly before it rises again and more slowly than the past. From here on the slope from x = 1 to x = 1.5 is only 0.05, thus 5/8 of the rate of increase we've on the log 10 chart since Jan 2012. Note that is 5/8 of a rate of increase that is exponential in the power of 10. It is roughly saying we won't significantly surpass $1000 in 2014. I don't know where the correctly fitted curve would be right now, so I can't project where the price should be now and where it will be nominally. I think the slope projection is more close to accurate, so we can say that if the theory is correct (that distribution of money holders is a power law distribution as the cited research and common knowledge says it always is), then price appreciation will slow down specifically to 0.05 units on the log 10 chart per month where 1 unit is 10X appreciation. So if we bottom at $400, then price after 20 months should be $4000. Again this is a very rough eyeballed fit and would expect the refined fit to have a slightly higher slope maybe 0.06, so make that 16 months instead.  It seems too simple, but on the other hand I cannot believe that the goodness of fit is just coincidence; is there something truly at play here that we haven't fully come to understand?
What is hard to understand? Reed's Law is another way of stating Metcalf's Law. It is quite clear that in a network with N nodes, there arre N^2 possible interconnections. Thus the value of the network interaction is N^2. How hard is it to understand that without communication and interaction, there is no leverage of each other. How can I use your knowledge if I can't interact with you? Why do we become smarter by posting in this forum. Etc..
Apologies I was intending to make following correction and then we had a brown out and I fell asleep. It is roughly saying we won't significantly surpass $1000 in 2014. I don't know where the correctly fitted curve would be right now, so I can't project where the price should be now and where it will be nominally. I think the slope projection is more close to accurate, so we can say that if the theory is correct (that distribution of money holders is a power law distribution as the cited research and common knowledge says it always is), then price appreciation will slow down specifically to 0.05 units on the log 10 chart per month where 1 unit is 10X appreciation. So if we bottom at $400, then price after 20 months should be $4000. Again this is a very rough eyeballed fit and would expect the refined fit to have a slightly higher slope maybe 0.06, so make that 16 months instead. The red line below is a power law distribution for B=0.5 which you can see above is the value of B I fitted.  What that distribution says is that the rich hold most of the percentage of wealth, which we know is in fact always true. And the fitting of the cumulative distribution function to BTC price is the theoretical claim that earlier adopters will be more wealthy (by now) than later ones. The research I cited points out is that the masses use money as a unit-of-exchange, not as a store-of-value. However does the Metcalf's law value of money (which Peter R has shown BTC mcap and thus price is tracking) where the value is proportional to the square of the number of nodes in the network nullify my use of a power law distribution? I.e. do the wealthy not create (proportional to their wealth) more network nodes (e.g. unique active BTC addresses) than the masses? I see the really diehard power users (e.g. SlipperySlope and Peter R) are both talking about creating a new node every day. Thus this anecdotally supports that the power law distribution applies correctly here. Thus I think we need to take this theory seriously. It might be the correct growth curve. The linear one with a least squares fit seems really out-of-touch with historical data. It totally ignores the shape of the earliest adoption curve up to July 2011. Risto's explanation was the early adopters were bad speculators and bid the price up too much, but my interpretation is they are the most wealthy now and they were the most powerful because they are early adopters. The least squares fitting of a line to a curved adoption could possibly be (confirmation bias in play as) an (emotional "to the moon") attempt to force a linear projection on a growth curve which obviously was not always linear. Has it become linear since January 2012? I very much doubt it!Convince me? Risto how do you analytically defend your linear least squares fit that makes you so sure of everything and gives you the audacity to browbeat all the bears? Add: why don't stocks follow this log-logistic curve? Maybe they do (?), if we don't compress the early adopters into a single event IPO. Also can a stock issue have network effects, i.e. does Metcalf's law apply to company shares? Seems to me yes if the shareholders network amongst themselves, but much less so than a network of money holders. Add: Fact is the slope during the runup to July 2011 was 0.33 per month. Since Jan 2012, it has been 1/4 of that 0.08 roughly. Why should we expect the slope to not decline again? Why should the pace of adoption remain constant? Seems intuitively unlikely to me. Pace of adoption should slow as we slog into the less astute demographics. Larger mass with more inertia grows more slowly than smaller mass with nimble inertia.
The beauty of the 5.25-year trendline with exponential fit (R^2=0.93 which is pretty darn good) is that it takes into account every worry of every person who has ever owned or not owned bitcoins. I put more weight on that than the individual worries of a single person.
You put a lot of weight in your humongous pride, as if someone presenting analytical discussion is worried. I am not worried about the BTC price. I could careless because I don't own any BTC nor am I itching to buy any. And you put a lot of weight in arbitrary curve fits. And people who think they know every thing for sure (and you don't even enumerate the arbitrary assumptions in your model), eventually get a lesson in respecting chaos. Maybe not this time. No one knows. But eventually yes. I hope you realize the following chart is arbitrary BS. Which graph can you point me to for the 5.25-year exponential trend line?
https://i.imgur.com/ycT9ulP.png  And why not drawn like this? A least squares fit is an arbitrary choice of slope, because the curve you are fitting is not very linear. The 2011 outlier is your big problem with choosing this arbitrary fit. And we can't really trust that early data back in 2010. The green line looks much more accurate to me. It removes that bubble from 2013 and follows a trendline from before the bubble started. Or we stay with the purple trendline, in which case the price is almost down to the purple line. You need to update your chart. The price is now lower than shown.  Also refer to my upthread post quoted below pointing out that adoption (and thus BTC ≅ adoption^2) is likely log-logistic, not logistic. Thus we see the first slope to 2011 was higher, then the slope from 2012 to 2014 was the purple line, and now we may be ready to transition into an even lower slope, such as the green line. We should now shift into yet again a lower adoption slope than from July 2011 to December 2013.
What a heck makes you think so at a face of universal awareness that is just achieved? Math Risto. You can't deny math. Here is the shocking revelation... Because if you put a ruler on the chart along the bottoms of unique addresses on the log 10 chart, you see the slope was higher before the July 2011 crash, than it has been since 2012. Also it is very likely that Bitcoin adoption is not logistic where the maximum rate of adoption is at 50% of the adoption as follows: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diffusion_of_innovations Because Bitcoin is not adopted for utility, rather the probability distribution of the adopters is power-law because that is the distribution of money[1] as follows. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_law Thus Bitcoin adoption is log-logistic as follows. Note that for B=1/2 which is the power-law distribution, that the slope of the log-logistic function gradually declines for the life of the curve. And that is exactly what we are seeing happen thus far as I stated above. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Log-logistic_distribution [1] A. Dragulescu and V. Yakovenko. Exponential and power-law probability distributions of wealth and income in the United Kingdom and the United States |
|
|
|
|
AnonyMint (OP)
|
|
April 06, 2014, 12:06:10 PM |
|
[snip] [snip]
Carrots will continue their downward spiral of relative value. Iron used to be a precious metal. Commodities have trended downward in price for millennia.
[snip]
A more apposite phrase is " inexorable decline" which I employed in my seminal 2010 essay The Rise of Knowledge wherein I first explored this concept. You can find my sources there for the data documenting those claims. Also James A. Donald provided more sources specifically look at copper production since electrical wiring use has not declined. |
|
|
|
|
AnonyMint (OP)
|
|
April 06, 2014, 12:15:16 PM
Last edit: April 06, 2014, 01:06:20 PM by AnonyMint |
|
Peter Thiel's Tesla Motors depends on government subsidies to survive. Telsa's Elon Musk proposes to imprison us in steel pipes and transport us between cities inside a vacuum. Massively expensive public works project. And what happens when someone bombs it? It is vulnerable because it is centralized infrastructure. More reasons for Homelust ScrewUrity to insert their hands down on our pants or watch us nude in the observing room. Dear America, I Saw You Naked
And yes, we were laughing. Confessions of an ex-TSA agent.
I would much prefer my flying car - a decentralized and free market approach. Hey you see it is a reality already. If we can have highways along the ground, why can't computer guidance systems work for highways in the air for congested regions. Collision avoidance systems can work, because Google has cars that drive themselves all over the USA where there are many more types of obstacles to contend with. P.S. The TSA was so humiliated by that linked article above, that they have stopped the scanners for those who are Pre-Checked, meaning they can use that as a weapon against our privacy gradually ramping up over time the requirements needed to receive the "we won't harass" status. WTF?! happened to my birth country. Good riddance! Europeans you may think you are safe, but you are not. It is coming to your shores too. Just wait until the economy turns down after Sept. 2015. |
|
|
|
|
mgburks77
|
|
April 06, 2014, 12:34:22 PM |
|
The interface between btc and fiat systems is ridiculous, Not the fault of btc of course, yet it is still a kafkaesque headache due to identification requirements etc. |
|
|
|
|
|
AnonyMint (OP)
|
|
April 06, 2014, 12:59:47 PM
Last edit: April 06, 2014, 01:39:02 PM by AnonyMint |
|
I said no personal attacks. I should be fair and let you know who I banned and why. You can read his drivel at the following link: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=355212.msg6095773#msg6095773What exactly is he afraid of?
Jabba the Hutt who wastes all my time and doesn't even address the salient point about relative scaling rates between knowledge networking and vertical integration. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jabba_the_Hutt In economics, there is no such thing as intellectual capital. It is work, capital (not money, but tools and commodities and partly produced products) and land factors (resources of nature) that are limited in supply.
Your antiquated indoctrination will be swept away by reality. Maybe you are Jabba's slave-driver assistant pictured above. Perhaps you didn't read the following. http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=5558&cpage=1#comment-479742We will be able to produce all the food, raw materials, and energy we need with robots. There is no reason the price shouldn't trend towards zero, once the robots can build more robots.
The activity that can't be automated is creativity and knowledge creation. Thus it should rise in relative value. |
|
|
|
|
mgburks77
|
|
April 06, 2014, 01:29:49 PM |
|
I think the centralized infrastructure that is evolving around btc also serves to slow adoption. It has taken on the role of gatekeeper into the new information-based economic model that is developing.
The purpose of a gate is to regulate entry, so this contradiction with the stated purpose of cryptocurrency is another indicator of the purpose that is actually intended.
It has to be a regulatory tool.
The countermeasure is an anti-regulatory solution.
Some of the characteristics I can imagine that would be helpful:
strong anonymity
ubiquitous mining
covert introduction
can anyone think of others?
|
|
|
|
|
|
AnonyMint (OP)
|
|
April 06, 2014, 01:31:25 PM |
|
I think the point that bitcoin has an adoption problem is way over looked. Bitcoin has a huge adoption problem. If it was going to be big, it would have already done it by now. Seriously. It has been around for 5 years. In the tech world, it is a grandfather. Here is a chart of M-Pesa verses Bitcoin. This is what it looks like when a successful platform takes off and gains traction. Actually that chart is wrong. Here is the correction for Bitcoin transactions:  Here are my prior comments about that. See the bolded words that apply. Someone mentioned tersely "1 in 3 Kenyans use Bitcoin" in another thread 2 days ago, and two of us requested a citation and the poster did not reply, so I didn't google it. That was the first time I'd heard that claim. Your post incited me to dig: http://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2013/05/economist-explains-18Dozens of mobile-money systems have been launched, so why has Kenya’s been the most successful? It had several factors in its favour, including the exceptionally high cost of sending money by other methods; the dominant market position of Safaricom; the regulator's initial decision to allow the scheme to proceed on an experimental basis, without formal approval; a clear and effective marketing campaign (“Send money home”); an efficient system to move cash around behind the scenes; and, most intriguingly, the post-election violence in the country in early 2008. M-PESA was used to transfer money to people trapped in Nairobi's slums at the time, and some Kenyans regarded M-PESA as a safer place to store their money than the banks, which were entangled in ethnic disputes. Having established a base of initial users, M-PESA then benefitted from network effects: the more people who used it, the more it made sense for others to sign up for it. So now I see why it succeeded there but failed here in the Philippines. We have SmartMoney and Globe Cash here but it is not widely used. Filipinos prefer cash, even though they are SMS capital of the world and top 3 country in the world for using digital media. There are also vendors here every where for loading your cell phone prepaid balance. But there isn't a big incentive to move away from cash. Cash works and when you need to send cash money, there are peso padala branches on every other block. Whereas in Kenya the chaos meant they didn't have these well developed cash markets, so they needed something. And this monopoly by one phone carrier made it possible to get the economies-of-scale whereas we have 3 main phone carriers here. But whoever says Kenyans are using Bitcoin is smoking dope: http://www.bankinnovation.net/2014/02/mpesa-is-smoking-bitcoin-in-number-of-transactions/In spite of the correction to the chart on that page, Bitcoin transactions are not a significant percentage of M-PESA transactions. That is global Bitcoin txs shown in comparison and besides upt 59% of BTC txs were SatoshiDice at some point in the past and many txs are mixers, etc.. Lets try to find some hard data on BTX txs in Kenya? Scientific method. You fundamentally don't understand relative wealth. This is not a mistake I would expect rpietila to make: http://www.cgap.org/blog/10-things-you-thought-you-knew-about-m-pesa4 – You thought M-PESA’s success meant it is now a huge systemic risk The accumulated balance of all the M-PESA accounts represents just 0.2% of bank deposits by value. M-PESA is far from exerting a systemic risk. In June 2010, M-PESA transactions amounted to about 70% of the volume of electronic transactions in the country but were only 2.3% in value. M-PESA’s success means there is a real need for small electronic transactions and storage of value. It was designed with limits on how much can be transacted (no more than 70,000Ksh leaving the account daily) and stored (maximum account balance is 50,000Ksh). Cash-in, cash-out and P2P transfers are limited to 35,000Ksh per transaction.
What has M-Pesa done then? For starters, it has appeal to the points of interest that matter. As mentioned in the original post, bitcoin really only works for white, philosophically slanted, techno males. In Africa, M-Pesa appeals to all normal consumers. Furthermore, the governments and the large banks and the businesses all have a reason to adopt it. M-Pesa has taken over half of Kenya's economy by meeting the needs of the points of interest. Bitcoin just isn't meeting needs.
It is true that Bitcoin doesn't have near the penetration rate of M-Pesa. Bitcoin instead has global distribution. I don't need to explain why businesses and people don't really want to adopt bitcoin.
Merchants are adopting Bitpay at 300% month-over-month rate and 15,000+ already signed up. Because they pay no fees, the customer pays through the nose double fees hidden as exchange rates as I explained on the first page of this thread. It is slow, difficult to use.... and current existing systems for the average consumer work pretty well.
[snip]
For bitcoin to become popular, it would need to be a platform that the government likes, the businesses like, and the people like.
Yup. But.... one thing about bitcoin is amazing. It is the blockchain. In this way, a much better financial system can be built.
[snip]
It will be digital, it will be safe, it will be instantaneous, it will be efficient and so on and so on.
And you really mean Satoshi's proof-of-work solution of the Byzantine General's problem of how to reach decentralized consensus without reputation nor trust required. [snip]
Some people say bitcoin can't be beat, that it has the first mover advantage. I think that is silly. I have written about this before. Visa/Mastercard does more transactions in 5 minutes than bitcoin did in 2013. Furthermore, The bitcoin market cap right now at the point of writing this is a little less than 6 billion. That is nothing. Facebook paid 19 billion for whatsapp.
LOL. whodat? The 2.0 platform that wins is one that appeals to governments, appeals to businesses, and appeals to the consumer. For instance, bitcoin needs to beat the credit card model. Right now my credit card gives me money I don't have!
[snip]
Now let me give you a hypothetical 2.0 system. It would be one that allows the US government to act like coinbase and sell it's dollars into cryptocurrency. It would be a system that charges no fees so that businesses would like it, and it would have to be one that consumers would like, maybe giving them anonymity and security.
Debt is going to be cursed after 2016. No one will want to see a credit card again in their lifetimes. Ask people who went through the Great Depression how it scarred them and embedded their financial conservatism for life. What do you mean government act like coinbase? |
|
|
|
|
mgburks77
|
|
April 06, 2014, 01:43:18 PM |
|
Debt is going to be cursed after 2016. No one will want to see a credit card again in their lifetimes. Ask people who went through the Great Depression how it scarred them and embedded their financial conservatism for life. I hadn't previously considered this, but wow. Yeah. This is true. I've observed this effect personally on many occasions. |
|
|
|
|
|
AnonyMint (OP)
|
|
April 06, 2014, 02:16:56 PM |
|
Debt is going to be cursed after 2016. No one will want to see a credit card again in their lifetimes. Ask people who went through the Great Depression how it scarred them and embedded their financial conservatism for life. I hadn't previously considered this, but wow. Yeah. This is true. I've observed this effect personally on many occasions. They didn't have credit cards back then, so I can't be sure the same attitudes will result. And the developing world doesn't have much personal debt so will still be ready to adopt credit cards. So it is a mixed bag. |
|
|
|
|
AnonyMint (OP)
|
|
April 06, 2014, 02:55:56 PM |
|
Let's discuss about Mastercoin tomorrow. I need to sleep first.
|
|
|
|
DieJohnny
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1639
Merit: 1006
|
|
April 06, 2014, 05:32:50 PM |
|
Banks' technical capabilities might reach global reach (but I very much doubt that too), but they have an insurmountable problem. The governments are going to institute capital controls in order to trap wealth and tax it to death as the global economic implosion proceeds.
This is an extremist point of view, and for you to be right requires financial implosions, which has not happened yet and all things remaining as they are today, Banks will adapt. I think Bitcoin is most valuable with some global financial chaos, but not too much because then you have war and Bitcoin won't survive real world war. I don't believe in a goldilocks view that we will see the perfect storm of financial chaos to drive Bitcoin adoption, but not so much that world war won't destroy the opportunity.
And I see they have no prayer of supporting the volume of tiny micro payments any time soon (VISA only sales to 6000 txs per second now), nor getting significant penetration into all NICs emerging markets. Here where I am, if someone in the grocery lane is holding a card instead of cash, I run to the next queue because it adds about 5 minutes delay to the transaction.
While micro-payments are interesting, again i would say lets revisit this in 10 years when Bitcoin has viable solutions for the unplugged and unbanked. Bitcoin is 10 years from having a mainstream usable solution to any of this IMHO> Also I don't assume we can't do transactions better than they can. We have to learn how to play to our decentralized advantage.
Maybe some day we'll "learn", but for now bitcoin is merely a speculative asset. Again I think any txn adoption curves and any talk about taking over global payment systems is not relevant to short term pricing. The ONLY thing driving short terms pricing is speculation. That is all. I think this will remain the case for at least 5 more years. The most you will see in value on speculation alone is 10k-50k because there will be other opportunities that represent a bigger return than Bitcoin after $10k. That only changes if bitcoin miraculously navigates the payment minefield and become a true alternative to the credit card, pay pal, and the coin or printed dollar. I do think it would be miraculous for Bitcoin to evolve its txn ecosystem fast enough to compete with a world that is already responding. How can a distributed organization compete with decisive actions of orgnanized actors in the existing txn world? Distributed systems are great for functioning without central authority but they are terrible at creating killer-app type strategies. You basically have to hope existing systems collapse for Bitcoin to have any chance of ever taking over as a mainstream transaction system. |
Those who hold and those who are without property have ever formed distinct interests in society
|
|
|
|
mgburks77
|
|
April 06, 2014, 05:45:28 PM |
|
In reference to the article "Zero Marginal Thinking: Jeremy Rifkin gets it all wrong" excerpted from the blog "Armed and Dangerous": The book is full of other errors large and small. The particular offence for which I knew Rifkin before this book – wrong-headed attempts to apply the laws of thermodynamics to support his desired conclusions – reappears here. As usual, he ignores the difference between thermodynamically closed systems (which must experience an overall increase in entropy) and thermodynamically open systems in which a part we are interested in (such as the Earth’s biosphere, or an economy) can be counter-entropic by internalizing energy from elsewhere into increased order. This is why and how life exists. http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=5558&cpage=1#comment-479716Self organization seems counter-entropic at first glance but it is not: Thus Schneider believes that nature will create complex systems whenever it can: it will use any means available to achieve equilibrium.
The "actor" that pushes systems away from equilibrium is a gradient (a difference of temperature, pressure or other). Whenever a gradient is applied, the system is no longer in equilibrium. Schneider believes that the reaction to a gradient is internal reorganization aimed at reducing and eventually neutralizing the external gradient. Gradient neutralization is a fundamental property of Thermodynamics, a fact already proven in 1993 by the US physiologist Don Mikulecky.
"Exergy" is the amount of energy that one can extract from a system in the form of work. When the system has reached a condition of equilibrium, its exergy is zero. Exergy is thus also a measure of how far from equilibrium a system is.
An equivalent way of describing this phenomenon is to talk of "gradients", because the gradient is what can be used to generate work: heat, for example, can be turned into work because there is cold, otherwise it would be useless.
Living beings are non-equilibrium systems, so they have high exergy.
Schneider believes that the universal tendency towards equilibrium is driving evolution, that Nature is building more and more complex systems in order to erase exergy ever more efficiently. Living beings are only a cog in the machine built by Nature to destroy all exergy and achieve equilibrium. Life is only a way to break down concentrations of energy and turn it into diffuse waste heat. And we are an accidental by-product of such a universal process. Animals, for example, degrade the exergy of plants when they eat them. Furthermore, they do so in a way that is more efficient than other physical processes (burning the plant, for example, would radiate energy, while a cow eating grass radiates very little energy). In a sense, Nature created animals because they are the most efficient way to erase the exergy of plants, and it created plants because they are the most efficient way to erase the exergy of sunlight, and so on. Ecosystems have evolved from systems that emitted a lot of exergy to systems that emit little exergy. Metabolism is simply a way to degrade energy, and today's animals (such as mammals and birds) are a lot more efficient at it than the first forms of life. Evolution has been progressing towards more and more efficient systems to destroy exergy. Genetic information is simply information about how to destroy exergy.
Ecosystems as a whole can also be viewed as efficient destroyers of gradients, destroyers that are built and driven by energy flows. The thermodynamic study of ecosystems carried out by the British zoologist Evelyn Hutchinson, the Spanish biologist Ramon Margalef, and the US biologist Eugene Odum showed that ecosystems progress towards increased production of entropy and increased reduction of gradient (a different way of saying that biomass, species diversity and energy throughput all increase). The dynamics of ecosystems, in turn, drives evolution. It is the second law that selects the systems that are best at reducing gradients. Natural selection is, in a sense, an afterthought: the most important selection has already occurred, driven by the second law of thermodynamics.
Darwin created a bridge between humans and other forms of life, and explained how one descended from the others. Schneider attempts to do something similar for living systems and non-living systems. Non-living complex systems play the same role that living systems play: they are just a bit less efficient. But they too are driven by the same phenomenon (ultimately, a "gradient"). They too spontaneously organize due to the energy flow caused by the gradient. Thus any non-living complex system appears to be a predecessor of a living system. It is "born" and it "grows" and it "evolves" in a way similar to how life does, except that it is not alive (for example, it does not reproduce).
Schneider summarized his universal principle as "Nature abhors gradients". Whenever there is a gradient, Nature responds by creating the most efficient way to erase it. One such efficient way is life, and us.
In the end, the second law of Thermodynamics turns out to be responsible for both processes of living beings: both their growing and their decaying, both their non-equilibrium (peaking with progress and civilization) and their equilibrium (death).
In the end, the purpose of life turns out to be death: Nature invented life on Earth as the most efficient process to reduce the gradient created by the Sun heating the Earth. The ultimate goal is to reestablish an equilibrium that will, incidentally, destroy all life when life will no longer be needed to reduce a gradient that life will have erased. The meaning of life is, ultimately, suicide.
http://www.scaruffi.com/nature/biology.htmlThe most efficient destroyer of exergy is the human brain. Conclusion: Transition to knowledge/information capital economy serves the higher purpose of destroying exergy and thus degrading energy differentials. (also that argument is invalid) |
|
|
|
|
|
mgburks77
|
|
April 06, 2014, 06:11:30 PM |
|
Other ramifications of this conceptualization are that I doubt it is possible for human being to eradicate themselves or run out of energy/resources We are part of a natural process and will remain extant until there is no longer any need for that physical process to occur ie the heat death of the universe humankind will go to the stars, and in the process, destroy a lot of exergy The inevitable social and economic processes we are starting to uncover by exploring some of the items in this, and related, threads is merely one small step along the way. Another ramification is that most of the stuff we think we know about reality is wrong. But thinking about it and finding objective truth is going to also burn up a hell of a lot of exergy as well. Everything serves this ultimate purpose. Entropy is the spring that powers the movements of this "swiss watch" we call the material universe. |
|
|
|
|
|
thaaanos
|
|
April 06, 2014, 08:18:18 PM |
|
I personally feel that gravity-life-Intelligence follow some common entropic law That states that if there is an Energy/informational potential systems will arise that maximize the entropy production. This is how they escape the 2 Law, be producing more entropy in the system to balance their structure. So a common way to produce more entropy is to Get things together to react/collide as much as posible (gravity) maximize the systems interface, by fractal "surfaces", (life) Or break into a new dimension (intelligence) Regarding an your Coin you might be interested in an Idea I had discussed here https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=398389.msg4348065#msg4348065https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=382204.msg4375345#msg4375345about using a rolling blockchain that invalidates older blocks as it creates new blocks The benefits could be 1. Early adopters get a fair share of value without becoming parasites and Late adopters have a chance in the economy 2. Wealth accumulation is discouraged (Hodling) 3. Blockchain database size is bounded 4. Lost/forgoten/orphaned coins are eventualy reclaimed 5. Will be easier to get accepted by goverments 6. It is Forward looking as those who actively participate in the economy get rewarded 7. Users would have incentive to shuffle their wallets as much as possible to minimize loses but at the same time increase their anonymity |
|
|
|
|
|
AnonyMint (OP)
|
|
April 06, 2014, 10:05:45 PM |
|
A public ledger of transactions if augmented with more info about the transaction will certainly help to have a clearer understanding of where the economy goes. Instant statistics! probably an economist's wet dream.
The transparency of the blockchain will make it more difficult for Politicians to distort the reality. I think it is a great Idea (public ledger) on it's own.
I wouldn't easily discard that notion in searching for anonymity.
Using the example of a business owner, these are probably the most painful words I've ever had shoved in front of my eyes. /snip/ The next step is real business money. The only way to invite this, I see, is by allowing privacy from competition. In a networked services oriented economy, getting your business transactions transparent, is IMHO an absolute must for free market to work optimally Remember you can also see what all your competitors are doing also, are the gains not greater than the loses?. But that doesn't mean you can easily identify who, all you may know is that he is a competitor if anonymity or pseudonymity is working. My gosh are you really still trying to convince us to put lipstick on a pig. This will be the third or fourth time we've refuted this from you in this thread. We don't want our private life on no public ledger for society to track us with. Period. It is an asymmetric weapon for Max Weber's canonical definition of governance as the entity that holds a " monopoly on the legitimate use of physical force" to use against us. It will not give us any information we can use against those who capture the power vacuum of governance, because since the dawn of mankind they own the regulators and enforcers. This is an Iron Law of Political Economics. The police have been fighting crime since the dawn of mankind even though cash was anonymous and they didn't have a public ledger of all transactions. Europe has a very low incarceration rate. Why? Because the people are well fed with debt. They were happy. But now this will all change as their debt levels are too high. Violence and crime will return. A public ledger has nothing to do with the level of crime and deterrence. The police are in fact always the last to arrive on the crime scene. Please don't raise this point again, unless you have some reasonable counter-point. This isn't a marketing thread as a repetition contest. It is an analytical analysis thread for smart people to figure out the truth. I am not discouraging you from posting. But you don't win arguments by repetition. You win based on the validity and acuity of your analysis. I do change my mind when someone presents me with a superior logic. |
|
|
|
|
AnonyMint (OP)
|
|
April 06, 2014, 10:20:13 PM
Last edit: April 06, 2014, 10:34:33 PM by AnonyMint |
|
about using a rolling blockchain that invalidates older blocks as it creates new blocks
Money that expires is a non-starter. No one wants money that suddenly expires. It adds another thing to worry about in their already hectic lives. Each of the benefits you enumerated either are illusionary or can be achieved in other ways.
Btw, the problem in Greece now is that the strong Euro enabled Germany to keep your tourism and labor priced too high, while they could undercut your industry with their more efficient industry. So your country added debt to compensate for a lack of revenue. Bankster predator Goldman Sachs helped your corrupt government hide this and keep the data off your government's public ledger. And you tell us to use a public ledger which they will always find a way to game theory using financialization instruments?!! http://armstrongeconomics.com/2014/04/06/inflation-is-not-always-caused-by-change-in-money-supply-deflation-is-engulfing-europe/This is reaching chronic levels in Spain, Portugal as well as Ireland not to forget Greece and Italy. These nations did not benefit from joining the euro for their previous debts stopped being automatically depreciated in real terms by inflation. Instead, their debt rose in real terms and that became unbearable in Greece as will be the case throughout Europe. This is what happened to the USA during the Great Depression for the dollar rose in value increasing the Debt-Deflation. I don't want to have an off-topic discussion about European economics in this thread. Post a link to another thread if you want to discuss that topic further. |
|
|
|
|
mgburks77
|
|
April 06, 2014, 10:38:45 PM |
|
This is an extremist point of view, and for you to be right requires financial implosions, which has not happened yet and all things remaining as they are today, Banks will adapt. In 2007 there was a major financial implosion. The reason it happened hasn't changed. The solution was to print up a bunch more cash and distribute it so the whole thing wouldn't topple. So not only are we not out of the woods yet, all we've actually done to address any of the reason for this implosion is put a band aid on it. It won't stop the hemorrhage. |
|
|
|
|
|
AnonyMint (OP)
|
|
April 06, 2014, 10:47:39 PM |
|
http://armstrongeconomics.com/2014/04/06/inflation-is-not-always-caused-by-change-in-money-supply-deflation-is-engulfing-europe/If you really want to stop the violence, legalize drugs, tax them, and regulate them as they did with booze. That defunded the Mafia more than anything and the gun battles in Chicago ceased (like the song the night Chicago Died). As long as there is a tax-free profit to be made, you will never stop the violence. Martin Armstrong is wrong on this point. It is important to refute him, because he arguing against anonymity. Indeed legalizing drugs would lower their cost, make them more widely available, and thus through competition defund those Mafias that control distribution now. The taxing part has nothing to do with it! He conflated. When drugs are illegal, non-criminals are unwilling to risk it to distribute them. Thus the criminals takeover the business. I would prefer drugs weren't available, but the above is the economic reality. And it is not my right to impinge upon and judge for others what they want to do to themselves.
|
|
|
|
|
mgburks77
|
|
April 06, 2014, 10:50:57 PM |
|
also most big time crooks go to a lot of trouble and expense to launder money, which involve paying taxes plus added expenses
|
|
|
|
|
|
AnonyMint (OP)
|
|
April 06, 2014, 11:47:00 PM
Last edit: April 07, 2014, 09:53:27 AM by AnonyMint |
|
Banks' technical capabilities might reach global reach (but I very much doubt that too), but they have an insurmountable problem. The governments are going to institute capital controls in order to trap wealth and tax it to death as the global economic implosion proceeds.
This is an extremist point of view, and for you to be right requires financial implosions, which has not happened yet and all things remaining as they are today, Banks will adapt. Indeed, but I am correct on this one. See all my analysis and data in the Mad Max thread. The velocity of money V has continued to collapse unabated since 2008. Remember M x V ≈ GDP The $trillions of QE increases in M (money supply) drove the money to bonds in the developing world due to our ZIRP (too low of interest) to seek better returns, so now the developing world is short the dollar with huge dollar loans amongst the corporations which was used to overbuild condos and other uneconomic infrastructure. The emerging markets peaked last year and the capital is now exiting and running back to the USA (there are still some diehards who haven't thrown in towel yet, but they will soon). The dollar and NYSE will go skyhigh and the developing world will fall into a spiraling abyss starting 2015. By end of 2015, this will choke off this deadcat bounce in the USA (which is really just international capital flows rushing in, not fundamentals). All this did was raise the global debt from roughly $150 trillion in 2007 to $223 trillion now (note my figure is "total" debt and the linked article refers to government debt only). Global GDP is only $70 trillion. On top of that $1000+ trillion in derivative bets that sustain the financial system such as pensions. On top of that $1000+ trillion of unfunded social welfare promises from developed nation governments to their constituents. This will start to crash after Sept 2015 according to Armstrong's computer model. His model has never been wrong. Have you seen all the correct predictions his computer model made. The reason his computer model can do that is because he put $100s of millions of data into it. He was pulling archives from the world's libraries of newspapers, ancient coins, etc.. The computer correlated all the repeating patterns and found out everything moves in cycles that are multiples of Pi = 3.1459. This sounds like nonsense but in fact it is reality! Armstrong has high-level contacts that have always told him correct information (e.g. he predicted the Ukraine problem many months before anyone else was aware of anything because his computer was pointing him there and he had high level sources to corroborate). I have seen how they give him information that ends up correct. They have said the Fed will not do a QE again when the big crash comes. Instead the plan is to bail-in the deposits, meaning they are going to take all our money. This will be much worse than 2008. This is the big one coming. The Big Portabello Mushroom cloud. I think Bitcoin is most valuable with some global financial chaos, but not too much because then you have war and Bitcoin won't survive real world war. I don't believe in a goldilocks view that we will see the perfect storm of financial chaos to drive Bitcoin adoption, but not so much that world war won't destroy the opportunity.
War will not likely shut down the internet, because the world's militaries depend on the internet and wouldn't function without it. You don't realize how the world economy would stop if they turned off the internet (even if they could, which I don't think they can). It is embedded in everything now. Turn off the internet, and the people will be in Wash D.C. with pitchforks. Also the government and military depend on the internet as the best data mining technology ever invented. And the HAM radio operators will have a rudimentary internet back up in a few days. Both iPhone and Android are adding mesh networking phone-to-phone over two-way WiFi. It will be impossible to turn off the internet, someone would have to go kill everyone who owns a smart phone. They can't take the internet away (the video is Eric Raymond) from us anymore, we already won that battle. Bitcoin will not prosper as much as gold and the anonymous coins, because Bitcoin isn't anonymous and the G20 has already announced they will cooperate with the NSA to track down all wealth in all G20 nations. The citations are linked in this quote of myself: [snip] Since the Knowledge Age is rising [3], socialism is peaking into an economic collapse soon (maybe to rise even higher in future), thus we headed into a crazy period where the governments will try to fund the $150223 trillion global debt bubble [4] by hunting down all private capital (G20 announced a database for this today, NSA will contribute and note this is the bankster business model for them to own everything), then as Bitcoin is taken over top-down then the alternative coin with the above features will take over and become the surviving private sector. For this new virtual economy, e.g. downloaded 3D printing designs which we print at home instead of going to store (and 3D printers can print numerous materials on the same object), there are many cases that don't need the consumer protection charge backs. You won't likely be paying a high enough price for a download to justify the hassle of charging it back any way. A 7 billion person market is huge, prices will decrease while profits for individual designers will rise! Prosperity! [snip]
And I see they have no prayer of supporting the volume of tiny micro payments any time soon (VISA only sales to 6000 txs per second now), nor getting significant penetration into all NICs emerging markets. Here where I am, if someone in the grocery lane is holding a card instead of cash, I run to the next queue because it adds about 5 minutes delay to the transaction. While micro-payments are interesting, again i would say lets revisit this in 10 years when Bitcoin has viable solutions for the unplugged and unbanked. Bitcoin is 10 years from having a mainstream usable solution to any of this IMHO. Bitcoin isn't going to make viable solutions. We are going to need to. And we don't need 10 years. We just need the right set of features and implementation. Do you realize that no Bitcoin mining client runs in the browser. How insane is that if you want mass adoption. Do you remember I said I have experience creating million user markets in software and this was back when the internet was only 100 million users. I had 1% of the internet. My Coolpage.com went from 0 users at end of 1998 to 1 million users by 2001, only 2 - 3 years to capture 1% of the internet. It is time for an expert to come in and do this correctly. Also I don't assume we can't do transactions better than they can. We have to learn how to play to our decentralized advantage.
Maybe some day we'll "learn", but for now bitcoin is merely a speculative asset. Again I think any txn adoption curves and any talk about taking over global payment systems is not relevant to short term pricing. True for Bitcoin. The adoption curve is set in stone already. Not necessarily true for an altcoin. It depends on features and implementation and quality of the community. The ONLY thing driving short terms pricing is speculation. That is all. I think this will remain the case for at least 5 more years. The most you will see in value on speculation alone is 10k-50k because there will be other opportunities that represent a bigger return than Bitcoin after $10k.
Yup. That only changes if bitcoin miraculously navigates the payment minefield and become a true alternative to the credit card, pay pal, and the coin or printed dollar.
I do think it would be miraculous for Bitcoin to evolve its txn ecosystem fast enough to compete with a world that is already responding. How can a distributed organization compete with decisive actions of orgnanized actors in the existing txn world? Distributed systems are great for functioning without central authority but they are terrible at creating killer-app type strategies. You basically have to hope existing systems collapse for Bitcoin to have any chance of ever taking over as a mainstream transaction system.
I was writing about potential altcoins. Correct there shouldn't be a foundation, rather a Benevolent Dictator for Life, otherwise nothing gets done efficiently. Besides the Foundation gets captured by the corrupt as you see with the Bitcoin Foundation. It is the power vacuum of politics again. See that Iron Law of Political Economics. If you see an altcoin designed by committee, run as far away as you can. Rather you want to see a very fair and reasonable leader who accepts all beneficial input and developers, yet makes correct and firm decisions and explains them. Let's listen to Linus Torvalds. I'd love to see more modularity and less monolithicity so there are more leaders each with narrower scope. In this decentralized crypto-currency case, that can be in terms of building APIs, etc, so the altcoins don't put everything in their protocols to avoid making it top-heavy gridlock and brittle. Note that with open source, the Benevolent Dictator can be overruled by consensus thus he must work to maintain consensus. It is a position of honor and you only keep it if you deserve to. |
|
|
|
|
AnonyMint (OP)
|
|
April 07, 2014, 12:43:37 AM |
|
http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=5558&cpage=1#comment-481122Decreased transactional friction leads directly to elimination of the opportunities for arbitrage. I can buy plenty of products and services directly from Shenzhen, and there’s no profit for a new middleman. I assume your implied point is that as knowledge moves more freely then no one can build a Buffet-esque moat to defend profit. Your correct use of the term "middleman" goes to the heart of my counter-logic. Remember I wrote upthread that knowledge creation isn't fungible. So when you need something created based on an existing body of work, you need an expert. Let me distill that for you. As the transactional costs of knowledge sharing decreases, the profit moves closer to the producer of knowledge and away from the rent-seeking middlemen. Diversity of creation and the maximum division-of-labor guarantee that moat but where it is rightfully deserved personal property. People will finally own their expertise and creative energy.Eric I continue to honor you. Peace.
|
|
|
|
jabo38
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1232
Merit: 1001
mining is so 2012-2013
|
|
April 07, 2014, 04:02:06 AM |
|
Living beings are non-equilibrium systems, so they have high exergy.
Schneider believes that the universal tendency towards equilibrium is driving evolution, that Nature is building more and more complex systems in order to erase exergy ever more efficiently. Living beings are only a cog in the machine built by Nature to destroy all exergy and achieve equilibrium. Life is only a way to break down concentrations of energy and turn it into diffuse waste heat. And we are an accidental by-product of such a universal process. Animals, for example, degrade the exergy of plants when they eat them. Furthermore, they do so in a way that is more efficient than other physical processes (burning the plant, for example, would radiate energy, while a cow eating grass radiates very little energy). In a sense, Nature created animals because they are the most efficient way to erase the exergy of plants, and it created plants because they are the most efficient way to erase the exergy of sunlight, and so on. Ecosystems have evolved from systems that emitted a lot of exergy to systems that emit little exergy. Metabolism is simply a way to degrade energy, and today's animals (such as mammals and birds) are a lot more efficient at it than the first forms of life. Evolution has been progressing towards more and more efficient systems to destroy exergy. Genetic information is simply information about how to destroy exergy.
The way I see it, the laws of thermodynamics are best for explaining inanimate things. Of course systems want to remove gradients. That is until life is created. Life has a different law governing it. Generally speaking, the point of life (at lower levels) is to make more life. This is someways is explained well in The Selfish Gene. It will do this by any means necessary and those means often mean creating gradients. So life doesn't reduce gradients, it creates them. So Schneider is not correct in my opinion saying we are accidental by products. The original spark of life might have been an accidental by production of nature being so active, but once created, all the life that has followed has not been accidental, it has been created very purposely and that purpose is to make more life. The thing that most organisms do well, the whole central point of their life cycles is making more life. Some animals even die right after procreating because they no longer serve a purpose. Evolution is a great system by which life can make sure it is always spreading. Along the way, life started giving traits to itself that helped it reproduce and continue. This is what is driving evolution. The need for life to continue on at all costs. At many points along the way certain animals developed sexual reproduction and then eventually sexual selection of partners with good genes. A peacock with big feathers showed great health and therefore was more likely to have its children live on. A bull that was very large could only get that way with a healthy disposition so the biggest bull passes on its healthy genes to the next generation and so on. But with human's something interesting happened. We started sexual selection based on intelligence. Females chose the smartest men as those men were best able to provide resources to help raise the children. This caused a consciousness and intelligence explosion in human beings. See https://ontherapyaspse.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/geoffrey-miller-the-mating-mind.pdfWith intelligence and consciousness, human beings have far more resources and if making gradients helps serve their purpose, they can do it, if destroying gradients helps their purpose, they can do it. But the purpose is no longer limited to just reproducing life. A conscious being can choose (they it maybe hard for many) to have a different purpose. Intelligence and consciousness are complete game changers. |
|
|
|
rdnkjdi
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1256
Merit: 1009
|
|
April 07, 2014, 04:25:31 AM |
|
I have seen how they give him information that ends up correct. They have said the Fed will not do a QE again when the big crash comes. Instead the plan is to bail-in the deposits, meaning they are going to take all our money. This will be much worse than 2008. This is the big one coming. The Big Portabello Mushroom cloud. A question about this. Most wealth is stored - in my opinion - not in $$'s in the bank. But in property and businesses that generate $'s. Are you talking about robbing bank accounts. Or bumping taxes up to 70%? They could rob my bank account and I'd shrug. If they took my two rent houses - I'd be hosed. All this did was raise the global debt from roughly $150 trillion in 2007 to $223 trillion now (note my figure is "total" debt and the linked article refers to government debt only). Global GDP is only $70 trillion. On top of that $1000+ trillion in derivative bets that sustain the financial system such as pensions. On top of that $1000+ trillion of unfunded social welfare promises from developed nation governments to their constituents.
Do you have any sources for the derivative bets & social welfare estimates? |
|
|
|
|
|
mgburks77
|
|
April 07, 2014, 04:25:43 AM |
|
The way I see it, the laws of thermodynamics are best for explaining inanimate things. Of course systems want to remove gradients. That is until life is created. Life has a different law governing it. Matter, energy, and spacetime are all governed by the same physical laws. Life is a combination of the three acting in accordance to those physical laws. With intelligence and consciousness, human beings have far more resources and if making gradients helps serve their purpose, they can do it, if destroying gradients helps their purpose, they can do it. But the purpose is no longer limited to just reproducing life. A conscious being can choose (they it maybe hard for many) to have a different purpose. Intelligence and consciousness are complete game changers. No, they aren't. Life is a chemical reaction occurring on the surface of this planet and it's function is to degrade energy differentials. Read the article I posted. Consciousness and intelligence is simply a more efficient way of doing this. |
|
|
|
|
rdnkjdi
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1256
Merit: 1009
|
|
April 07, 2014, 04:32:22 AM |
|
On the issue of a CPU coin. I've been digesting litecoins move from GPU's to ASICs. A lot of the GPU guys cry foul. Diehard miners feel it's going to be great as they are looking at profit from the initial release. But my instincts tell me - the profit made from ASICs are not going to previous individual GPU miners at all. Even if the companies who sell the hardware don't create farms - there is too much opportunity for someone to bankroll the production of thousands of ASIC chips. I don't see how to keep the distribution decentralized with ASICs.
On the issue of CPU mining. I don't see how to avoid centralization as well. Botnets and massive cloud computing power seem to me like they would be taking the lions share of the distribution.
PoS just makes no sense to me. Give more to the wealthier?
Ethereum team mentioned something about forcing each of the miners to keep a copy of the blockchain on their hard drive to avoid pools all together. Essentially even with GPU mining the network is only partially secured when the blockchain isn't downloaded. If you assume the miners are functioning as nodes - when in reality the pools are the only nodes.
I'm just having a tough time seeing a good solution for mining to avoid centralization.
|
|
|
|
|
vokain
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1834
Merit: 1019
|
|
April 07, 2014, 04:48:44 AM
Last edit: April 07, 2014, 07:43:04 AM by vokain |
|
Another reason that transaction fees don't work. I finally had a spare moment to contemplate the variables.
A key factor is the block size. If the block size is unlimited (and bandwidth is an insignificant cost), then unless miners have a monopoly they will accept transactions with fees as low as don't constitute a DoS attack, in order to maximize revenue.
In other words, they would have no pricing power at all (a Tragedy of the Commons) and the system would devolve into a partial-monopoly in order to gain pricing power.
A partial-monopoly in this case is enough % of the network hashrate to delay transactions (by that % of blocks) which do not include a sufficient fee.
If we limit block size, then the system doesn't scale.
If we let the Bitcoin foundation decide when to increase block size, then they control the economic market function, i.e. we've centralized Bitcoin.
Let us assume unlimited block size and partial-monopolies. Thus the transaction fee can always be forced higher in order to generate more revenue for the miners. Thus Bitcoin devolves (as coin rewards diminish) to a system that presents spenders with a choice between include a very high transaction fee or accept an ever increasing delay for confirmation. This will exacerbate as coin rewards diminish and volume of transactions increase.
If we instead assume limited block size, then the Bitcoin foundation will set the transaction fees, not the market.
Bitcoin is a broken design.
So, going from what you're saying, if the blocksize was unlimited as to increase bandwidth (as opposed to the artificially-imposed 1MB block-size limit), a reliable anti-trust mechanism/protocol would have to be in place to prevent collusion, nefarious or accidental. It seems to me that miners lack a check on their power, at least as of present in the current crop of cryptocurrencies. Currently, the only possible solution seems to be forking the chain, but without a fundamental anti-trust check, that does nothing to prevent future intra-blockchain monopolies and weakens stability. So, how to check against the ability of mining monopolies to delay/reject transactions of their choosing: if they're artificially raising the costs of transactions through monopoly power? if they're targeting/censoring transactions by means of blacklists (for instance, MasterProtocol, Counter-Party, ColoredCoins)? Does this mean that we have to scale the ability of small miners to be as relevant in proving a block as a monopoly is, am I thinking in the right direction here? It seems that solo miners in the Bitcoin mining scene though probably have just as good a chance of profiting if not better through lack of pool fees (tradeoff: variance increases the smaller the % a miner is of the total hashrate), consequently in a democratic setting, they have as much power as a minority does in any given democracy, which is almost none (though they may have voice). Instead of the gamble for one entity to receive the one block reward which allocates disproportional power to leading pool operators, how can the nature of the block reward be changed to promote decentralized mining as opposed to the centralization that the current schema promotes? I apologize for any immaturity of these musings, I just wanted to get these questions out so as to flesh out the details with you all. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
rdnkjdi
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1256
Merit: 1009
|
|
April 07, 2014, 05:55:55 AM |
|
Awesome - ty for the sources.
|
|
|
|
|
jabo38
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1232
Merit: 1001
mining is so 2012-2013
|
|
April 07, 2014, 07:17:24 AM |
|
Matter, energy, and spacetime are all governed by the same physical laws. Life is a combination of the three acting in accordance to those physical laws.
I agree with you that this is the prevailing current theory. I just think that in 50 years we will have an upgraded and different understanding of matter, energy, space time, and how life and consciousness play into these. I know that is a weak argument in that I can't refute you with science. I'm basically arguing the ridiculous point of "my imaginary science is better than your real science." It is just my gut feeling and gut feelings don't count for much in a forum like this. So, I'll give it to you that you made the superior comment and I'll be left twiddling my thumbs hoping someday science upgrades proves me right. Hahaha. |
|
|
|
jabo38
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1232
Merit: 1001
mining is so 2012-2013
|
|
April 07, 2014, 07:46:14 AM |
|
I'll try to explain myself and further my argument a little so that I just don't look so silly. In my belief, I think consciousness is not bound by the rules of space, time, energy and matter as we currently understand them today (although how we understand them in the future might be different). Here is just one way of looking at it so that I am not completely silly (though still maybe a bit silly. hahaha) Even though science says what I am saying is absurd, I think the concept has been with every culture going back to prehistory. I gather that millions of people over thousands of years have reported having spiritual, religious, psychic, or otherwise paranormal experiences that would completely break physics as we know today. For me to be right, only just one of those experiences of millions needs to be true and based on something that isn't yet understood. For science of today to be right, all of them must be false 100% of the time. I understand that 1000 people can be wrong, or even 999,999,999 can be wrong, but I only need that one in a million to be right. At that point, we just need to upgrade science to include it. I am basically siding with thousands of years of tradition of people saying weird things happened with their consciousness than the science of today. Anyway, sorry to derail the conversation away from bitcoin. And it is kind of pointless to defend my position anymore as I've already stated I am taking the gamblers position. |
|
|
|
|
AnonyMint (OP)
|
|
April 07, 2014, 08:42:54 AM
Last edit: April 07, 2014, 11:09:55 AM by AnonyMint |
|
Generally speaking, the point of life (at lower levels) is to make more life. This is someways is explained well in The Selfish Gene. It will do this by any means necessary and those means often mean creating gradients. So life doesn't reduce gradients, it creates them.
Maximizing entropy (disorder) is the maximization of the number of equiprobable outcomes, i.e. maximizing degrees-of-freedom. Btw, degrees-of-freedom is potential energy. Creating more unique ( every human is!) instances life increases diversity, granularity, and degrees-of-freedom. Procreation is breaking down the concentrated gradient (order a.k.a. kinetic or thermodynamic energy) incoming from the Sun into maximum entropy or potential energy. I got into this in the Information Is Alive! and The Universe essays at my blog (see my signature). Schneider is semantically incomplete though on one point. jabo38 is correct, the goal of life is to maximize the instances life, yet life goes hand-in-hand with death because if nothing dies then procreation rate has to diminish or let's say the inertia grows greater than the possible forward change. So in that sense Schneider is correct as quoted. That was appreciated but let's not discuss that philosophical tangent further in this thread, so we don't bury the main point of this thread. We've already built a sufficient case for the point w.r.t. to stated goals for crypto-currency. I strongly urge to move further discussion on that to the Dark Enlightenment or Economic Devastation thread. I will copy this post there. You can click "Quote" then copy+paste into a Reply at any thread. |
|
|
|
|
thaaanos
|
|
April 07, 2014, 09:07:51 AM |
|
A question about this. Most wealth is stored - in my opinion - not in $$'s in the bank. But in property and businesses that generate $'s. Are you talking about robbing bank accounts. Or bumping taxes up to 70%? First raising taxes and then when that well runs dry, a nice haircut ala Greece or Cyprus. Otherwise known as bail-ins And the most painfull of taxes is the land tax, where you are taxed only in terms of property size, regardless of income. So in a recession where most shops close down and shop owners see their income going to zero they are called to pay more taxes. This is the Confiscation mechanics on property |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
AnonyMint (OP)
|
|
April 07, 2014, 09:38:42 AM |
|
I have seen how they give him information that ends up correct. They have said the Fed will not do a QE again when the big crash comes. Instead the plan is to bail-in the deposits, meaning they are going to take all our money. This will be much worse than 2008. This is the big one coming. The Big Portabello Mushroom cloud. A question about this. Most wealth is stored - in my opinion - not in $$'s in the bank. But in property and businesses that generate $'s. Are you talking about robbing bank accounts. Or bumping taxes up to 70%? They could rob my bank account and I'd shrug. If they took my two rent houses - I'd be hosed. All of the above. The foreigners have been trying to hide their capital in USA real estate and the G20 is going to cooperate on tracking it all down. Property taxes are going to skyrocket because all the municipalities are going to be bankrupt and also the pension plans. Detroit and Greece are dry runs for what is coming every where in the developed world, including even Germany where are majority of municipalities are bankrupt on an accurate accounting. This all comes from Martin Armstrong. You can find the citations on his blog if you read a few months worth of posts. If I were you, I would do some research into whether you should sell (before Sept 2015) into this ongoing dead cat bounce in the USA. I can't advise you because everyone's circumstance is unique, i.e. location, etc. All this did was raise the global debt from roughly $150 trillion in 2007 to $223 trillion now (note my figure is "total" debt and the linked article refers to government debt only). Global GDP is only $70 trillion. On top of that $1000+ trillion in derivative bets that sustain the financial system such as pensions. On top of that $1000+ trillion of unfunded social welfare promises from developed nation governments to their constituents.
Do you have any sources for the derivative bets & social welfare estimates? I had seen multiple estimates on the derivatives ranging from $300 trillion to a $quadrillion from 2007 to 2010, then I stopped tracking it. Google can surely help you. The estimate of unfunded social liabilities is my own (out of my arse wild) guesstimate based on some reliable numbers I had seen from David M. Walker (former comptroller of the GAO) of $150 trillion for the USA alone and I am sure it is much worse in Europe as they are more socialist. You can Google on him to confirm. |
|
|
|
|
AnonyMint (OP)
|
|
April 07, 2014, 10:28:36 AM |
|
On the issue of a CPU coin. I've been digesting litecoins move from GPU's to ASICs. A lot of the GPU guys cry foul. Diehard miners feel it's going to be great as they are looking at profit from the initial release. But my instincts tell me - the profit made from ASICs are not going to previous individual GPU miners at all. Even if the companies who sell the hardware don't create farms - there is too much opportunity for someone to bankroll the production of thousands of ASIC chips. I don't see how to keep the distribution decentralized with ASICs.
A significant weakness of ASICs is they can't be repurposed. They are bricks without mining your specific coin (or if a new generation of chips come out). See the following two posts for one reason that is a potentially very big problem w.r.t. to electricity consumption for Bitcoin: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=520977.msg6053844#msg6053844https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=520977.msg6061770#msg6061770Also ASICs can't be purchased any where. The goal for mining should be that anyone can get coins by converting their fiat to computer hardware. This makes the computer a form of non-divisible, yet fungible proxy for cash. Since the government is phasing out cash, I find that to be very important. On the issue of CPU mining. I don't see how to avoid centralization as well. Botnets and massive cloud computing power seem to me like they would be taking the lions share of the distribution.
Now I will drop a bombshell insight that I had been keeping secret. If the cpu coin is widespread enough to drive sufficient demand, the price of Botnets will simply rise to match their hardware cost. They aren't unlimited in supply. Botnets compete for the same computers that users will want to use to mine with. No problem really if thinking big, only while small it is a threat. Cloud computing won't have too much of an advantage, only the economies-of-scale on electricity mostly, but the wise small-scale miner can locate with microhydropower to beat them and the home miner doesn't care about electricity cost. The Tilera CPUs won't compete. If you mean admins hijacking their company servers to use their downtime, this is just a form of Botnet. Also the word will get out. People will start reclaiming their computers from hijackers. Thus driving the price of Botnets up further. In the near-term, the botnets won't have the right CPUs in most machines, so they will run inefficiently, something like an order-of-magnitude less than a recent Haswell. Also the value of the coin scales to the value of the mining network, so if home users drive difficulty to the moon (because the electricity cost isn't significant compared to other appliances), they will also drive the price of the coin to the moon. PoS just makes no sense to me. Give more to the wealthier?
And several others reasons it doesn't make sense. Ethereum team mentioned something about forcing each of the miners to keep a copy of the blockchain on their hard drive to avoid pools all together.
[snip]
I'm just having a tough time seeing a good solution for mining to avoid centralization.
I know the solution. |
|
|
|
|
AnonyMint (OP)
|
|
April 07, 2014, 10:43:26 AM
Last edit: April 07, 2014, 11:32:38 AM by AnonyMint |
|
Another reason that transaction fees don't work. I finally had a spare moment to contemplate the variables.
A key factor is the block size. If the block size is unlimited (and bandwidth is an insignificant cost), then unless miners have a monopoly they will accept transactions with fees as low as don't constitute a DoS attack, in order to maximize revenue.
In other words, they would have no pricing power at all (a Tragedy of the Commons) and the system would devolve into a partial-monopoly in order to gain pricing power.
A partial-monopoly in this case is enough % of the network hashrate to delay transactions (by that % of blocks) which do not include a sufficient fee.
If we limit block size, then the system doesn't scale.
If we let the Bitcoin foundation decide when to increase block size, then they control the economic market function, i.e. we've centralized Bitcoin.
Let us assume unlimited block size and partial-monopolies. Thus the transaction fee can always be forced higher in order to generate more revenue for the miners. Thus Bitcoin devolves (as coin rewards diminish) to a system that presents spenders with a choice between include a very high transaction fee or accept an ever increasing delay for confirmation. This will exacerbate as coin rewards diminish and volume of transactions increase.
If we instead assume limited block size, then the Bitcoin foundation will set the transaction fees, not the market.
Bitcoin is a broken design.
So, going from what you're saying, if the blocksize was unlimited as to increase bandwidth (as opposed to the artificially-imposed 1MB block-size limit), a reliable anti-trust mechanism/protocol would have to be in place to prevent collusion, nefarious or accidental. I'm making the claim that the miners would be forced to collude else transaction fees would trend down until they equal miners' costs under competition, because there would be no limitation on slots per block for transactions to compete for. It seems to me that miners lack a check on their power, at least as of present in the current crop of cryptocurrencies. Currently, the only possible solution seems to be forking the chain, but without a fundamental anti-trust check, that does nothing to prevent future intra-blockchain monopolies and weakens stability.
Agreed but that is orthogonal to my point. My point is that transaction fees force either the miners to collude or the Bitcoin developers to control the network with block size to set a desirable transaction rate. The latter gives the Bitcoin developers too much power. Transactions fees turn off the free market. I propose to fix it by saying an altcoin should make transaction fees 0, fund mining from perpetual new coins, and control transaction spam another way (which I know how to do). Upthread I explained in great detail why perpetual debasement (new coins) is very desirable from every possible consideration. Goldbugs need to read my explanation so they can break out of their incorrect macroeconomic understanding. Also I thought of another attack possible due to transactions fees (but most didn't agree and I believe they couldn't understand my point). So, how to check against the ability of mining monopolies to delay/reject transactions of their choosing:
if they're artificially raising the costs of transactions through monopoly power?
if they're targeting/censoring transactions by means of blacklists (for instance, MasterProtocol, Counter-Party, ColoredCoins)?
I know how to do this. Cpu-only is one aspect, and the other is controlling the sizes of the pools. Does this mean that we have to scale the ability of small miners to be as relevant in proving a block as a monopoly is, am I thinking in the right direction here?
Yup, but we can't eliminate pools. Can you imagine a smaller miner earning a coin every 6 months (e.g. when the coin is worth $10,000). Instead the pool helps the small miner earn 1/180th of a coin every day. We also need pools because it is the only way to control orphan rate and get sub-1 minute transaction speed. Also we need pools for another very important reason. It seems that solo miners in the Bitcoin mining scene though probably have just as good a chance of profiting if not better through lack of pool fees (tradeoff: variance increases the smaller the % a miner is of the total hashrate), consequently in a democratic setting, they have as much power as a minority does in any given democracy, which is almost none (though they may have voice).
We must have pools. Instead of the gamble for one entity to receive the one block reward which allocates disproportional power to leading pool operators, how can the nature of the block reward be changed to promote decentralized mining as opposed to the centralization that the current schema promotes?
Make transaction fees 0, fund from perpetual debasement, and contemplate a design to prevent pools from growing too large. |
|
|
|
|
thaaanos
|
|
April 07, 2014, 10:52:48 AM |
|
I wonder what effect could a CPU coin have if it has too much value in the CPU industry, are we to expect Intel and AMD for example to withhold fresher iterations of their CPUs for private mining, or charge much higher, or the opposite way getting preorders that will fund their research at a faster rate?
Any chance that your coin works with a UltraSPARC T2 chip?
|
|
|
|
|
|
AnonyMint (OP)
|
|
April 07, 2014, 10:56:30 AM
Last edit: April 07, 2014, 11:12:17 AM by AnonyMint |
|
I wonder what effect could a CPU coin have if it has too much value in the CPU industry, are we to expect Intel and AMD for example to withhold fresher iterations of their CPUs for private mining, or charge much higher, or the opposite way getting preorders that will fund their research at a faster rate?
If ever the coin has that much power, the coin can buyout Intel. I mean the home miners can all go buy Intel stock and vote for change in Directors. If we get to that point, we already won. There would be so much social change already. I don't think I am omniscient enough to predict all of the possible scenarios. Radical change is enough for me. Let's see where society takes it. Any chance that your coin works with a UltraSPARC T2 chip?
AnonyMint has not and will not announce nor endorse a coin. I have contemplated designs and for a properly designed cpu-only coin, no I don't think a T2 nor Tilera would have a per hardware $ nor per operational Watt advantage and in fact would be worse. |
|
|
|
jabo38
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1232
Merit: 1001
mining is so 2012-2013
|
|
April 07, 2014, 11:00:40 AM |
|
Ethereum team mentioned something about forcing each of the miners to keep a copy of the blockchain on their hard drive to avoid pools all together.
[snip]
I'm just having a tough time seeing a good solution for mining to avoid centralization.
I know the solution. I am a newbie to cryptocurrency so these could be stupid questions. It seems like to me PoW is just kind of like a lottery and the bigger the ASIC, the better chances of winning the randomized lottery. The point was to make people spend effort to earn bitcoin I think, right? But really it seems like to me that what we need miners to do is secure the network. That is the most important thing they do, right? So, instead of making miners use lots of power to win a lottery and thereby indirectly secure the network, why not just assign the miners a direct role of securing the network and the miner that does the best job wins. I read about in NEM, that they were thinking about a new system called PoI although I have no idea really what it means or how it works, but I think it was suppose to be something along those lines of rewarding nodes directly that processed the most transactions. Would this be part of the answer? Or could it be? |
|
|
|
|
AnonyMint (OP)
|
|
April 07, 2014, 11:18:59 AM
Last edit: April 07, 2014, 11:40:29 AM by AnonyMint |
|
The other reason the emerging markets will accelerate their decline after July 1, 2014 and dollar+NYSE will rally: http://armstrongeconomics.com/2014/04/06/the-man-who-thought-he-was-king-and-wants-to-rule-the-world/July 1st because of the new FATCA reporting requirements If anything, it will cause a capital contract back in the USA and that is behind a dollar rally – not collapse.FATCA was passed back in 2011 and introduced by one of the most dangerous Democrats on Capitol Hill – Harry Reid. He is as much a Marxist and so extreme left he makes the perfect bookend to match McCain who never saw a county he would not invade. FATCA was passed back in 2011 and ever since Americans have been thrown out of banks on a worldwide basis. I have reported how FATCA is destroying the world economy – not the dollar. It should be noted that highly unusually, FATCA was not subject to a cost/benefit analysis by the House Ways & Means Committee because nobody dared to look at what they KNEW was unconstitutional and treated ALL American citizens as economic slaves. [snip] Under international law, FATCA is clearly a violation for it is imposing requirements on institutions outside the USA over which they have NO territorial jurisdiction. FACTA considers the entire world belongs to the IRS. FATCA requires foreign financial institutions (FFI) of broad scope – banks, stock brokers, hedge funds, pension funds, insurance companies, trusts – to report directly to the IRS all clients’ accounts owned by US Citizens and US persons (Green Card holders). [snip] If a [foreign] institution does not comply, the US will impose a 30% withholding tax on all its transactions concerning US securities, including the proceeds of sale of securities on that institution;s entire business. In addition, FATCA requires any foreign company not listed on a stock exchange or any foreign partnership which has just 10% U.S. ownership to report to the IRS the names and tax I.D. number (TIN) of any US owner. [snip] thank you so much Nevada for infecting the world with this crazy Marxist. Even Hitler respected the sovereignty of Switzerland and did not invade them simply because Germans had accounts there. Reid respects no borders nor does he respect the Constitution or International Law. jabo38, unfortunately I can't allow this to be the Proof-of-work 101 thread. I think you can get help on learning about proof-of-work in other threads on this forum. Appreciate your participation. Hope you understand it is my role as moderator to keep the thread focused. |
|
|
|
jabo38
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1232
Merit: 1001
mining is so 2012-2013
|
|
April 07, 2014, 11:35:10 AM |
|
yep, no worries
|
|
|
|
|
AnonyMint (OP)
|
|
April 07, 2014, 11:46:10 AM
Last edit: April 09, 2014, 02:57:28 PM by AnonyMint |
|
The most ideal solution for anonymity on the public block chain is not Zerocash (Zerocoin) nor CoinJoin (current Darkcoin) for detailed reasons I won't fully summarize in this post.
And the most ideal solution for anonymity of your IP address (i.e. your connection to the internet) is not Tor nor a VPN nor I2P/Darknet (Anoncoin), which are often honeypots and you don't know when they are or not.
To be anonymous, you need both underlined types of anonymity.
The latter can be obtained in some cases with a unregistered mobile device or WiFi access, but this isn't readily available to everyone, the governments are trying to eliminate these options, and if you reuse them you are eventually correlated. There is a more ideal solution to the latter that doesn't require these.
Well one could make an argument that Zerocash (not Zerocoin) doesn't require the latter, because it hides even the amount of the transaction, but still the government can compel you to give up your password if they know you are sending transactions. Zerocash has other weaknesses which I think are unacceptable, e.g. if the setup was hacked you have no way to know if the coin suppy is being increased more than allowed and thus the money supply is always unknown and the 8.7ms (115 transactions per second) verification speed per i7 core means it might not scale well for micro payments. One thousand i7 cpu cores would be required to process 100,000 transactions per second, not including denial-of-service attacks transaction spam. That would probably force centralization of mining.
|
|
|
|
johnytelevision
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 52
Merit: 0
|
|
April 07, 2014, 12:02:24 PM |
|
Are we sure we want it to be just another fiat ?
I would prefer something completely different. Different from anything already existing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Drai
|
|
April 07, 2014, 01:09:03 PM |
|
Are we sure we want it to be just another fiat ?
I would prefer something completely different. Different from anything already existing.
This is way my answer was 'no' Cannot be fiat! |
|
|
|
|
AnonyMint (OP)
|
|
April 07, 2014, 01:26:07 PM |
|
Can anyone explain to me the intended meaning of the prior two posts? |
|
|
|
rdnkjdi
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1256
Merit: 1009
|
|
April 07, 2014, 01:51:27 PM
Last edit: April 07, 2014, 02:03:54 PM by rdnkjdi |
|
[snip]
]If the cpu coin is widespread enough to drive sufficient demand, the price of Botnets will simply rise to match their hardware cost. They aren't unlimited in supply. Botnets compete for the same computers that users will want to use to mine with. No problem really if thinking big, only while small it is a threat.
Cloud computing won't have too much of an advantage, only the economies-of-scale on electricity mostly, but the wise small-scale miner can locate with microhydropower to beat them and the home miner doesn't care about electricity cost. The Tilera CPUs won't compete. If you mean admins hijacking their company servers to use their downtime, this is just a form of Botnet.
Also the word will get out. People will start reclaiming their computers from hijackers. Thus driving the price of Botnets up further.
In the near-term, the botnets won't have the right CPUs in most machines, so they will run inefficiently, something like an order-of-magnitude less than a recent Haswell.
Also the value of the coin scales to the value of the mining network, so if home users drive difficulty to the moon (because the electricity cost isn't significant compared to other appliances), they will also drive the price of the coin to the moon.
[snip]
The problem in my mind is wealth allocation. When talking about decentralization - I think in terms of decentralization of power and release of new funds. If the price of botnets rise. Then isn't the wealth being released to those who own the botnets. Granted - it might be he who winds up with the coin is purchasing the botnet. So in reality he's just getting a good deal on amazon instances. So really. AWS, botnets, borrowing my companies resources are all the same issue. Perhaps you are right on the generation of processors. As botnets tend to be much older computers. My opinion is still that hard drive space and memory as a requirements would help with the botnet issue, the farming issue (the cost of mining each coin mass produced would be closer to the cost of what the general public already owns - vs just a fraction of it (processor). I would LOVE to get behind a anonymous CPU only coin. And honestly I think there are many who are on board with the idea of bitcoin or various alts who would feel the same. Who are invested with the idea - but a little disenchanted with the massive centralization. |
|
|
|
|
|
AnonyMint (OP)
|
|
April 07, 2014, 02:03:01 PM |
|
rdnkjdi, if the demand for botnets drives the price of renting or purchasing them to the same cost as renting or purchasing the hardware else where, then no one is getting coins at lower cost than anyone else. Is that point clear?
The botnet owner gets a higher price for his botnets but that has no impact on the cpu coin's economy. I am happy if botnet owners make a lot of money, that is the only way people are going to learn to protect their computers and at least the hardware isn't sitting idle. The botnet owners are providing a useful service.
I just have a way of seeing paradigm shifts that others don't.
For me most things other people think are immoral, are just economics.
|
|
|
|
rdnkjdi
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1256
Merit: 1009
|
|
April 07, 2014, 02:07:08 PM |
|
rdnkjdi, if the demand for botnets drives them to the same cost as purchasing the hardware, then no one is getting coins at lower cost than anyone else. Is that point clear?
The botnet owner gets a higher price for his botnets but that has no impact on the cpu coin's economy. I am happy if botnet owners make a lot of money, that is the only way people are going to learn to protect their computers and at least the hardware isn't sitting idle. The botnet owners are providing a useful service.
I just have a way of seeing paradigm shifts that others don't.
To an extent it makes sense. Just like AWS price goes up if the price of coins go up to make it profitable to mine on AWS. I'm going to have to absorb it. Crypto is an easy way to monetize botnets - and my guess is that the guy who rents the botnet. While he will pay more for it than he would have prior to this wildly popular CPU coin. He will still be paying less per coin to generate than the person purchasing a new computer or renting AWS will. |
|
|
|
|
|
mgburks77
|
|
April 07, 2014, 03:33:18 PM |
|
Matter, energy, and spacetime are all governed by the same physical laws. Life is a combination of the three acting in accordance to those physical laws.
I agree with you that this is the prevailing current theory. I just think that in 50 years we will have an upgraded and different understanding of matter, energy, space time, and how life and consciousness play into these. I know that is a weak argument in that I can't refute you with science. I'm basically arguing the ridiculous point of "my imaginary science is better than your real science." It is just my gut feeling and gut feelings don't count for much in a forum like this. So, I'll give it to you that you made the superior comment and I'll be left twiddling my thumbs hoping someday science upgrades proves me right. Hahaha. Your opinion matters to me, and I am glad you shared it. |
|
|
|
|
|
AnonyMint (OP)
|
|
April 07, 2014, 07:52:09 PM
Last edit: April 08, 2014, 12:33:58 AM by AnonyMint |
|
[snip]
While he will pay more for it than he would have prior to this wildly popular CPU coin. He will still be paying less per coin to generate than the person purchasing a new computer or renting AWS will.
Why do you say AWS is cheaper than buying hardware? I don't think so. Amazon has to make a profit. It is cheaper only for the very short-term (or unspecialized execution instance hardware thus Amazon can employ Xeon chips with 12+ cores) when you haven't yet reaped enough return to pay back your hardware. On the long-term buying your Core i7 Haswell or later hardware direct is cheaper as far as I know. Also Intel is scheduled to release a Haswell-E enthusiast chip in late 2014 or early 2015 which has 8 cores (16 hyperthreads) bringing that cloud economy-of-scale hardware to the desktop. That is assuming you don't need more than a simple cable modem or DSL internet connection. For as long as botnets are cheaper than new hardware, you and I can go buy a botnet instead of new hardware. What is the problem? We will drive the botnet price up until they cost same as equivalent hardware. To facilitate this, we should make it super easy to deploy a botnet, such that any person can do it with a single click. It is a wise-ass quip like this that used to get me in trouble with some high school teachers or some other authorities (especially never embarrass a policeman, instead bend down and kiss their jackboots). They don't like it when we speak such heresies. I don't intend derogatory nor wise-ass malice, rather just matter-of-fact with shoulders shrugged.
Rant: If we don't let people learn from their mistakes, then we wonder why the world is becoming dumber. Remember moralists always accomplish the opposite of their stated empathy. They will argue we shouldn't encourage theft of computers, yet should we also put a policeman in front of every house that refuses to lock its front door? We would bankrupt society if we encourage people to be irresponsible. Socialists think they can protect people from everything, as if they are God. We can afford to be so self-important, because we are funded by $223 trillion in debt, $1000 trillion in derivatives, and $1000 trillion in unfunded social welfare promises. Ultimately the best is always to put the correct economic incentives in play, then let individuals make their choices. We aren't talking about murder here, rather putting idle computers to work (obviously idle otherwise the hijacked computer's user would surely realize their computer is not responding well). Even the animals are thriving at Chernobyl, meaning the earth renews itself. Recent examples: No doubt about it, if you are shorting the fundamentals, you are trapping vulnerable people. Shorters are deliberately making it costly for the unfairly regulated chinese to exit the market.
Are we supposed to hold the hand of the Chinese and remove all risk. Do you know what happens when you remove all risk? Then there is no valuation convergence on truth. And everyone starves to death. That experiment has been tried, it is called Communism. http://armstrongeconomics.com/2014/03/30/even-cuba-abandons-communism-when-will-we/I seem to regularly piss off socialist lunatics as Gandhi did. When Gandhi was studying law at the University College of London, there was a professor, whose last name was Peters, who felt animosity for Gandhi, and because Gandhi never lowered his head towards him, their “arguments” were very common.
One day, Mr. Peters was having lunch at the dining room of the University and Gandhi came along with his tray and sat next to the professor. The professor, in his arrogance, said, “Mr Gandhi: you do not understand… a pig and a bird do not sit together to eat “, to which Gandhi replies, “You do not worry professor, I’ll fly away “, and he went and sat at another table.
Mr. Peters, green of rage, decides to take revenge on the next test, but Gandhi responds brilliantly to all questions. Then, Mr. Peters asked him the following question, “Mr Gandhi, if you are walking down the street and find a package, and within it there is a bag of wisdom and another bag with a lot of money; which one will you take?”
Without hesitating, Gandhi responded, “the one with the money, of course”.
Mr. Peters, smiling, said, “I, in your place, would have taken the wisdom,
don’t you think?”
“Each one take what one doesn’t have”, responded Gandhi indifferently.
Mr. Peters, already hysteric, writes on the exam sheet the word “idiot” and gives it to Gandhi. Gandhi takes the exam sheet and sits down. A few minutes later, Gandhi goes to the professor and says, “Mr. Peters, you signed the sheet, but you did not give me the grade.” But we are at least in agreement about something (HURRAH!) with regard to shorting: I don't participate in that market either, not so much for the reasons you stated but that it seems morally wrong to profit from the failure of a market (I remember the Soros-short inspired sterling crash of the eighties).
All this moral crap really annoys me. Shorting helps to prevent selloffs from being so severe, because shorts cover on the way down and provide buying demand. Moralists always cause the opposite of what they portend to. Successful trades buy low and sell high. They dampen market fluctuation, increase stability, and are in my view the most moral of all. You do realize don't you that is no refutation of what I wrote. The operative phrase is "buy low". That means don't catch a falling knife. |
|
|
|
rdnkjdi
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1256
Merit: 1009
|
|
April 07, 2014, 09:07:36 PM
Last edit: April 07, 2014, 09:21:51 PM by rdnkjdi |
|
[clip]
Why do you say AWS is cheaper than buying hardware? I don't think so.
[clip]
Oops - I intended to say I would assume rented botnets are cheaper than AWS or buying your own hardware. Because they cost the owner his time - whereas Hardware \ AWS involves getting Intel & Amazon their slice. Morons are always cheap to find & exploit - I'm living proof  [clip]
To facilitate this, we should make it super easy to deploy a botnet, such that any person can do it with a single click. Wink
[clip]
Yes! Fine with me - my biggest concern has much less to do with forcing legitimate mining than it does trying to insure a level playing field for all who get involved at the point they get involved. Knowledge always has a hand up. But to an extent long term mass adoption means leveling the playing field otherwise it turns into a pump and dump when those involved feel they've been contributing to the wealth of some clever person (KnC) who has found a way to exploit the system in a way it wasn't quite intended to be used. Of course ... I dunno. The fed seems to be doing ok |
|
|
|
|
|
AnonyMint (OP)
|
|
April 07, 2014, 10:04:36 PM |
|
Agreed. It is the same as the point about legalizing drugs. If we legalize and make access to botnets available to all, then the pricing equalizes and the criminals don't have a monopoly. There are effective means for preventing and checking if your computer is hijacked. We can't protect people against themselves, just as with drugs. Education is probably the best antidote to ignorance (but not necessarily education provided by the State, because then it teaches all that nonsense about we have to protect people from themselves and the earth is in danger from man, thus we need big government "solutions" which are really just a way for the elite to tax and steal, etc) Once upon a time in the USA, I remember parents used to teach their kids common horse sense, and one could leave their front door unlocked without worry. There was a sense of community and the kids who did mischief were scolded but not put on Ritalin. http://armstrongeconomics.com/2014/04/06/inflation-is-not-always-caused-by-change-in-money-supply-deflation-is-engulfing-europe/If you really want to stop the violence, legalize drugs, tax them, and regulate them as they did with booze. That defunded the Mafia more than anything and the gun battles in Chicago ceased (like the song the night Chicago Died). As long as there is a tax-free profit to be made, you will never stop the violence. Martin Armstrong is wrong on this point. It is important to refute him, because he arguing against anonymity. Indeed legalizing drugs would lower their cost, make them more widely available, and thus through competition defund those Mafias that control distribution now. The taxing part has nothing to do with it! He conflated. When drugs are illegal, non-criminals are unwilling to risk it to distribute them. Thus the criminals takeover the business. I would prefer drugs weren't available, but the above is the economic reality. And it is not my right to impinge upon and judge for others what they want to do to themselves. |
|
|
|
|
AnonyMint (OP)
|
|
April 07, 2014, 10:30:52 PM |
|
What we have now is the adjustment to the reality that the adoption curve is really log-logistic as I have shown, thus rpietila's claim from his linear adoption projection chart that the price should be $900+ is likely incorrect.
My best way to convince you this is so, is to note that there is no way the universe would remove all competition to make it so easy for lazy investors to become so insanely rich. To become very wealthy requires active knowledge in developing and managing. The universe doesn't hand great sustained wealth to people who make one lucky decision. Rather (even the greatest of all time such as Jesse Livermore) speculators always end up back at 0 eventually.
Bitcoin is not going to $0 and it is going higher eventually. But the rate of price appreciation will not be "to the moon" although another speculative frenzy might make you believe that one more time (to your great demise because next time it will really crash hard because adoption will have drastically slowed and there will be other vastly superior competitors taking over the ecosystem).
Btw, I have looked into the eye of the future of crypto-currency and I have seen that Bitcoin is going to be wiped out. I have seen some new designs in the past few days that blew my mind.
You are going to be hit with an onslaught of very serious altcoins and not just my designs.
|
|
|
|
|
AnonyMint (OP)
|
|
April 07, 2014, 10:36:07 PM |
|
http://gigaom.com/2014/04/07/bitcoin-will-be-part-of-the-global-banking-order-says-circle-ceo/Summary: Bitcoin will one day be subject to global treaties and central bank interventions, predicts Jeremy Allaire, one of the virtual currencies’ biggest backers.
The future of bitcoin will be determined by central banks, standards bodies and corporate contributors. That’s the view of entrepreneur Jeremy Allaire, who used a Monday morning keynote address in New York to set out out a vision of the digital currency that is decidedly unlike the decentralized dreams of many early bitcoin backers.
Allaire, whose startup Circle is vying to taking bitcoin into the consumer mainstream, spoke at Inside Bitcoins, one of a growing number of event franchises capitalizing on a spike of interest in payments and virtual currencies.
According to Allaire, bitcoin’s emergence as a global payment platform will depend on governments altering anti-money-laundering laws, and helping bitcoin service providers integrate with the world’s existing banking infrastructure. In his view, the choice between bitcoin and conventional fiat currencies doesn’t represent an “either/or” proposition. Instead, he predicted the two systems will one day become intertwined through commercial banks and ATM networks.
More remarkably, Allaire also suggested that national governments could one day establish treaties to regulate bitcoin mining cartels, and act as market makers for bitcoin through their central banks.
|
|
|
|
|
AnonyMint (OP)
|
|
April 08, 2014, 01:54:14 AM |
|
http://armstrongeconomics.com/2014/04/07/panic-cycles-of-marchapril/The Panic Cycles have been hitting going into the end of March/early April. This is generally showing shifts in trend near-term but more so that capital is really getting confused where to go. Martin Armstrong often quotes Herbert Hoover about international currency movement at that time of the early 1900s into the Great Depression.
"During this new stage of the depression, the refugee gold and the foreign government reserve deposits were constantly driven by fear hither and yon over the world.
We were to see currencies demoralized and governments embarrassed as fear drove the gold from one country to another.
In fact, there was a mass of gold and shortterm credit which behaved like a loose cannon on the deck of the world in tempest-tossed era."
Herbert Hoover Memoirs, 1952 Greatest Bull Market In History, p354 Capital today is running hither searching for a safe haven and not finding one. Armstrong often says it was like re-arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.At that time, it was the technological unemployment due to the Second Industrial Revolution that kicked in with factories that accelerated the demise of the cottage industries in Europe, which thus caused capital from Europe to run around seeking a safe haven. It mostly ended up in the USA. http://armstrongeconomics.com/2013/12/01/gold-hedge-against-making-money/The USA was bankrupt in 1896 when JP Morgan lent it gold. After World War I and II, the USA had 76% of the total world gold reserves and that is what the dollar became the reserve currency. It was WAR and capital flows that made the dollar what it is. Europe became too socialistic after the wars and thus remained second-rate.
Why The Only Solution is TechnologicalBy the time you realize I am correct, you will be behind the others who realized earlier. Most people are still on the Titantic rearranging the deck chairs (see quote of Hoover). This is why the USA is actually booming until 2015.75, because capital is now fleeing into the USA from the emerging (peripheral) markets where the riots first manifest. But this ends up at the core reserve currency at the end game 2016ish. We can see how regulation appears to be a very loving and correct direction (listen to her charming speach). She is head of the IMF that is proposing 10% confiscation (termed "financial repression") of bank account balances across the EU to bring debt back to 2007 levels (i.e. not a solution and they will have to come back for more and more). My opinion is that anything that does not circumvent law (which can be a legal activity, e.g. see the "Don't follow me, I'm the 5th car") is going to end up destroyed just like that dramatic upthread chart of the population of Rome falling from 1.3 million to 30,000 (because everyone fled the government). Apparently the-powers-that-be in the USA government are moving towards totalitarian allegiance analogous to recent events in the Ukraine. The entire premise of the Economic Devastation thread is that the Ineptacracy of socialism can't stop until it kills everything or until one of the following occurs: Note the people rising up as in Ukraine is not a solution, because they have no economically viable technology to remain decentralized. They will fall right back into the power vacuum of democracy with escalating chaos with Egypt as a recent example, because the fundamental problem is economic bankruptcy due to peaking socialism and debt (the people are not ready to embrace the decentralized Knowledge Age and the end of a public welfare and retirements system). Only a dictator or a technological solution to the power vacuum is a solution at this time (the contentionism has swung to anarchy because the time to make new social constitutions is not now for reasons stated). And the benevolent dictator is also not sustainable, e.g. Rome continued to destroy itself after the vested interests of socialism killed Caesar. This is why only technology is responsible for sustainable gains in the lives of the people. Note CoinCube and I have postulated that in the theory of contentionism (a new term we invented) the top-down order (with socialism being one form) plays a role in the organization necessary to spawn new entropy, e.g. decentralizing technology.Thus the only popular thing left standing will be the one that is impervious to government. Gold and silver hoarding leads to a feudal Dark Age (which historically typically have long durations, e.g. 600 years), because the velocity-of-money (V in the Quantity Theory of Money) collapses. V is already down -50% since 2008. Capital is already running and disappearing into hoards. This will accelerate (as more frogs wake up from their blissful ignorance of what is going on and jump out of the boiling pot) if we don't have technological solution very soon. And I have good news for you. I've had an additional epiphany recently that I have not written about publicly. I am becoming uber confident that Bitcoin is not the future of commerce, finance, and business. And become more confident I see (all the economic and algorithmic details of) the future technology in my mind's eye. Stay tuned, it won't be too long now. Commerce, finance, and business will never go back to centralized again. This changes the order that had existed since Mesopotamia. So this isn't about crossing a crisis and coming back to the same notions of the way things are today. This is leaving the old ways behind forever. P.S. Three prominent forecasters (with not such stellar prediction performance as Martin Armstrong who predicts the same, yet all with a correct model) are predicting "economic devastation" ahead. CoinCube do you think they read your thread and got that quoted term from you? (your thread in in the top 3 listings at Google for that quoted term) P.S.S. W.r.t. to Bitcoin becoming government compliant, there is this problem that there isn't just one global government (yet), so its global fungibility will be pecked away by the discordant nation-state vultures. And as the recent Mt.Gox fiasco exemplifies, there isn't anything the government touches that doesn't get bloated and less efficient. "An elephant is a mouse built to government specifications." - Lazarus Long.
pungopete468, hope you don't mind if I use your comments as an example the capital is starting to fret and get confused where to run to. I don't care about the price of Bitcoin, it's nothing more than a speculative investment now. I feel despair right now because I'm living within an irrational system where the only logical outcome is complete and total collapse. I feel like every attempt to secure wealth is an act of futility. We're all just ducking and covering before the bright burning flash. I fear the new world will be unrecognizable and hostile when compared against the one before it.
Even Martin Armstrong has no clue what to do and has started to write in a tone of despair. http://armstrongeconomics.com/2014/04/03/rising-threat-of-international-war/The West is being outplayed by Russia on every front for the economy is declining and Russia can smell the blood. Then the likelihood of war in Asia cannot be ignored. As the economy turns down, we may yet see a war between China and Japan. As we pointed out in the Cycles of War report, that cycle of border clashes with China has also unfolded precisely on that cyclical study.
War correlates with the economy. WWI follows economic decline of Europe and the 26 year Long Depression just as WWII followed the Great Depression. When things are booming, there is no major international war. Turn the economy down and that is it and it becomes time to get even for old wounds. In China the dislike of Japan for previous history runs deep to the point you could not really find even a Japanese restaurant in Beijing. Likewise, in Europe, the resentment against Stalin runs extremely deep.
With the Western economies turning down and no hope in hell of surviving the pension crisis, war is needed to escape the broken economic promises. This is a sad statement to even have to make. But the majority are just a herd of sheep and cannot see past the rear-end of the lamb in front of them.
I have hoped that publishing these studies we could help mitigate the coming crisis, but as I have said previously, you cannot manipulate a trend. It looks like all we can do is prepare for own survival. This is just the way government escape its failures – thinning the herd. http://armstrongeconomics.com/2014/04/06/poland-confiscate-bond-holdings-from-private-pension-funds-more-deflation/Poland on Wednesday confiscated all bond holdings of private pension funds. This will be booked on their balance sheet to reduce their debt to GDP ratio by as much as 8%. This is actually being discussed as I have reported in Europe and the USA. Most will follow that same course and fail to realize that government CONSUMES national wealth – it does not create it. This is part of the deflationary cycle we are in and WHY I have stated there is ZERO chance of hyperinflation. Governments are confiscating wealth – not printing their way out of anything. http://armstrongeconomics.com/2014/04/06/inflation-is-not-always-caused-by-change-in-money-supply-deflation-is-engulfing-europe/Silver declined from 1919 into 1932 during a huge inflationary boom. So where is the beef? I deal in facts – not opinions. Prove to me there is some one-to-one relationship between the supply of money and inflation – PLEASE!. There is no such relationship and I have the largest database in the world tracking money supply even into ancient Roman times.  The velocity of money peaked with the 1998.55 (July 20th) peak in the Economic Confidence Model. As taxes have been rising, tax enforcement has risen, and the insane changes to capital gains taxation where you pay now on gains, but losses you can only write off $3,000, investment declines as does VELOCITY. The greed of government has all combined to reduce long-term investment. Then add the 2011 hunt for Americans worldwide and you have a classic trend of collapsing velocity in money that negates inflation and increases cash holdings as liquidity declines further. Corporate cash is at a record high $1.64 trillion demonstrating how the velocity of money is also critical. If the velocity increases yet the supply of money remains unchanged, this will be inflationary for more people are spending and money turns over rapidly without increasing the supply. Nonetheless, increase the money supply, as the Fed has done, but raise taxes, tax enforcement, and the collapse in the velocity of money will offset any increase.Raise taxes on the “rich” to help the poor, sends capital fleeing from an economy and all you have left are the poor. Just look at Detroit and fast-forward to all the cities. There is no such thing as creating “social justice” through taxation. It is no different from saying everyone in school will be given the same grade so there is “educational justice”. The smart will stop studying (producing) because they will get nothing in return for their effort.
We are only equal in rights – not ability or talent. I have no dreams of being a rock star because I cannot sing. http://armstrongeconomics.com/2014/04/06/french-socialists-cannot-just-stop-reform/European countries are struggling with their high taxes, little entrepreneurship, and crazy socialism that is eating their economy from within like a cancer. The best thing they can hope for is a Russian invasion so they can pretend that was the cause of their economic failure.
About 50% of the French youth just want to leave France.
[snip]
France’s trade balance has declined from a surplus of 1 percent of gross domestic product in 1999 to a deficit of 3 percent last year with ZERO prospect of reversing. http://armstrongeconomics.com/2014/04/05/lagarde-part-ii/Keynes made it clear you move to deficit spending only in a depression to stimulate DEMAND, and otherwise you lower taxes in just a recession to stimulate DEMAND – something they will never do.
Politicians took only the part of Keynes they wanted to hear. Nobody in their right mind EVER advocated deficit spending every year with no intention of ever paying anything back. This is not Keynesian economics – it is fiscal mismanagement. http://armstrongeconomics.com/2014/04/04/hsbc-perhaps-the-worst-offender-of-depositor-rights/Get caught carrying even $50,000 in cash in the USA and they have the right to seize it PRESUMING it must be illegal. Anyone who dares to think there will be some return to a gold standard is dreaming. These people are eliminating cash and even when it is in a bank you still have to prove it is yours! A friend got divorced and the account was being split in half. The bank refused to wire any money to the wife at a separate bank until they showed up in the bank to prove why they were moving money and this was in Switzerland. There is ZERO presumption of anything being yours. Welcome to 1984 – it’s just a little late on arrival – 31.459 [Pi x 10] years to be exact.
This is coming down to what is yours is really theirs and always negotiable so shut-up and be thankful they let you spend anything for yourself or your family since they have the right to everything. http://armstrongeconomics.com/2014/04/04/the-new-age-of-virtual-protectionism-the-us-virtual-oligarchy/The US hunting of Americans doing any business offshore and in the process they are destroying economic expansion to the point only the big multinationals can go offshore. This is having the de facto impact of a virtual oligarchy in the USA since only the big multinationals can operate. Small business is being destroyed by the IRS policies and the greed of Congress seeking more taxes rather than reform is contracting international trade that can ONLY fuel the coming economic collapse. Add to this trend the Cold War and the net outcome is the same result that spiraled during the Great Depression – PROTECTIONISM. http://armstrongeconomics.com/2014/04/04/influence-v-discovery/It is shameful that the West is convoluted (invegalled) in such political corruption that they will destroy what we have before they will ever consider their approach is dead wrong.
It is always a battle against the self-interest of government because they THINK influence is the key. They accused me of being TOO influential for their own failures. They only pray in silence for my death in hopes that will end my influence and then they will be right at last. They are just fools standing before a mirror and looking upon themselves as king. Our problem, we remain the victim of their delusions of greatness. The object that must endure their folly. |  |
Virtually every major government is following our models. Yes, I met with China directly and they had a printed copy of everything I ever wrote and read it.
I have spent untold amounts of money building this analysis back for thousands of years to see HOW everything functions over time and if it has ever changed.
[snip]
Politicians know nothing about what they are doing. Why did the S&L Crisis unfold? Because Democrats came in and altered the tax codes to get more money as always and impacted the write off in real estate creating a one way market – SELL. Then they blamed S&Ls when they were regulated and told to invest in real estate. Every single economic collapse is set in motion by GOVERNMENT. Never has any investigation ever turned up a single private cause.
The Plaza accord starting the G5 (now G20) to manipulate the dollar down by 40% in order to reduce the US trade deficit, created the 1987 Crash and sent capital rushing back to Japan that they did not understand creating the 1989 Bubble. Now Europe is trying to outlaw short-selling thinking that will stop the collapse. That will accelerate the fall.
Here is my letter to Rubin in 1997 when he was starting the same stupid stuff trying to talk the yen up for trade. After I sent this letter, he shut up. Someone has to remind these clowns about reality. It was Geithner who had to reply. Nonetheless, the 1997 Currency Crisis unfolded.
[snip]
We have spent vast amounts of money to collect databases from ancient times to date to see how capital flows dictate war and even the rise and fall of nations. Some have tried to mock the idea that there can be a cycle to war, yet they have never attempted any such analysis demonstrating their bias that precludes any advancement. Yet they persist in trying to criticize what they do not understand nor have ever attempted to test. http://armstrongeconomics.com/2014/04/03/economics-sanctions-do-not-move-or-we-will-commit-suicide/Economic sanctions against Russia are really stupid. It is like the scene from Blazing Saddles where he points a gun at himself and says if anyone moves, then black guy gets it. The US is really delusional for Russia’s annexation of Crimea has heightened concerns in Asia about the possibility of China using force to pursue its claims. The US actually thinks imposing economic sanctions on Russia will be a deterrent to China is just amazing. If the USA imposes sanctions on both China and Russia, who is left to trade with? Europe where the cost of living is already 2x that of the USA and in decline?
|
|
|
|
klee
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1498
Merit: 1000
|
|
April 08, 2014, 02:22:30 AM |
|
http://gigaom.com/2014/04/07/bitcoin-will-be-part-of-the-global-banking-order-says-circle-ceo/Summary: Bitcoin will one day be subject to global treaties and central bank interventions, predicts Jeremy Allaire, one of the virtual currencies’ biggest backers.
The future of bitcoin will be determined by central banks, standards bodies and corporate contributors. That’s the view of entrepreneur Jeremy Allaire, who used a Monday morning keynote address in New York to set out out a vision of the digital currency that is decidedly unlike the decentralized dreams of many early bitcoin backers.
Allaire, whose startup Circle is vying to taking bitcoin into the consumer mainstream, spoke at Inside Bitcoins, one of a growing number of event franchises capitalizing on a spike of interest in payments and virtual currencies.
According to Allaire, bitcoin’s emergence as a global payment platform will depend on governments altering anti-money-laundering laws, and helping bitcoin service providers integrate with the world’s existing banking infrastructure. In his view, the choice between bitcoin and conventional fiat currencies doesn’t represent an “either/or” proposition. Instead, he predicted the two systems will one day become intertwined through commercial banks and ATM networks.
More remarkably, Allaire also suggested that national governments could one day establish treaties to regulate bitcoin mining cartels, and act as market makers for bitcoin through their central banks.
And all these guys will prefer Ripple (for obvious reasons): https://twitter.com/Ripple/status/450859716831629312https://twitter.com/marleenvkammenhttp://www.linkedin.com/in/mvankammenAs for the other uses that BTC can have (XRPs can be confiscated) only a truly anonymous coin can deliver them: http://www.dgcmagazine.com/bitcoin-a-jack-of-all-trades-is-the-master-of-none/On another note, what happened to the argument 'If they ban it the price will skyrocket!'? China+Russia hit hard and the price plummeted. Why? Because of Bitcoin's weaknesses (no real anonymity) - when they attacked it was wounded. An assault led to a retreat. I bet that on a real anonymous coin that cannot be beaten, the fact that it will be almost immediately banned will really skyrocket it's value because it will be nothing else but a confession from the authorities of a DEFEAT! We can't fight it otherwise (IRS, taint analysis -> loss of fungibility etc) so we just BAN it (like most countries in EU deal with assault rifles, WEAPONS!)... |
|
|
|
|
|
mgburks77
|
|
April 08, 2014, 03:59:18 AM
Last edit: April 08, 2014, 04:14:55 AM by mgburks77 |
|
China+Russia hit hard and the price plummeted. Why?
I also think it is because the govs of Russia and China know what they are looking at, a weaponized monetary instrument. They will punish users harshly for using it and there is no anonymity so users can be easily identified. I imagine as well that an instrument that was safe to use would have a different effect. human liberationists need a "Thermopylae" to counter the trojan horse we have been given. |
|
|
|
|
|
alxs
|
|
April 08, 2014, 05:08:13 AM
Last edit: April 08, 2014, 05:23:39 AM by alxs |
|
I also think it is because the govs of Russia and China know what they are looking at, a weaponized monetary instrument. James Rickards book The Death of Money: The Coming Collapse of the International Monetary System which I have yet to read, supposedly outlines how and why collapse is inevitable and thus bitcoin is born. Problem, reaction, solution. I think this has been plan of G20 all along and possibly they intend to blame bitcoin as this occurs. http://armstrongeconomics.com/2013/11/20/the-bitcoin-hearing/We are headed into an electronic currency regardless of what people say. Bitcoin will not survive, but it is useful to get people accustomed to a cashless society. The difference will be that the government version will be no ”anonymity” and what it being touted as a benefit is the elimination of crime – drug dealers will be eradicated (plus the government will get 100% of all its taxes). I think the G20 is cooperating on the implementation and transition to the blockchain including Russia and China. After listening to Bobby Lee describe manipulation on the exchanges I suspect Chinese government was possibly involved in both 2013 bubbles. March 2013 - "Top Central Banker In China Says Beijing Is Ready For The 'Currency War' To Begin" 10 Jul 2009 - Russian President Dmitry Medvedev pulls new world currency from his pocket http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/currency/5796892/Russian-President-Dmitry-Medvedev-pulls-new-world-currency-from-his-pocket.htmlI think we are witnessing and living through a carefully orchestrated plan that is being guided and prodded along with bits slowly being revealed. Incubate it in a community for a few years, then begin to take it over in 2014. "Jeremy Allaire: ‘Bitcoin Needs Greater Governance to Reach Mass Adoption" http://www.coindesk.com/jeremy-allaire-bitcoin-needs-greater-governance-reach-mass-adoption/St. Louis Fed Economist: Bitcoin Could Be A Good Threat To Central Banks http://www.businessinsider.com/interview-with-david-andolfatto-2014-4I'm convinced Chinese government is working hand in hand with US. I bet that on a real anonymous coin that cannot be beaten, the fact that it will be almost immediately banned will really skyrocket it's value because it will be nothing else but a confession from the authorities of a DEFEAT!
ZeroCash or whatever won't be banned but can be demonized. And besides, the CIA needs untraceable funds for black box operations. |
|
|
|
|
|
mgburks77
|
|
April 08, 2014, 05:34:03 AM |
|
China could be working with the Americans or the Russians. I've heard good theories for both.
You never know, all three might be working together. Or they might all three be puppets of a supranational power.
|
|
|
|
|
|
alxs
|
|
April 08, 2014, 06:19:50 AM |
|
I think all on board with dumping USD as reserve currency, not going to a gold standard and using blockchain for tax and control,
not referring to anything else.
This could take another 20 years to play out.
Not sure if in this thread or another Anonymint wrote flaw is how to get mass adoption. Very simple, greed and some killer app.
The rebellion will be ZeroCash (or whatever) and the NSA has said next war will be on the internet. Anonymint reads
and quotes Martin Armstrong a lot, and even he has said something like this.
|
|
|
|
|
klee
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1498
Merit: 1000
|
|
April 08, 2014, 06:35:32 AM |
|
I have similar thoughts as alxs and mgburks. If US,RU,CH are cooperating to bring cashless dystopia through Bitcoin we need as AnonyMint say a new coin asap. I bet that on a real anonymous coin that cannot be beaten, the fact that it will be almost immediately banned will really skyrocket it's value because it will be nothing else but a confession from the authorities of a DEFEAT!
ZeroCash or whatever won't be banned but can be demonized. And besides, the CIA needs untraceable funds for black box operations. Ban is an extreme scenario I agree but see how Turkey, Iran etc ban Twitter, FB and other platforms! |
|
|
|
|
|
mgburks77
|
|
April 08, 2014, 06:45:12 AM |
|
I have similar thoughts as alxs and mgburks. If US,RU,CH are cooperating to bring cashless dystopia through Bitcoin we need as AnonyMint say a new coin asap. I bet that on a real anonymous coin that cannot be beaten, the fact that it will be almost immediately banned will really skyrocket it's value because it will be nothing else but a confession from the authorities of a DEFEAT!
ZeroCash or whatever won't be banned but can be demonized. And besides, the CIA needs untraceable funds for black box operations. Ban is an extreme scenario I agree but see how Turkey, Iran etc ban Twitter, FB and other platforms! Remember desperate times result in desperate measures being taken. The ineptocracy (love that term btw  ) has kicked the can down the road a lot of times. At some point the issue has to be resolves and it appears if some type of effort to resolve has emerged. Unfortunately the effort seems to be unethical in the extreme. |
|
|
|
|
klee
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1498
Merit: 1000
|
|
April 08, 2014, 06:47:00 AM |
|
I had another weird idea when trying to sleep that I am not sure.
A big problem for Bitcoin (maybe) is the alt coins - people go x3,x5 even x10 in these bubbles and I suspect most of them cash the biggest ratio from their gained BTC to cash. This nearly happens every week so many investors prefer this alt market and when successful they hit the BTC/USD ratio down. So it maybe more difficult for Bitcoin to gain a new hype (where other alts satisfy this need) and in addition BTC is used as a bridge from this coin to exit to fiat.
No surprise why Garzik, Oleg, Gavin (BTW did he abandon ship yesterday??) and all the other bitcoin cartel (early adopters, developers, miners, big investors, Bitpay & Coinbase etc) hate them!
Now, a new truly anonymous coin that would be illegal or highly discouraged from governments to use will have fewer XXX/BTC (or any other crypto pairs) from all these traceable coins making it digitally (more) unique!!
Furthermore, it will not have centralised exchanges (no manipulation) and someone in order to use it would have to take risks (be a true believer and not an opportunist because it will be difficult for the average Joe to dump them). It will be all in or nothing!
No more exchange to fiat bullshit, a real tool for revolution, a weapon of mass surveillance destruction.
Funny how the ultimate control technology (Bitcoin) will backfire to them through a mutated version...
|
|
|
|
|
|
AnonyMint (OP)
|
|
April 08, 2014, 06:48:49 AM |
|
I step outside for some fresh air for the first time in 2 months and see what you guys do to the thread.  The term you want is Technocracy. China is fully on board and raised the standard of tracking and control. Remember the corporations are in control via the Bilderberg planning, and the governments and nation-states are just disposable institutional pawns on the globalists' chessboard. So while the governments and even their leaders such as Putin can be fighting for national objectives, the globalists are behind the scenes coordinating the chessboard towards NWO and Technolocracy. This is one area where Armstrong is naive in that he doesn't believe there is any supranational control. He only sees the idiots such as Obama who are collapsing the economy and doesn't understand this is by design. http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21228354.500-revealed--the-capitalist-network-that-runs-the-world.html I don't know how they will get the liquidity into Bitcoin, but if you say over 20 years then yes they try to move us to digitally tracked life, where even Smart electrical meters will monitor every detail that occurs in our homes. Problem with ZeroCash is that if the setup parameters are leaked, that entity can debase the money supply and no one can possibly know it. We will never know if it was leaked or not, and never know what the money supply really is. WTF!? It is the ultimate weapon against society. I will fight ZeroCash to my last breath. I hope the community doesn't fall for another trap again! Weren't we already gullible enough on Bitcoin! |
|
|
|
|
mgburks77
|
|
April 08, 2014, 06:50:07 AM |
|
I had another weird idea when trying to sleep that I am not sure.
A big problem for Bitcoin (maybe) is the alt coins - people go x3,x5 even x10 in these bubbles and I suspect most of them cash the biggest ratio from their gained BTC to cash. This nearly happens every week so many investors prefer this alt market and when successful they hit the BTC/USD ratio down. So it maybe more difficult for Bitcoin to gain a new hype (where other alts satisfy this need) and in addition BTC is used as a bridge from this coin to exit to fiat.
No surprise why Garzik, Oleg, Gavin (BTW did he abandon ship yesterday??) and all the other bitcoin cartel (early adopters, developers, miners, big investors, Bitpay & Coinbase etc) hate them!
Now, a new truly anonymous coin that would be illegal or highly discouraged from governments to use will have fewer XXX/BTC (or any other crypto pairs) from all these traceable coins making it digitally (more) unique!!
Furthermore, it will not have centralised exchanges (no manipulation) and someone in order to use it would have to take risks (be a true believer and not an opportunist because it will be difficult for the average Joe to dump them). It will be all in or nothing!
No more exchange to fiat bullshit, a real tool for revolution, a weapon of mass surveillance destruction.
Funny how the ultimate control technology (Bitcoin) will backfire to them through a mutated version...
beautiful thought like angel trumpets and devil trombones |
|
|
|
|
|
mgburks77
|
|
April 08, 2014, 06:57:45 AM
Last edit: April 08, 2014, 07:09:38 AM by mgburks77 |
|
I step outside for some fresh air for the first time in 2 months and see what you guys do to the thread. The term you want is Technocracy. China is fully on board and raised the standard of tracking and control. Remember the corporations are in control via the Bilderberg planning, and the governments and nation-states are just disposable institutional pawns on the globalists' chessboard. So while the governments and even their leaders such as Putin can be fighting for national objectives, the globalists are behind the scenes coordinating the chessboard towards NWO and Technolocracy. This is one area where Armstrong is naive in that he doesn't believe there is any supranational control. He only sees the idiots such as Obama who are collapsing the economy and doesn't understand this is by design. I don't know how they will get the liquidity into Bitcoin, but if you say over 20 years then yes they try to move us to digitally tracked life, where even Smart electrical meters will monitor every detail that occurs in our homes. Problem with ZeroCash is that if the setup parameters are leaked, that entity can debase the money supply and no one can possibly know it. We will never know if it was leaker or not, and never know what the money supply really is. WTF!? It is the ultimate weapon against society. I will fight ZeroCash to my last breath. I hope the community doesn't fall for another trap again! Weren't we already gullible enough on Bitcoin! a technocracy requires mechanized humanity to operate at full efficiency conformity of the human product to a specific criteria is the purpose of all of this shit The Allied "Josef Mengele": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Ewen_Cameronhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_MKUltraCameron started to distinguish populations between "the weak" and "the strong". Those with anxieties or insecurities and who had trouble with the state of the world were labeled as "the weak"; in Cameron's analysis, they could not cope with life and had to be isolated from society by "the strong". The mentally ill were thus labeled as not only sick, but also weak. Cameron further argued that "the weak" must not influence children. He promoted a philosophy where chaos could be prevented by removing the weak from society. Cameron defines "the weak" as those who do not conform to mechanization: In Cameron's analysis, culture and society played a crucial role in the ability for one to function according to the demands necessary for human survival. Therefore, society should function to select out the weak and unwanted, those apt towards fearsome aggression that threatened society. Psychiatry would play a disciplinary role.
Cameron began to explore how industrial conditions could satisfy the population through work and what kind of person or worker is best suited to industrial conditions. A stronger personality would be able to maintain itself in heavy industrial situations, he theorized, while the weaker would not be able to cope with industrial conditions. Cameron would analyze what conditions produced the stronger worker, what would be the necessary conditions to replicate this personality and to reward the stronger while disciplining the weaker. In his 1946 paper entitled Frontiers of Social Psychiatry, he used the case of World War II Germany as an example where society poisoned the minds of citizens by creating a general anxiety or neurosis.[11] This guy was one of the principles in the Nuremberg trials and he was doing experiments like megadosing people with LSD and tying them into a chair with a bag over their head alone in the dark for a week as an experiment in behavior modification. Some of the most egregious crimes against humanity were committed right here and since we won that war that and everything we learned from captured Nazi scientists about social control has been integrated into the western industrial system. |
|
|
|
|
klee
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1498
Merit: 1000
|
|
April 08, 2014, 06:58:46 AM |
|
I step outside for some fresh air for the first time in 2 months and see what you guys do to the thread. The term you want is Technocracy. China is fully on board and raised the standard of tracking and control. Remember the corporations are in control via the Bilderberg planning, and the governments and nation-states are just disposable institutional pawns on the globalists' chessboard. So while the governments and even their leaders such as Putin can be fighting for national objectives, the globalists are behind the scenes coordinating the chessboard towards NWO and Technolocracy. This is one area where Armstrong is naive in that he doesn't believe there is any supranational control. He only sees the idiots such as Obama who are collapsing the economy and doesn't understand this is by design. http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21228354.500-revealed--the-capitalist-network-that-runs-the-world.html I don't know how they will get the liquidity into Bitcoin, but if you say over 20 years then yes they try to move us to digitally tracked life, where even Smart electrical meters will monitor every detail that occurs in our homes. Problem with ZeroCash is that if the setup parameters are leaked, that entity can debase the money supply and no one can possibly know it. We will never know if it was leaked or not, and never know what the money supply really is. WTF!? It is the ultimate weapon against society. I will fight ZeroCash to my last breath. I hope the community doesn't fall for another trap again! Weren't we already gullible enough on Bitcoin! Woohoo! If indeed is a vicious plan, I admit I am impressed! |
|
|
|
|
|
alxs
|
|
April 08, 2014, 07:09:56 AM
Last edit: April 08, 2014, 07:43:59 AM by alxs |
|
Yes its wonderful, looking forward to it!
|
|
|
|
|
|
AnonyMint (OP)
|
|
April 08, 2014, 07:11:23 AM |
|
We don't need to take that risk of ZeroCash. There is solution which doesn't have that problem and for which the cryptography is much simpler. The other problem with ZeroCash is that the cryptography is so complex with many layers of recent discoveries such as span programs, then extended to quadratic span programs, etc.. that if it is cracked then all our block chain anonymity is possibly revealed. Note the leakage of the setup parameters does not affect anonymity, only makes the money supply indeterminate. But there is the orthogonal issue of if that complex crypto is cracked since it hasn't been vetted and tested over years. That could break the anonymity going all the way back on the history of the block chain.
ZeroCash is sexy, but make sure you understand the caveats.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
alxs
|
|
April 08, 2014, 07:20:23 AM |
|
Well, we want to know what the solution is. Quite frankly after reading through your many posts Anonymint you are someone I can relate to and trust.
EDIT: You could be another Satoshi Nakamoto, but right now you are speaking my language
Right now from my perspective, ZeroCash or DarkCoin are the front runners.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
AnonyMint (OP)
|
|
April 08, 2014, 07:30:46 AM |
|
Well, we want to know what the solution is. Quite frankly after reading through your many posts Anonymint you are someone I can relate to and trust.
EDIT: You could be another Satoshi Nakamoto, but right now you are speaking my language
Right now from my perspective, ZeroCash or DarkCoin are the front runners.
You will know very soon. I tried also to help Darkcoin, helped explain to the thread the technology, helped analyze with the developer, and gave a recent suggestion for possible direction for improvement. Darkcoin is a legitimate effort but there is something superior that can be done. And more importantly pulling all the features needed into one altcoin. I think the ZeroCash developers have good intentions, but IMO they too easily dismiss the significant caveats. |
|
|
|
|
alxs
|
|
April 08, 2014, 07:35:18 AM |
|
Can't you see this is all designed to protect multi-national corporations from competition and provide them Technocracy level of control.
The national governments are clueless pawns.
They are definitely not clueless pawns -> TPP "I tried also to help Darkcoin and gave them some suggestions. Darkcoin is a legitimate effort but there is something superior that can be done. I think the ZeroCash developers have good intentions, but IMO they too easily dismiss the significant caveats." I think Mathew is fantastic, and they have publicly stated they need help. |
|
|
|
|
|
AnonyMint (OP)
|
|
April 08, 2014, 07:36:34 AM
Last edit: April 08, 2014, 07:53:50 AM by AnonyMint |
|
Can't you see this is all designed to protect multi-national corporations from competition and provide them Technocracy level of control.
The national governments are clueless pawns.
They are definitely not clueless pawns -> TPP I mean the government figureheads may not realize the overall plans. Or at least they may not realize how they will be thrown to the wolves as needed to achieve those plans. The real power is coming from the multi-nationals and the globalists owners. The governments serve them. I think Mathew is fantastic, and they have publicly stated they need help.
Matthew Green even made a comment about NSA. He seems to be legit. And of course those guys are super smart cryptographers. I am just saying that the technology isn't the best we can do, because that is a huge risk to take. He downplays the risk in the video I saw on Youtube about ZeroCash. He says "we will find some people who the community trusts to generate the setup parameters then burn the computer". The NSA can even monitor your computer over an air gap using electromagnetic technology. And CPUs have firmware that allows them to be reprogrammed (we don't have that master key but the NSA probably does). I don't trust any crypto system that has a master key, especially when that is a global system and we can't ever know if the key was leaked or not. The money supply could be debased and we don't necessarily ever know it. Matthew Green mentioned the possibility of trying to figure out a way the setup parameters could be computed in parts by numerous parties. I reserve judgement on that until they actually try to figure out to do that securely and publish some findings. About helping ZeroCash, I can't offer the kind of help they want (heck I'm 49 and in an island country Asia), and besides there will be many super smart younger applicants. |
|
|
|
|
mgburks77
|
|
April 08, 2014, 07:45:41 AM |
|
Sociopaths have no ethics or morality "Superman"
edit: writing this i am going to be labelled an enemy of the state and my IP address recorded...might have to tone down my language...
It's a duty of everyone who lives in the world to criticize this unethical behavior in all of it's myriad facets and do whatever they can to stop it. |
|
|
|
|
klee
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1498
Merit: 1000
|
|
April 08, 2014, 07:45:57 AM |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
mgburks77
|
|
April 08, 2014, 07:48:26 AM |
|
Can't you see this is all designed to protect multi-national corporations from competition and provide them Technocracy level of control.
The national governments are clueless pawns.
They are definitely not clueless pawns -> TPP I mean the government figureheads may not realize the overall plans. Or at least they may not realize how they will be thrown to the wolves as needed to achieve those plans. The real power is coming from the multi-nationals and the globalists owners. The governments serve them. Matthew Green even made a comment about NSA. He seems to be legit. I am just saying that the technology isn't the best we can do, because that is a huge risk to take. He downplays the risk in the video I saw on Youtube about ZeroCash. He says "we will find some people who the community trusts to generate the setup parameters then burn the computer". The NSA can even monitor your computer over an air gap using electromagnetic technology. And CPUs have firmware that allows them to be reprogrammed (we don't have that master key but the NSA probably does). I don't trust any crypto system that has a master key. "As long as politics is the shadow cast on society by big business, the attenuation of the shadow will not change the substance." John Dewey |
|
|
|
|
|
alxs
|
|
April 08, 2014, 07:54:55 AM |
|
Anonymint, its a symbiotic relationship. Government owns Corporations own Government. They are one entity and TPP admits it. Walter Burien's research on CAFR's. Larry Summers? at Google ZeitGeist saying how great China was because they controlled all the corporations etc. Matthew seems legit to me and is public about who he is. From what I have read, you are the person they need and they are asking for help. "He downplays the risk in the video I saw on Youtube" It is unknown. I dont think it is being downplayed https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l7LSSE0bRRo |
|
|
|
|
|
AnonyMint (OP)
|
|
April 08, 2014, 08:03:05 AM
Last edit: April 09, 2014, 02:58:02 PM by AnonyMint |
|
We need something now that we are sure works and can't be cracked. We only have a 12 - 18 months to make such an altcoin fly before the global economy starts collapsing. Highly experimental cryptography is very risky as we won't get another chance for this one year window. We need fast transaction verification so we can support micropayments. ZeroCash likely can't scale to that without centralization, because verification is so slow at 115 transactions per second per i7 core. And we risk that master key issue as well. I think they should continue to refine their research. But IMO that won't help us for now. They are rushing something that isn't ready. They haven't even dealt with all the other aspects that need to be addressed such as limiting pool sizes, controlling orphan rate to get transaction speed down to under a minute or less, obfuscating your IP address connection to the network, cpu-only coin, etc.. There is a lot more to achieving the perfect altcoin than just sexy block chain anonymity. I can't help ZeroCash, because I don't think their design is correct way to go. I think there is better technology which is incompatible with theirs. As amazing as it is to hide the payer, payee, and amount and make the entire block chain a complete fog, it costs us that there is a master key and we can't even know if the master key has been compromised because the entire block chain is a fog. There is a way instead to hide the payer and payee but not the amount and there is no master key. IMO this is a superior technology and it is much simpler. I also believe this technology can use quantum computing resistant public key cryptography, whereas it appears that ZeroCash can't. |
|
|
|
|
alxs
|
|
April 08, 2014, 08:09:34 AM |
|
So what are you saying? We're screwed?
That is obviously not true.
Solution may not appear for another year or more but will appear, that is inevitable.
Julian Assange thinks we have until 2020? to either win or lose the privacy war
and I think that timeline is accurate enough.
|
|
|
|
|
|
AnonyMint (OP)
|
|
April 08, 2014, 08:11:09 AM |
|
I am saying you will have a solution this month.
|
|
|
|
|
alxs
|
|
April 08, 2014, 08:13:08 AM |
|
There is a way instead to hide the payer and payee but not the amount and there is no master key. IMO this is a superior technology and it is much simpler. I also believe this technology can use quantum computing resistant public key cryptography, whereas it appears the ZeroCash can't.
I don't know what to say. You are appearing to say you have all the answers but will not share them. |
|
|
|
|
|
alxs
|
|
April 08, 2014, 08:13:34 AM |
|
I am saying you will have a solution this month.
ok |
|
|
|
|
|
AnonyMint (OP)
|
|
April 08, 2014, 08:17:00 AM |
|
Anonymint, its a symbiotic relationship. Government owns Corporations own Government. They are one entity and TPP admits it. Walter Burien's research on CAFR's. Larry Summers? at Google ZeitGeist saying how great China was because they controlled all the corporations etc.
Millionaire Larry Summers is not in charge of Trillionaire David Rockefeller. Tail doesn't wag the dog. Symbiotic agreed, but the globalist leaders have the complete view and the underlings are compartmentalized and often think they are working for "good" goals. At Bilderberg meetings only a dozen of the participants are allowed to go to the highest level meetings. I believe some politicians are more trusted and higher level than others. For example, Putin might be privy to globalist meetings but may believe he has some special insight or role that gives him great power. And he fights for Russian territory and nationalism. Whereas, Rockefeller, Kissinger, and Brzezinski are probably playing him like a pawn in the global economic chessboard. It is not some unified teamwork. It is chaotic mix of megalomaniac ambitions. The key is to compartmentalize the ambitions and keep the movement forward towards the goals of sharing power. |
|
|
|
|
alxs
|
|
April 08, 2014, 08:21:23 AM |
|
Millionaire Larry Summers is not in charge of Trillionaire David Rockefeller. Tail doesn't wag the dog. Symbiotic agreed, but the globalist leaders have the complete view and the underlings are compartmentalized and often think they are working for "good" goals.
That made me laugh. Absolutely true. But Larry Summers is no fool. No One who understands what TPP is a fool |
|
|
|
|
|
alxs
|
|
April 08, 2014, 08:27:27 AM |
|
Everything is connected. States own corporations and act in their interest. Corporations want easier way of transacting. Corporations want more control and don't want to have to deal with regulations. On and on and on. The future is pretty clear and actually totally transparent. The future is TPP and Bitcoin. In otherwords, become a shareholder.
|
|
|
|
|
|
alxs
|
|
April 08, 2014, 08:31:23 AM |
|
Anonymint, its a symbiotic relationship. Government owns Corporations own Government. They are one entity and TPP admits it. Walter Burien's research on CAFR's. Larry Summers? at Google ZeitGeist saying how great China was because they controlled all the corporations etc.
Millionaire Larry Summers is not in charge of Trillionaire David Rockefeller. Tail doesn't wag the dog. Symbiotic agreed, but the globalist leaders have the complete view and the underlings are compartmentalized and often think they are working for "good" goals. At Bilderberg meetings only a dozen of the participants are allowed to go to the highest level meetings. I believe some politicians are more trusted and higher level than others. For example, Putin might be privy to globalist meetings but may believe he has some special insight or role that gives him great power. And he fights for Russian territory and nationalism. Whereas, Rockefeller, Kissinger, and Brzezinski are probably playing him like a pawn in the global economic chessboard. It is not some unified teamwork. It is chaotic mix of megalomaniac ambitions. The key is to compartmentalize the ambitions and keep the movement forward towards the goals of sharing power. Hahahaha You are so dead on I cannot stop laughing |
|
|
|
|
|
alxs
|
|
April 08, 2014, 08:52:35 AM |
|
extreme scenario I agree but see how Turkey, Iran etc ban Twitter, FB and other platforms!
nmc |
|
|
|
|
crypty
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 3
Merit: 0
|
|
April 08, 2014, 02:32:24 PM |
|
I am saying you will have a solution this month.
Well now this should be interesting. |
|
|
|
|
rdnkjdi
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1256
Merit: 1009
|
|
April 08, 2014, 03:31:55 PM |
|
I am saying you will have a solution this month.
Well now this should be interesting. I know I'm a noob - but if you release something. Can I recommend not posting it in the ALT section and just garnering a lot of organic support a month before release? I feel almost anything posted in the alt section of btc is doomed to live in it's shadow at best. And most likely to fail. |
|
|
|
|
|
matrix961
|
|
April 08, 2014, 03:58:48 PM |
|
I’ve been watching this thread since it started. I like what anonymint has to say. We need something that is truly secure, decentralized, and anonymous. I’ll definitely contribute if something like this is released. Just by reading through this thread I’ve learned a lot about the crazy crap that is going on that I had no idea about, it worries me.
The funny thing is before having a kid I really never gave a crap about much. But now it's such a different story. With everything going on in the world I worry about my kid growing up. It's not like it was back in the day that's for sure.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
7thKingdom
Member
Offline
Activity: 107
Merit: 10
|
|
April 08, 2014, 05:20:12 PM |
|
And, that's where I get my username... 7thKingdom |
|
|
|
|
7thKingdom
Member
Offline
Activity: 107
Merit: 10
|
|
April 08, 2014, 05:28:48 PM |
|
I’ve been watching this thread since it started. I like what anonymint has to say. We need something that is truly secure, decentralized, and anonymous.
And can scale. The ability to perform micro-transactions on the chain is of the utmost importance. Micro transactions are absolutely essential in a future knowledge based economy. |
|
|
|
|
vokain
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1834
Merit: 1019
|
|
April 08, 2014, 08:44:28 PM |
|
So... is the plan to integrate the functionality of pools in the protocol instead of how it currently is with Bitcoin mining pools now? Does this mean that we have to scale the ability of small miners to be as relevant in proving a block as a monopoly is, am I thinking in the right direction here?
Yup, but we can't eliminate pools. Can you imagine a smaller miner earning a coin every 6 months (e.g. when the coin is worth $10,000). Instead the pool helps the small miner earn 1/180th of a coin every day. We also need pools because it is the only way to control orphan rate and get sub-1 minute transaction speed. Also we need pools for another very important reason. It seems that solo miners in the Bitcoin mining scene though probably have just as good a chance of profiting if not better through lack of pool fees (tradeoff: variance increases the smaller the % a miner is of the total hashrate), consequently in a democratic setting, they have as much power as a minority does in any given democracy, which is almost none (though they may have voice).
We must have pools. Instead of the gamble for one entity to receive the one block reward which allocates disproportional power to leading pool operators, how can the nature of the block reward be changed to promote decentralized mining as opposed to the centralization that the current schema promotes?
Make transaction fees 0, fund from perpetual debasement, and contemplate a design to prevent pools from growing too large. |
|
|
|
|
|
AnonyMint (OP)
|
|
April 08, 2014, 11:39:28 PM
Last edit: April 09, 2014, 03:10:50 AM by AnonyMint |
|
Careful with predicting the dollar's early demise. It will get stronger before it is replaced with a more global SDR basket. The Euro and Sterling pound have to be brought down to parity with the dollar first. Dollar and NYSE will get very strong in 2015, and this will put downward pressure on gold. According to Armstrong's computer model, after 2015.75 the world slides into the tempest. So... is the plan to integrate the functionality of pools in the protocol instead of how it currently is with Bitcoin mining pools now?
I don't think it is necessary to do anything to the block chain protocol to control pool size. So in theory the ideas I have in mind could be employed for Bitcoin or any coin. However, I do think pools that adopt a solution which aids anonymity (that is how I my idea controls pool size and I would propose that anonymous pools blacklist those which don't implement the protocol[1]) are going to be attacked for that reason and thus the block chain protocol will need support for Meni Rosenfeld's oblivious shares fix to prevent pool shares withholding attack (Bitcoin has refused to make this change since 2011 when Meni pointed it out). And note P2P pools (e.g. P2Pool) can't implement oblivious shares, thus my ideas can't be safely applied to P2P pools. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=339902.msg3715641#msg3715641https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=339902.msg3719385#msg3719385That is my way of saying I think P2P pools are not a good solution. If ever they become popular, they could be attacked. Another reason I don't favor using ZeroCash on the block chain is because in theory with ZeroCash you no longer need to obfuscate your IP address thus you don't need my ideas which apply to pools thus we don't control pool size and centralization of mining continues.  In theory with ZeroCash no one can see any details (not even amount) of the transactions you send to the network, so therefor you probably don't need to worry if anyone sees your IP address sending a blob of data to the network. Since the ZeroCash paper is not yet released, I can't yet analyze how sending two transactions with the same IP address would affect linkability. I assume unlinkable, but the devil is in the details. However, I am not sure how this will work for mining coinbase awards, you may still need to obfuscate your IP address for those with ZeroCash. With the block chain crypto I have seen (note this is not my design), the payer and payee are hidden but the amount is not. And it is still possible to link transactions if someone can see the same IP address is sending two transactions that would otherwise be unlinkable. I have said many times that AnonyMint will not announce nor endorse any coin, thus if my ideas make it into an altcoin, some other party here on Bitcointalk.org will be taking the lead role on the interface with the community.[1] Realize that the anonymity of the other users affects how anonymous you are, because anonymity is obtained by mixing with other users. If they all lose their anonymity, you lose yours. Or if many of them lose their anonymity, your anonymity set decreases and the adversary can use multiple statistical overlapping sets to isolate you. Anonymity needs to be system-wide enforced. ZeroCash in theory does this by making every coin mix with every coin in the universe. That is very alluring crypto. But problem is we then lose the ability to see if more coins were created via crack of the crypto or someone kept the master key. Also ZeroCash probably can't scale to micro transactions without centralization of mining. Centralization of mining means the government can take control. So even if ZeroCash finds a way to make the generation of the setup parameters trapdoor (the master key) impossible to intercept (and I think that is impossible), it still has the fundamental problem that it is too anonymous. We lose the ability to see if it was cracked. We never know if it is cracked or not. We will be flying blind against the adversary. Whereas the alternative crypto for the block chain which I am aware of, hides the payer and payee but not the amount and public can see which coins were mixed (but doesn't know which one is the payer and payee) and it doesn't require any master setup parameters trapdoor. Thus we get all the anonymity we need to prevent pools from blocking payer and payees and hiding our identity, without the bad caveats of ZeroCash. Well to be fair, it is possible the government could say any transaction is blocked if it contains any coin address on a black list (even if we can't determine which of the coins mixed with is the actual payer and payee). In that case, ZeroCash could be a solution (yet its bad caveats would remain). Thus this is another reason we don't want centralization of mining, so that government can't control every pool. What I am saying is that making the entire block chain a fog with ZeroCash incurs the cost that we no longer know when the government has cracked it or someone possesses the master key trapdoor creating as many coins as they want covertly. For me, that is unacceptable. If our technology has been broken, I want to know, so we can work on improving it. I know I'm a noob - but if you release something. Can I recommend not posting it in the ALT section and just garnering a lot of organic support a month before release?
I feel almost anything posted in the alt section of btc is doomed to live in it's shadow at best. And most likely to fail.
You are actually quite astute. An altcoin with the right feature set doesn't need to launch with blazing saddles, and also because you wouldn't want any cpu-only coin subject to botnet or server farm attack before the hashrate was sufficiently developed. |
|
|
|
|
AnonyMint (OP)
|
|
April 09, 2014, 12:22:22 AM
Last edit: April 09, 2014, 12:46:34 AM by AnonyMint |
|
On the globalist conspiracy theories, we don't need for them to be true in order to need the anonymous coin (cpu-only mining, etc).
We need these features simply because the history of the world shows that society devolves into totalitarianism over and over again, because the masses accept all the debt and promises politicians make. This causes bankruptcy of the society. Then the crash of the economy causes the masses to demand the government do something to fix it. The only thing the government can do is steal from those who have wealth since government can never create wealth.
So we don't need globalist conspiracy theories to pitch the importance of the proposed feature sets.
I suggest we avoid furthering the conspiratorial dialogue (we've already covered it) as this will chase away serious businessmen who are needed in any serious movement towards an improved coin (or improving Bitcoin which seems unlikely).
The focus should be on creating the positive paradigm for business and human empowerment in order to create a golden Knowledge Age of vigorous prosperity.
P.S. I think the concept of ZeroCash wherein we don't have absolute knowledge about the money supply is not going to be favored by a serious business demographic. Businesses like transparency not black boxes. They do want their private business details to remain confidential, but they don't want a system that is failing and no one knows it (until it is too late to prepare or change).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
AnonyMint (OP)
|
|
April 09, 2014, 01:39:53 AM
Last edit: April 09, 2014, 07:14:35 AM by AnonyMint |
|
Without anonymity we are toast.
Why is anonymity so important for mankind ? Don't you think global transparency in financial systems might be a good thing ? (To help fight corruption, for instance) This is the most difficult thing for people to understand because we are so accustomed to the normalcy of society. We just can't conceive of the notion that the regulators are captured by those being regulated. And that voting can't change it. The Bill Moyers video explains this very professionally. I highly recommend it. Global transparency is the way you promote the Deep State corruption to globalized power. That will be an even worse outcome. Because again, the regulators and the regulated are two heads of the same monster. Anonymity is the only way the individual can opt-out of that unfixable (evil) symbioses that is going to torch the earth after 2016. [snip] I want to also remind that anonymity doesn't eliminate social networking. Let's differentiate between anonymity and reputation as they aren't mutually exclusive. Also just because you want to be anonymous sometimes, doesn't mean you need to be anonymous in every aspect of your life. It is not personal identity that is important, but rather reputation... Interesting idea, must digest thanks for links! It's difficult to locate this type of content |
|
|
|
|
AnonyMint (OP)
|
|
April 09, 2014, 01:53:04 AM
Last edit: April 09, 2014, 07:39:56 AM by AnonyMint |
|
Cross-posting... The scheme makes me feel myself a person with low IQ !  You will rapidly change that and find your place in the Knowledge Age, especially if you are young. I'm young. What do you suggest?
2. Develop your skills in some creativity activity in which some aspect of it interfaces with content that can be delivered electronically, e.g. 3D printing designs, programming, biotech, nanotech, marketing plans, medical tech and art, visual arts, audio arts, etc..
Did you know it is possible to print an entire house of marble using a 3D printer:
http://d-shape.com/
Get in touch with your creativity ability. Most men have this as it is sort of innate to being a man. There are so many areas. This isn't restricted to just programming. You see that D-Shape is very hands on, get your hands dirty. Some men like to work with their hands, not just their mind.
In short, become a hacker, in the broadest definition of the term.
http://www.catb.org/esr/faqs/hacker-howto.html#what_is
P.S. I'd love to see you guys help improve the Flying Car. |
|
|
|
|
AnonyMint (OP)
|
|
April 09, 2014, 02:33:41 AM
Last edit: April 09, 2014, 03:03:28 AM by AnonyMint |
|
I was at the SM Lanang mall yesterday. Ate some overpriced, delicious burritos and soft tacos at Army Navy. Didn't think we had that kind of food here in Davao. Amazed me to see basically the quality of any modern city in the world imported into formerly third world Davao, Mindanao, Philippines, which didn't even have street lighting in 1994. First time I had gone any where other than local el cheapo barbecue since I had returned from Hong Kong in January. The point I want to make with these photos, is notice even the ladies have stopped wearing their shorts and blue jeans and are adopting expensive clothing. This is in a third world country! The point I am making is that do the following photos agree with the reality of the following financial calculations? http://blog.mpettis.com/2014/03/will-emerging-markets-come-back/#comment-22683http://www.forbes.com/sites/jessecolombo/2013/11/21/heres-why-the-philippines-economic-miracle-is-really-a-bubble-in-disguiseWhat you see below is central bank QE ZIRP carry trade, pumping massive amount of debt into the developing world. Philippines exports 1/6 of its population to work overseas, and probably at least 50% is manual labor (maids, drivers, cooks, etc) which will be laid off in a 50% technological and debt default unemployment scenario. You can see the official data that this primarily comes from United States, Europe, the Middle East, and East Asia in that order of significance. So my point is that those who think the crisis can't possibly happen because look at how good our lives are now, are ignoring the effect that contagion can have. The following is a temporary illusion. This will come back again in the future, but after 2016 the following is going to diminish for some years.          $20 per head Vikings all you can eat luxury buffet:             |
|
|
|
peri1224
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 10
Merit: 0
|
|
April 09, 2014, 03:09:26 AM |
|
It is true that paper cash, gold/silver were always anonymous. But does BTC give up the anonymity to the collective or to those few animals that are more equal than the others?
|
|
|
|
|
peri1224
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 10
Merit: 0
|
|
April 09, 2014, 05:54:02 AM |
|
"First time I had gone any where other than local el cheapo barbecue since I had returned from Hong Kong in January."
If one works like a dog on any project, how can it not contain errors, or at least not be as perfect as it should be?
|
|
|
|
|
|
AnonyMint (OP)
|
|
April 09, 2014, 07:09:23 AM
Last edit: April 09, 2014, 07:25:59 AM by AnonyMint |
|
"First time I had gone any where other than local el cheapo barbecue since I had returned from Hong Kong in January."
If one works like a dog on any project, how can it not contain errors, or at least not be as perfect as it should be?
If you are referring to an altcoin, altcoins typically go through a testing phase. For example, as far as I know the anonymity altcoin Darkcoin is undergoing testing and mining now on a beta version. Pre-mining of Bitshares occurred on a subset coin Protoshares. My understanding is that ZeroCash intends to release some open source before launching as an altcoin. Also releasing a coin as open source can allow the community to look for bugs. If you are referring the work I've been doing, it has mostly been assimilating applicable technology, developing community awareness through so many posts in this forum, thus refining my own understanding of the various issues. P.S. On the issue of ZeroCash, since it will be open source, there is nothing impeding a competing altcoin from adopting it and adding other features, such as cpu-only. So any altcoin that decides to incorporate a different technology than ZeroCash for obfuscating the block chain after ZeroCash is available and production ready code, must rationally be doing it because the developers (and thus the community that follows them) sincerely think ZeroCash is not the superior choice. |
|
|
|
|
|
merkin51
Member
Offline
Activity: 95
Merit: 10
|
|
April 09, 2014, 09:00:41 AM |
|
AnonyMint, what is your opinion on Darkcoin? Does it fulfill many / any of the true requirements of an anonymous coin? It seems to be getting a lot of attention at the moment. I would search the thread, but there doesn't seem to be a thread search facility on here...
|
|
|
|
|
|
AnonyMint (OP)
|
|
April 09, 2014, 10:31:23 AM
Last edit: April 09, 2014, 02:58:59 PM by AnonyMint |
|
We should be delighted there is so much competition going on in the nascent anonymity coin arena. It can only help us attain the best possible solutions. AnonyMint, what is your opinion on Darkcoin? Does it fulfill many / any of the true requirements of an anonymous coin? It seems to be getting a lot of attention at the moment. I would search the thread, but there doesn't seem to be a thread search facility on here...
Following statements on Darkcoin were accurate to the best of my knowledge as of about 5 days ago. Any significant changes to the design since then are not considered. Darkcoin obscures linkability between payer and payee to the degree that the master nodes are not Sybil attacked. There is some economic mechanism to try to achieve Sybil resistance, but some uncertainty about that. Also the collateral payment is used to overcome an inherent weakness in CoinJoin (which I was first to articulate), and there is some uncertainty about whether these could be stolen. I would characterize that uncertainty as moderate to very mild (meaning no one is saying, "this sucks", rather just analyzing). I personally did not attempt to dig deeper into the analysis of that uncertainty (I don't have time). I have provided a suggestion to the developer to investigate traceable ring signatures as a potential solution to eliminate both master node's need to see both payer and payee and to eliminate the collateral payment. I don't know if or when that suggestion might be fruitful for Darkcoin. Darkcoin does not protect the anonymity of the master node. Darkcoin does not address traceability of the IP address to the transaction. It like all other coins except anoncoin, thus far assumes the user uses Tor or VPN to obscure their IP address. I have pointed out with citations that many question whether Tor, VPNs, and I2P (anoncoin's mixnet choice), are honey pots. I said some might assume they are anonymous 80 - 95% of the time, and others might pull 50% out of their arse because no one really knows (except maybe the NSA). Do you want 5 - 50% of your transactions to lose anonymity? You can run your coins through Darksends numerous times to raise the odds of being anonymous. I posted some sample calculations in the Darkcoin thread. So I consider it to be a legitimate effort and avoids the criticisms I made against ZeroCash. I am not making a recommendation. | Note I think ZeroCash is an astonishing technological achievement, and very noteworthy. It probably has applications in side-economies where absolute lack of knowledge is desired. But it doesn't seem to be the right choice for the global economy for the very serious reasons I stated upthread. Perhaps they should make a variant that simply fixes ZeroCoin's weaknesses and doesn't go for the hiding of all coins, the money supply, and all activity entirely. However, some people might decide they don't care if the money supply isn't ever knowable ("to the moon" inflation is an acceptable risk to them) and they might choose to trust a public ceremony setup and they may ignore the fact that cryptography is very new, very complex, and insufficiently vetted (this takes years in cryptanalysis land). I think that would be unwise. They would also be ignoring the likely centralization of mining that would be required to support micro payments with ZeroCash's slow 115 transaction verifications per i7 cpu core. Also I forgot to state upthread that ZeroCash adds an additional 3 minute delay to transactions. Also I forgot to mention upthread that one benefit of ZeroCash is the transaction amounts don't have to be all the same when mixing spends with the other coins in order to obscure payee and payer, because the amounts are hidden as well. |
I already have an idea how to fix the issue of not having reliability with Tor, VPN, or I2P. And I have seen cryptography for the block chain which does payer and payee mixing without the caveats I just stated about Darkcoin. So I think Darkcoin is a legitimate effort and may even improve over time. I also think a superior altcoin may possibly come soon (and I may not even be involved since I tell you that some of the technology I am writing about was not coming from me). Please make sure you check the facts for yourself at the time such facts are well elucidated. This post is a quick summary of my thoughts on this matter. I don't want to write an essay now. I am trying to answer questions while I also prefer such very technical questions to be properly answered in whitepapers. It is difficult for me to give the best in depth technical answers in a forum post. Especially when you consider that I am working and trying to prove out things right now, so it is difficult to speak before it is the proper time to do so. My prior summary: The summary thus far of my analysis of Darksend is that Evan has put into place adequate mechanisms to disincentivize theft of the collateral payments and to disincentivize Sybil attacking the inputs to a Darksend with legitimate Darksends.
The weaknesses (w.r.t. to anonymity) are that Masternodes can be purchased and if the adversary has too many of them, they can reduce your probability of anonymity unless you send your funds through dozens of Darksends between each receipt or spend transaction. If the adversary controlled 90% of the Masternodes, it would nearly impossible to be anonymous more than say 99% of the time, i.e. 1 in 100 of your spends would lose anonymity. Evan argues that attaining a lot of Masternodes is too expensive. Well probably so for the common criminal, but I am not convinced that is so for the NSA.
1 in 100 may not sound bad, but remember that loss of anonymity tends to domino cascade (for the holistic reasons I pointed out in my reply to LimLims on this page). And that is for the person who is extremely diligent to do dozens of Darksends between each spend. Most users are not so perfectionist. So for them anonymity could drop significantly if the adversary has such huge resources.
The other weakness is that it is not yet mandatory to use an IP mixer such as Tor with Darksend, and if not all of the participants to the Darksend are obfuscating their IP, then the anonymity probability declines. Note that even if Darksend makes Tor mandatory, Tor is not the best we can do for an IP mixer. It is unknown how effective Tor is. Some might estimate 80 - 95%. Others might pull 50% out of their arse. I really don't know, but I don't trust Tor entirely. This combined with say 20% of the Masternodes compromised (and a little bit of normal human error on your part such as forgetting to send dozens of Darksends for each coin your receive) can also make it unrealistic to repeatedly sustain very military grade strength of anonymity. (But who said you wanted military grade assurance? Some do, some may not require it)
Darksend has anonymity. Darkcoin is an anonymity coin. The strength of the anonymity depends on the resources and resolve of the adversary versus the Darkcoin user.
I am still trying to think of suggestions to improve it.
I hope readers find my posts helpful? ZeroCash is going public in a few months time ~20 May. Regardless of whether they have anything tangible or just a published paper,
I don't think they will have beta-test level code then. This is about not being drowned out and then being considered a clone.
No way Darkcoin can be considered a clone, as Zerocash completely hides the payer, payee, and the amount of transactions. The block chain is a complete fog. Zerocoin doesn't do this. Zerocash will have some positive spin. They will talk about e-cash and anonymity.
They will make the point I just wrote above. What they won't talk about are the problems with the project.
The main weakness of Zerocash is it adds an additional 3 minutes between check out and completion of payment. (Add that on top of Bitcoin's 10 - 60 minutes, or Litecoins 2.5 - 15 minutes). Zerocoin doesn't have this problem. The main weakness of Zerocash and Zerocoin are they depend on new crypto which hasn't been subjected to years of cryptanalysis, and if you put it on the block chain, then it is later cracked, the entire coin is potentially F.U.B.A.R.. Whereas Darksends are offchain! Even if you crack the crypto of Darksend (which uses very old well vetted crypto), the block chain remains uncracked! The other weakness of Zerocash and Zerocoin is they depend on a trusted party to create the master parameters. If anyone retains that information (even if they snooped it using the NSA's air gap detection mechanisms), they in the case of Zerocash they can create unlimited coins and nobody will even know it! In other words, the coin supply becomes unknowable!! I am not exaggerating!! Another counter point may be that each Zerocash transaction takes 9ms to verify (500ms for Zerocoin). Thus they can only put 115 transactions in a block per second per core of the CPU on the miner. Visa does 2,000 - 4,000 transactions per second, so for Zerocash to scale to global transactions needs 40 CPU cores per miner (e.g. 10 iCore i7 CPUs), not including denial-of-service transaction spam. Transaction spam could be really bad if they don't have a transaction fee or other means to control it. Any way, 40 CPU cores is not really a big problem if mining will be done only in pools. But crypto-currencies are hoping to enable microtransactions, thus the transactions per second would explode by orders-of-magnitude. Thus appears to me Zerocash is incompatible with microtransactions unless mining becomes very centralized among a few powerful pools. Centralization of mining is a severe problem with Bitcoin having onetwo or three pool with 51% of the hash power now. |
|
|
|
|
AnonyMint (OP)
|
|
April 09, 2014, 12:12:47 PM |
|
The entire internet will never go down. The main threat is segmentation of the internet and thus the block chain into competing chains.
The solution is to HAM or shortwave radio the data between segments, and the miners slow down the block period as necessary to accommodate the slower relaying time.
The coin needs a better (more efficient) design than Bitcoin on the way miners aggregate and relay data.
This can probably all be solved once we get serious development back into a coin. Bitcoin development has become rigor mortis.
|
|
|
|
|
|
7thKingdom
Member
Offline
Activity: 107
Merit: 10
|
|
April 09, 2014, 12:49:22 PM |
|
So what kind of scale are we looking at for transactions per second if micro-transactions are really going to become viable? You say orders of magnitude greater than the current transactions we see via Visa, so what are we talking about here exactly?
And is such scaling and speed really viable on chain in a future coin (without the need for miners to conglomerate into a few large pools)?
|
|
|
|
|
|
AnonyMint (OP)
|
|
April 09, 2014, 03:03:55 PM
Last edit: April 09, 2014, 11:41:17 PM by AnonyMint |
|
http://armstrongeconomics.com/2014/04/09/the-coming-tetrad-the-blood-moons/That said, this is a group of four consecutive total lunar eclipses in 2014 and 2015 – a series known as a Tetrad – four successive total ‘blood-red’ lunar eclipses each followed by six full moons. The more interesting aspect of the coming Tetrad is that the date lines up with this peak in the Economic Confidence Model 2015.75 and is off only by 2 days in advance. Indeed, NASA has confirmed that the Tetrad has only happened three times in more than 500 years – 1493, 1949, and 1967. [snip] The incredible alignment has only happened a handful of times in the last two thousand years but, remarkably, on each of the last three occasions it has coincided with a globally significant religious event. Looking at the phenomenon, over a five millennium span from 1999 BC to 3000 AD, the max number of eclipse Tetrads that can take place in any century is eight ( , which occurs this century. This is the Tetrad Season since the last time this took place was during the 9th century AD. [snip] There was a Tetrad in 1493 that marked the discovery of the New World. The next coincided with the establishment of the State of Israel – after thousands of years of struggle – in 1949 and the end of World War II. This was followed by 1967 and the Six-Day Arab–Israeli War. Therefore, I do not see where this has any specific forecasting significance. Nonetheless, it is fascinating that it correlates at this time when our own models are jumping off the charts. Well doesn't he know this coming "Tetrad season" which begins April 15, 2014 is because to the birth of anonymous, decentralized, cpu-only crypto-currency is born on April 15, 2014. Amazing the Tetrad season has only occurred 3 times this millennium, corresponding to the birth of New World, Israel (end of WW2), and Arab-Israel war. And now on April 15, 2014 is born the antidote to central banking. This date is coincidentally a giant middle finger to the USA tax deadline.
|
|
|
|
|
alxs
|
|
April 09, 2014, 03:38:08 PM |
|
Well doesn't he know this coming "Tetrad season" which begins April 15, 2014 is because to the birth of anonymous, decentralized, cpu-only crypto-currency is born on April 15, 2014. Amazing the Tetrad season has only occurred 3 times this century, corresponding to the birth of New World, Israel (end of WW2), and Arab-Israel war. And now on April 15, 2014 is born the antidote to central banking. This date is coincidentally a giant middle finger to the USA tax deadline. Are you going to share what that coin is? |
|
|
|
|
CoinCube
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1946
Merit: 1055
|
|
April 09, 2014, 05:28:48 PM
Last edit: April 09, 2014, 05:50:57 PM by CoinCube |
|
Anonymity is the only way the individual can opt-out of that unfixable (evil) symbioses that is going to torch the earth after 2016.
I want to also remind that anonymity doesn't eliminate social networking. Let's differentiate between anonymity and reputation as they aren't mutually exclusive.
I stand by my earlier analogy in the MadMax thread that Anonymity is like chemotherapy. It has some undesirable side effects there is no denying it. Hopefully reputation will help mitigate those to some degree. I have spent some time trying to think of an alternative to anonymity as I dislike some of those side effects. All line of inquiry have uniformly led me to the same conclusion. Anonymity is the only short term solution. Everything else is either ineffective or at best stalling tactics. With metastatic cancer sometimes your only choice is to give up and let it consume you, or fight it with the tools available, however imperfect, at your disposal. Time to learn how to use TOR anyone know of a good guide on how to set this up? |
|
|
|
|
alxs
|
|
April 09, 2014, 06:29:05 PM
Last edit: April 09, 2014, 07:15:55 PM by alxs |
|
Great post and thread at zerohedge:http://www.zerohedge.com/contributed/2014-04-08/why-bitcoin-important?page=1Specifically "james.connelly" comments as follows:Wed, 04/09/2014 - 00:49 | 4638251 james.connollyThe problem here is that same old shill's are still pushing the same old snake-oil. The solution is we need a REAL 'peoples' crypto-currency, and BTC dont' cut the smell test. How do we do it ? 1.) It must be P2P just like when we all share/steal music and movies, REAL FUCK P2P, the problem with BTC is the exchanges and minor's, they NEED to be executed with extreme predjudice. 2.) We need real encryption, like PGP-4096 that is impossible for NSA to break, and we need to control, out of the hand's of the NSA. 3.) Trust is the issue of Satoshi's paper ( https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf) I suggest any student of this shit read the mother-paper, in order to have trust, nobody can control over 1% of BTC,... with BTC you have a few people controlling 90% on the mining and the exchange end, ... this right there amongst a dozen other things is WHY BTC sucks cock. So how do we fix BTC? We need a real group to step forward someone like Stallman free software or somebody who can't be bought, probably going to be a RUSSIAN. We need a real open-source that has no ties to the CIA/MOSSAD, that is a tough one, given that probably 90% of the commenters/posters here work for the company as contractors. But when a real crypto-currency comes out for the PEOPLE, I will know it when I see it, and bitcoin ain't it, Maybe it will come from CHINA, maybe India, but it has to come from somebody who hates money, who hates wealth, who truly doesn't want a fucking thing to do with power, that his/her only goal is to destroy the PTB. Now with BTC, it came from PTB and that is the fucking problem." Wed, 04/09/2014 - 01:24 | 4638305 james.connollyYour right, that's why its best to live in the jungle, then all is real. But the USD sadly is also 'crypto-crap', but issued controlled by the DEVIL, and I use that word to infer that the worst ASSHOLE's on earth control the current crypto USD. Given the reality of FIAT-FAUX (USD & wannabe's), why not have a PEOPLES FIAT, where nobody can be a billionaires, and people can exchange internationally, as even those in live in the jungle need to trade with city folk and vice versa. Going beyond Satoshi's premise of "TRUST", the next level of crtypo-currency will have to be addressing the issue of MONOPOLY, Satoshi in his orginal PAPER simply 'assumed' that TRUST would be present in the NERD population, but sadly not all nerds use their brain or the heart, some only use their dicks. My argument is not only must BTC 2.0 be REAL P2P, but it also must prevent anyone from having more than 0.01%, which means that a real ID/DNA fingerprint will be probably required to implement it, nobody ever said this shit was going to be 'private'. USD ain't private either if you move it on computer they know, and if you touch it, they got your dna and fingerprints. When you get it from the ATM they got your mug photographed and most big-bills have RFID, so they can track it,.." Wed, 04/09/2014 - 01:31 | 4638311 james.connollySatoshi's premise of BTC 1.0 was that no person or club, would ever have more than 51%, that was broken early on, and the MINERS always maintained +60% control, so essentially the BTC 1.0 as envisioned was broken from 2010 all the way til present. Then you had Mt-Gox with +60% of ingress/egress under control, and that was just the frosting on the cake to kill bitcoin. The ONLY way to ensure trust is to have an anti-monopoly model, where nobody can have a monopoly. A PURE P2P model can also solve this problem. The MORAL of BTC 1.0 is that EXCHANGES MUST DIE, and MINER's MUST DIE, MT-GOX essentially self destructed on that level, now its time to see some miners 'suicide'. Of course also BTC 2.0 should contained NO Encryption endorsed by the NSA, which means it needs to be PGP-8192 something that the NSA hates with a passion."
|
|
|
|
|
klee
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1498
Merit: 1000
|
|
April 09, 2014, 09:12:33 PM |
|
Very communistic PoV  |
|
|
|
|
klee
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1498
Merit: 1000
|
|
April 09, 2014, 09:15:43 PM |
|
Regarding the altcoin article: The underlying premise of liquidity is ok, but the altcoins are already dead in terms of marketcap. Their market cap is so tiny that it's not even funny - with the exception of Litecoin. So it is already factored into their price, it's not some kind of revelation.
Another issue is that he supposes all altcoins will act in the same liquid way and that they are competing in the same "there can be only one" space. An anonymous coin for example does not "go" in the same category for it serves a different purpose that the transparent coins cannot handle.
When you have an anonymous coin, the monopoly of the transparent market is broken and a new option is presented to the people on how to conduct their payments. Do you want to pay with your visa (so that the government can see what you bought) or use cash? So there are two different needs, covered by two different types of coins.
Supposing a 10bn BTC market cap, if just 1% of the transparent market chooses the emerging option of anonymity => that could translate to 100mn market cap. There is serious potential there. Will Bitcoin cover the anonymity/privacy needs of its user base? Nope because they want government approval. And the government needs Bitcoin's cooperation to tax the hell out of owners.
If the government requests, say, 30% of capital gains, then by the very mechanism of taxation, people will need to liquidate their BTCs to pay the government. So they create a destructive loop for the price of BTC where people need to cash it all the time, pressuring the price downwards. They can't do that with an anonymous coin that they can't control.
|
|
|
|
|
|
twiifm
|
|
April 09, 2014, 09:30:36 PM |
|
Given the reality of FIAT-FAUX (USD & wannabe's), why not have a PEOPLES FIAT, where nobody can be a billionaires, and people can exchange internationally, as even those in live in the jungle need to trade with city folk and vice versa.
Why not allow the user create currency ex nihilo like how Central Banks do it. That way the currency is worthless and people would only create it temporarily in order to engage in trade Lets say I've got pies that I wanna trade for socks. But the sock guy don't need pies. But lets say there is an electronic exchange w order books w people with things to trade for something else. The exchange would match up all the trades necessary for all transactions to come full circle. Each trader generates some amount of currency (credit for their goods) then the exchange looks for trades to match up the orders. Then the orders are executed all at once and each user ends up with a coupon for what they need and gives a coupon redeemable for exchange of hard goods. In essence each user is issuing currency but only redeemable in assets that they can back. So I issue my pie note convertible for 1 pie. Sock guy issues sock note convertible to 1 pair of socks. The exchange has to find all the orders so that there is no excess currency in the system. All balance sheets close to zero after the orders are complete. The currency itself is ephemeral and not worth anything. No value ever so only the backing asset has intrinsic value. I'm just toying w the idea conceptually as a mental exercise. Probably in practice it would require too much energy compared to centrally controlled currency |
|
|
|
|
tromp
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 978
Merit: 1087
|
|
April 09, 2014, 11:13:50 PM
Last edit: April 10, 2014, 02:35:59 AM by tromp |
|
However, making a cpu-only algorithm has escaped all those who tried, as far as I know. I have studied many algorithms that attempted to accomplish this and they all fail in some way. The closest I found was the Cuckoo Cycle by tromp. The problem it has it that it only requires memory. And memory can be scaled along with a lower cost processor cores such as the Atom or a custom ASIC that has a DRAM interface for each processing core. Cuckoo Cycle is really only GPU resistant. Also the Cuckoo Cycle white paper admits it is runs faster on multiple threads, even if slightly sublinear when doing so, thus the specialized Tilera CPUs for servers should kick ass on the cpus we use on our computers on a hash rate per $ and per Watt basis. Also I am not confident that some algorithm couldn't subvert the Cuckoo Cycle hash because it is ordered setup. For example, I envisioned using bit strings in place of empty memory locations.
It was in fact subverted in exactly that way! See https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=405483.40The latest algorithm has an edge-trimming filter that uses a bitvector to record which edges cannot be part of a cycle. As such there are no "empty memory locations" at this stage. It gets by with 21x times less memory, and 4x more hashing, at roughly the same speed as before. Maybe you can stop calling it a memory-only coin... |
|
|
|
|
|
AnonyMint (OP)
|
|
April 09, 2014, 11:57:34 PM |
|
So what kind of scale are we looking at for transactions per second if micro-transactions are really going to become viable? You say orders of magnitude greater than the current transactions we see via Visa, so what are we talking about here exactly?
And is such scaling and speed really viable on chain in a future coin (without the need for miners to conglomerate into a few large pools)?
I have some ideas not yet written down on that the key on scaling is a protocol for the way pools can cooperate to contain both the orphan rate and the transaction scaling. I believe this is the way to reduce transaction delay to less than a minute (perhaps lower than 30 seconds) and also scale volume by orders-of-magnitude. Remember one of my assertions is we must have a mechanism to keep pools small enough size that they can't easily collude to do evil. Just to get some concept of how many micro payments might occur over the web, 4 billion youtube videos are watched per day. That is roughly 50,000 per second. Once you put the decentralized micro payment paradigm out there to compete with the advertizing (i.e. spam!) funded website model, I believe it will skyrocket beyond all fathomable calculations due to the NxN scaling of networks as I explained upthread in the discussion of Reed's (Metcalfe's) Law. alxs, I am not ignoring you, just a wait a bit for your answer while I catch up on a few unstated matters. |
|
|
|
vokain
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1834
Merit: 1019
|
|
April 10, 2014, 12:02:11 AM |
|
AnonyMint, what do you make of this? http://www.infowars.com/intel-ceo-refuses-to-answer-questions-on-whether-nsa-can-access-processors/"Last Summer, shortly after the Snowden leaks began to escalate, Steve Blank, recognized as one of Silicon Valleys leading experts, noted that he firmly believed NSA has backdoor access into Intel and AMD chips. He noted how the leaks highlighted how backdoor “hacking” is the NSA’s go to technique because it is much easier than trying to crack encryption." |
|
|
|
|
|
AnonyMint (OP)
|
|
April 10, 2014, 12:13:56 AM
Last edit: April 10, 2014, 12:30:54 AM by AnonyMint |
|
However, making a cpu-only algorithm has escaped all those who tried, as far as I know. I have studied many algorithms that attempted to accomplish this and they all fail in some way. The closest I found was the Cuckoo Cycle by tromp. The problem it has it that it only requires memory. And memory can be scaled along with a lower cost processor cores such as the Atom or a custom ASIC that has a DRAM interface for each processing core. Cuckoo Cycle is really only GPU resistant. Also the Cuckoo Cycle white paper admits it is runs faster on multiple threads, even if slightly sublinear when doing so, thus the specialized Tilera CPUs for servers should kick ass on the cpus we use on our computers on a hash rate per $ and per Watt basis. Also I am not confident that some algorithm couldn't subvert the Cuckoo Cycle hash because it is ordered setup. For example, I envisioned using bit strings in place of empty memory locations.
It was in fact subverted in exactly that way! See https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=405483.40Ah I see Dave mentions using a 'bitvector': http://da-data.blogspot.com/2014/03/a-public-review-of-cuckoo-cycle.htmlGood to see confirmation that my analytical capabilities are still in touch with reality. The latest algorithm has an edge-trimming filter that uses a bitvector
to record which edges cannot be part of a cycle.
As such there are no "empty memory locations" at this stage.
It gets by with 21x times less memory, and 16x more hashing,
at roughly the same speed as before.
Maybe you can stop calling it a memory-only coin...
If you've raised the computational load relative to memory latency bound, then you've made it more computationally costly, but still that doesn't necessarily defend against an ASIC. The most important question is it still parallelizable (multiple threads on same memory) even if slightly sublinear? If yes, then some economy-of-scale can be applied to outperform personal computer CPUs per Watt at least, if not also per hardware $. Even if no longer parallelizable, this might still be true (as you know ASICs can be more power efficient than CPUs because they are dedicated circuits) Btw, your design helped me refine my design, not because they are at all similar, but because by analyzing yours I was able to more coherently conceptualize mine in a unified analytical framework. Will open source my white paper soon so you can analyze mine. As you've noted, the significant advantage of your design is the asymmetrical execution time of calculating versus verification. Yours is the fastest verifying hash (relative to finding a block or pool share) I've seen proposed for proof-of-work. That probably means your hash has applications where verification cost is critical. Perhaps it should be proposed for Bitmessage. Also thanks for introducing me to Cuckoo hashing. Might be able to apply that to my programming work. |
|
|
|
|
AnonyMint (OP)
|
|
April 10, 2014, 12:37:16 AM
Last edit: April 10, 2014, 01:03:09 AM by AnonyMint |
|
Given the reality of FIAT-FAUX (USD & wannabe's), why not have a PEOPLES FIAT, where nobody can be a billionaires, and people can exchange internationally, as even those in live in the jungle need to trade with city folk and vice versa.
Why not allow the user create currency ex nihilo like how Central Banks do it. That way the currency is worthless and people would only create it temporarily in order to engage in trade Lets say I've got pies that I wanna trade for socks. But the sock guy don't need pies. But lets say there is an electronic exchange w order books w people with things to trade for something else. The exchange would match up all the trades necessary for all transactions to come full circle. Each trader generates some amount of currency (credit for their goods) then the exchange looks for trades to match up the orders. Then the orders are executed all at once and each user ends up with a coupon for what they need and gives a coupon redeemable for exchange of hard goods. In essence each user is issuing currency but only redeemable in assets that they can back. So I issue my pie note convertible for 1 pie. Sock guy issues sock note convertible to 1 pair of socks. The exchange has to find all the orders so that there is no excess currency in the system. All balance sheets close to zero after the orders are complete. The currency itself is ephemeral and not worth anything. No value ever so only the backing asset has intrinsic value. I'm just toying w the idea conceptually as a mental exercise. Probably in practice it would require too much energy compared to centrally controlled currency The fundamental disadvantage is the generative model is money requires spontaneous (ephemeral) trade-weighted matching backing of money. Thus we lose timing degrees-of-freedom which was the point of money in the first place. Generalizing Gresham's Law to its more generative essence tells us that money with the least friction will displace all other forms of money. I am referring to the autonomy of money. In summary, the value of autonomy and decentralization is it scales by N x N (where there are N users) in the network according to Reed's and Metcalfe's Laws. |
|
|
|
|
AnonyMint (OP)
|
|
April 10, 2014, 12:54:04 AM
Last edit: April 10, 2014, 01:23:39 AM by AnonyMint |
|
And this is one of the reasons why I say I don't want to trust some public ceremony to generate global cryptographic setup parameters for Zerocash, because we can't be sure the computer is doing what our open source code says it should be doing. And for Zerocash we have no way to measure whether we succeeded, because the anonymity is so extreme there is no way to measure the money supply. We will always be running on faith only. Btw, I am thinking about ways that Zerocoin technology could be modified (but I can't do everything simultaneously and have to stay focused). There is even research showing a computer can be controlled remotely and even when is it turned off. Google search will help you find the information. Ken Thompson's Trusting Trust, pointed out it is even possible to covertly infect the compiler into producing an output program which has malware embedded, even though the original open source code did not. It is much more difficult (impossible probably) for the NSA to attack every one of our computers individually. Thus I prefer technology where the creation of cryptographic trapdoors (i.e. our private key) is done billions of times on individual computers distributed throughout the world, and not depending on the security of global parameters. Thus I think as long as we don't use global cryptographic parameters (i.e. not Zerocash) and each of us has a dedicated computer for issuing our anonymous transactions and often reformats the hard disk and reinstalls the operating system (and reflash the BIOS on your motherboard), or for simplification buy a new computer every year or several months, then I don't think realistically the NSA can't target all those computers. For micro payments where we aren't paranoid, the masses can simply use their existing computer. Hopefully we the people will gain the upper hand economically and then we will open source the CPU designs and fabs, to get the covertness out of out foundational computation layers. I wonder what effect could a CPU coin have if it has too much value in the CPU industry, are we to expect Intel and AMD for example to withhold fresher iterations of their CPUs for private mining, or charge much higher, or the opposite way getting preorders that will fund their research at a faster rate?
If ever the coin has that much power, the coin can buyout Intel. I mean the home miners can all go buy Intel stock and vote for change in Directors. If we get to that point, we already won. There would be so much social change already. I don't think I am omniscient enough to predict all of the possible scenarios. Radical change is enough for me. Let's see where society takes it. |
|
|
|
tromp
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 978
Merit: 1087
|
|
April 10, 2014, 01:17:23 AM |
|
The most important question is it still parallelizable (multiple threads on same memory) even if slightly sublinear? If yes, then some economy-of-scale can be applied to outperform personal computer CPUs per Watt at least, if not also per hardware $. Even if no longer parallelizable, this might still be true (as you know ASICs can be more power efficient than CPUs because they are dedicated circuits)
It parallellizes well upto 20 threads at least. Haven't tested the new version on anything with more than 20 cores. I expect memory will be saturated before reaching 100 threads. A cuckoo ASIC will be a vastly simplifed manycore cpu. It will do away with the need for virtual memory support, page tables, and big caches (which the current implementation uses just to reduce page faults). It will attach to a bunch of memory chips, but just load and write 32 or 64 bit words rather than whole cachelines. It will have a siphash instruction, and no floating point support. It will be tiny and cheap, a small fraction of the price of the memory it needs. But it won't be all that much faster or cheaper than some similar construction of commodity parts, considering how manycore cpus will become popular soon. Also thanks for introducing me to Cuckoo hashing. Might be able to apply that to my programming work.
Cuckoo Hashing is great for where simplicity is key and you don't need to achieve high loads. For better locality and high loads I think you can't beat Hopscotch hashing... |
|
|
|
|
|
AnonyMint (OP)
|
|
April 10, 2014, 01:35:20 AM
Last edit: July 24, 2014, 11:27:43 PM by AnonyMint |
|
And pleeeassseee don't use Windows 8 as it calls home and is porously backdoored. If you must use Windows, please Windows XP SP3 (or if you must then Windows Vista but I trust it less). Much better Linux.
For Windows XP, after installation go to the Control Panel, select Administrative Tools, then Services, then right-click Automatic Updates, select Stop from popup menu. Right-click Auto Updates, select Properties from popup menu. Then choose Startup type = Disabled. Also click the Windows Firewall icon at the right side of the bottom taskbar, and make sure Automatic Updates is really off.
Also click Start menu at left side of the bottom taskbar of your computer, then Run.... Then type "msconfig" and press Enter. Click the Startup tab, then remove any programs you don't want to run automatically at startup (such as that pesky Google Update which spies on you).
You can still obtain a copy of Windows XP SP3 and also there is a crack just search for "Anti_WPA__XP___Vista_.exe" that enables you to avoid registering it with Microsoft's website and such that you don't need a unique serial number. I am not advocating piracy, just informing you what exists and hopefully you only apply that patch to a legitimate copy of Windows that you purchased.
Spread this information please, but please don't quote my pseudonym.
I highly recommend automatic disk imaging restore software such as Deep Freeze or Baseline Shield which resets your computer to virgin on every reboot (other than any rootkit virus that might have got in during your session). Does anyone know of similar software for Linux? (Edit: yes look up Ofris)
|
|
|
|
|
AnonyMint (OP)
|
|
April 10, 2014, 01:57:46 AM
Last edit: April 10, 2014, 03:27:35 AM by AnonyMint |
|
But it won't be all that much faster or cheaper than some similar
construction of commodity parts, considering how manycore cpus will become popular soon.
If the main per hardware $ cost is memory, then the more threads the lower the cost. Since an ASIC can discard unneeded generality, it should support more threads. Since memory latency bound is not consuming much electricity, the main electrical load comes from the computation of the hashes, thus ASICs due to their dedicated circuits should be per Watt more efficient than manycore CPUs. The simpler the CPU cores, e.g. AMD's business model, the less per Watt advantage an ASIC would have. And the more and the simpler the CPU cores the less per hardware $ advantage. However, I believe Intel's more complex CPU cores model is winning on the desktop which is what matters now because last time I checked even mobile devices didn't have more than 4 CPU cores. For mobile computing, the requirement is power efficiency. Thus the simpler and more CPU cores model may win. Thus your Cuckoo Cycle may become the correct choice in the future for making sure proof-of-work on a mainstream device is not at a disadvantage to economies-of-scale, ASICs, nor GPUs. I urge you to measure and determine if there is an asymptotic limit to the parallel threads, so we can determine at what point your hash becomes the superior choice. Perhaps you can only do this with a simulation, unless you can get your hands on a Tilera CPU but which currently top out at 72 cores. P.S. to the extent your work is used in crypto-currency, I believe you will be monetarily rewarded. You put considerable effort into Cuckoo Cycle hash, including providing test results in your whitepaper. I believe it is essential to maximize breadth of development contribution in crypto-currency. As of today, per my citations upthread the USA may have spent as much as $4 trillion unaccounted black budget on covert goals. Hopefully we can get $4 trillion spent on open source goals and hopefully apportioned via decentralized decision making. I'm pushing 50 next year, blind in one eye, moderately (not debilitatingly) suffering from slowly progressive systemic illness (unknown if curable) which causes Chronic Fatigue Syndrome every nth day or so ( n ranging from roughly 3 to 14), so to any extent at all that I am a defacto leader, I would be working to share development effort and offload it to the younger guys as much as makes sense. I urge leaders to do the same. |
|
|
|
tromp
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 978
Merit: 1087
|
|
April 10, 2014, 03:26:46 AM |
|
But it won't be all that much faster or cheaper than some similar
construction of commodity parts, considering how manycore cpus will become popular soon.
If the main per hardware $ cost is memory, then the more threads the lower the cost. Since an ASIC can discard unneeded generality, it should support more threads. The asic could have thousands of cores. But a chip can only have a few 100 IO pins, of which each memory interface needs at least 32. So you'd be limited to running at most, say, 16 Cuckoo instances, each only needing 32 cores to saturate their memory interface. Since memory latency bound is not consuming much electricity, the main electrical load comes from the computation of the hashes, thus ASICs due to their dedicated circuits should be per Watt more efficient than manycore CPUs.
Memory chips run at about 1W each, I think. That's 1W per Gbit. A cuckoo instance (512MB) would take 4W, which I think is already more than the 32 super-simple cores would need. So I disagree with you on where the power mostly goes. For mobile computing, the requirement is power efficiency. Thus the simpler and more CPU cores model may win. Thus your Cuckoo Cycle may become the correct choice in the future for making sure proof-of-work on a mainstream device is not at a disadvantage to economies-of-scale, ASICs, nor GPUs. I urge you to measure and determine if there is an asymptotic limit to the parallel threads, so we can determine at what point your hash becomes the superior choice. Perhaps you can only do this with a simulation, unless you can get your hands on a Tilera CPU but which currently top out at 72 cores.
I would love to bench Cuckoo Cycle on either a Xeon Phi, a dual 15-core Xeon, or a TILE-Gx processor. All are rather hard to find in the wild though (I had acces to a Phi, but it kept crashing on my code:() PS: I corrected the hashing overhead in the new algorithm from 16x to 4x since it only hashes edges which survive the filtering in each round. I measured the fraction of runtime spent NOT accessing main memory (mostly hashing) as 32.5 % So it's still latency dominated, just not as extremely as before (where it was 5% vs 95%) I would be working to share development effort and offload it to the younger guys as much as makes sense.
I'm fast approaching 50 myself:-( |
|
|
|
|
|
AnonyMint (OP)
|
|
April 10, 2014, 03:39:35 AM
Last edit: April 10, 2014, 05:00:39 AM by AnonyMint |
|
But it won't be all that much faster or cheaper than some similar
construction of commodity parts, considering how manycore cpus will become popular soon.
If the main per hardware $ cost is memory, then the more threads the lower the cost. Since an ASIC can discard unneeded generality, it should support more threads. The asic could have thousands of cores. But a chip can only have a few 100 IO pins, of which each memory interface needs at least 32. Perhaps multiplexing. Slow memory latency bound means we don't need very fast transient response. So you'd be limited to running at most, say, 16 Cuckoo instances, each only needing 32 cores to saturate their memory interface.
What is the justification for memory interface saturated at 32 cores? Since memory latency bound is not consuming much electricity, the main electrical load comes from the computation of the hashes, thus ASICs due to their dedicated circuits should be per Watt more efficient than manycore CPUs.
Memory chips run at about 1W each, I think. That's 1W per Gbit. A cuckoo instance (512MB) would take 4W, which I think is already more than the 32 super-simple cores would need. So I disagree with you on where the power mostly goes. Tilera cores are 400mW, so 12.8W for 32 cores. That might be load dependent though. Are ARM or Atom CPUs more efficient? DDR4 main memory is coming next year bringing claimed 40% improved energy efficiency. For mobile computing, the requirement is power efficiency. Thus the simpler and more CPU cores model may win. Thus your Cuckoo Cycle may become the correct choice in the future for making sure proof-of-work on a mainstream device is not at a disadvantage to economies-of-scale, ASICs, nor GPUs. I urge you to measure and determine if there is an asymptotic limit to the parallel threads, so we can determine at what point your hash becomes the superior choice. Perhaps you can only do this with a simulation, unless you can get your hands on a Tilera CPU but which currently top out at 72 cores.
I would love to bench Cuckoo Cycle on either a Xeon Phi, a dual 15-core Xeon, or a TILE-Gx processor. All are rather hard to find in the wild though (I had acces to a Phi, but it kept crashing on my code:() PS: I corrected the hashing overhead in the new algorithm from 16x to 4x since it only hashes edges which survive the filtering in each round. I measured the fraction of runtime spent NOT accessing main memory (mostly hashing) as 32.5 % So it's still latency dominated, just not as extremely as before (where it was 5% vs 95%) Hopefully the community can arrange to provide to you access to a TILE-Gx now or in near future. I'm fast approaching 50 myself:-(
I didn't guess it based on your photos. Explains why you are very knowledge though. Experience. "I still look like a teenager" (yeah right, we keep such delusions as we get older). |
|
|
|
|
AnonyMint (OP)
|
|
April 10, 2014, 04:19:33 AM |
|
I wish the "No" (likely BTC) voters would post in the thread and tell us why.
Haven't seen any reasonable logic yet to support why the OP is wrong. Maybe there is some?
|
|
|
|
|
AnonyMint (OP)
|
|
April 10, 2014, 05:04:21 AM
Last edit: April 10, 2014, 05:51:53 AM by AnonyMint |
|
Me thinks the Winklevoss twins either don't understand or ignore technological details. I don't think Bitcoin can scale to micro transactions and still fund mining with transaction fees because I argued upthread that transaction fees are a Tragedy of the Commons. The transaction fees can only be controlled well via centralized control, but then how do we stop that central control from being captured and then milking the economy for parasitic rent. http://www.investopedia.com/articles/active-trading/040814/winklevoss-bitcoin-payment-system-worth-400-billion.aspSo, how did the Winklevoss twins come up with their $400 billion estimate, which Tyler Winklevoss says is just “a starting point” for what it may ultimately be worth? The $400 billion estimate, he explains in an interview, is not its value as an alternative currency. Instead, it is based entirely on the ability of the digital currency to provide near zero cost transactions across the world, from the least developed to the most developed nation, from the tiniest micropayment to the largest, while its encryption and tracking of all existing coins eliminates the cost of fraud from the transaction. |
|
|
|
|
AnonyMint (OP)
|
|
April 10, 2014, 05:39:18 AM |
|
So much going on. Adam Back and some Bitcoin core developers are throwing their hat into the "let's improve Bitcoin" arena: http://letstalkbitcoin.com/blockchain-2-0-let-a-thousand-chains-blossom/Problem with this idea is it can't innovate mining because it is merge-mined with Bitcoin, which is the crux of the problem with Bitcoin. Have fun Adam. Sorry you are not going to be able to save Bitcoin, nor restrict crypto-coins to 21 million. Your goals are flawed. |
|
|
|
|
Siegfried
|
|
April 10, 2014, 05:59:41 AM |
|
So much going on. Adam Back and some Bitcoin core developers are throwing their hat into the "let's improve Bitcoin" arena: http://letstalkbitcoin.com/blockchain-2-0-let-a-thousand-chains-blossom/Problem with this idea is it can't innovate mining because it is merge-mined with Bitcoin, which is the crux of the problem with Bitcoin. Have fun Adam. Sorry you are not going to be able to save Bitcoin, nor restrict crypto-coins to 21 million. Your goals are flawed. I came to this thread to ask your opinion about that, but you just said it. Nothing personal, but I hope you are wrong. I would like to see you carry on a debate about this "sidechain" concept with someone very knowledgeable. |
|
|
|
|
|
AnonyMint (OP)
|
|
April 10, 2014, 06:57:40 AM
Last edit: April 10, 2014, 08:52:10 AM by AnonyMint |
|
Siegfried, I understand it isn't personal. Some (probably many or most?) don't want a proliferation of crypto-coin supply, because they think this will diminish the value of crypto-currency. I don't have time for more debates. Besides none of those guys are interested in debating with me. And much better we not debate and each attempt to prove our points in the market pronto.
Vociferation: Currency is not a heirloom, hold gold (or silver) for that purpose when you need it. Remember money generates no income and will always fall behind production in return of investment. Warren Buffet is correct on that point. I think that is an incorrect understanding of macroeconomics and money. They ignore Gresham's Law. The purpose of currency was never as a very strict store-of-value, rather to facilitate trade by removing the mismatch friction between barter-in-kind. I explained in great detail, that reasonable rates of decentralized debasement of the money supply is not deleterious for the productive people. Decentralized debasement actually can dilute the lazy large capitalists who intend to capture everything by riding stored capital, and productively transfer that capital in a competitive proof-of-work to the more productive knowledge capital producers. This is done at a very gradual rate so that money still retains a store-of-value quality as well. Bitcoin's debasement rate has been very high in recent years and still going at 11% per annum, yet the price appreciated due to influx of adoption. There is not going to be dozens of very successful crapaltcoins, i.e. coin supply will not spiral out-of-control. The market will end up with one, two, or maybe three top tier coins. Make sure you pick the best horse to ride. Study carefully the attributes of your horse. The only way to fund security of proof-of-work without the Tragedy of Commons of transaction fees, is perpetual debasement. What is the fair amount to pay for security of our money? 2.5%? 5%? (per annum) Consider we pay it to ourselves with a cpu-only coin, because we mine on a level playing field. Consider all the losses we incur due to not having a secure, decentralized money. It far outstrips even 10% per annum. Think of all the BS government is doing all propped up by central banking. All the unnecesary wars we've funded by not having decentralized, well secured, untaxable money. It is economically impossible for a government or King to make a war if they can't tax to fund it. USA Government has grown from 10% of the GDP before 1913 creation of central banking, to probably north of 70% when all regulatory aspects are considered. Europe is even worse. Before central banking in the 1800s depressions were frequent and quickly over with. USA had a depression in 1919, but it was over in 2 years, because there was no central bank to backstop and prevent the defaults. Since we've had central banking, debt has grown to what the IMF admits is a 200 year high at $223 trillion in total global debt, with a $quadrillion ($1000 trillion) of derivatives to prop it up, and another $quadrillion of unfunded social liabilities from developed nation governments. It is collective insanity. I think 2 - 5% paid to ourselves is a very excellent win-win design decision. And it coincides with gold's debasement rate. And for those who say the supply of gold is finite, I already won that debate against bitfreak!. In the following quoted post which comes from upthread, I had written about the need for perpetual debasement to fund mining (because transactions fees is broken design for several reasons): The upside is a 0 transaction fees design is a very attractive feature for consumers and merchants. And with a cpu-only coin, the debasement is going right back to the users of the coin any way. And it enables such a coin to be obtained autonomously without any other party nor exchange necessary. Even Bitcoin is being debased by 11% annually now. Of course exchanges should still be available, but they should P2P decentralized. No more Mt.Gox! In addition to the explanation at the above link inside the above quote, perpetual debasement is not a problem if there are no taxes as follows. http://armstrongeconomics.com/2014/04/05/lagarde-part-ii/Increasing the money supply will NOT be inflationary when you are offsetting that by raising taxes. If the total money supply is $1,000 and I tax you 20% leaving you $800, increasing the money supply at $1,500 and raising taxes to 50% is still deflationary for you end up with less – $750. Absolutely everything is balanced. This is why the cause and effect scenarios fail every time – it is a bell curve in everything. Armstrong forgets to make the point that increasing the money supply can increase the general price level causing income, capital gains, and VAT taxes to be higher, while there no net gain in purchasing power.
Thus increasing the money supply even while holding taxes constant, actually eats purchasing power. Whereas increasing money supply with no taxes at all, would not harm purchasing power.
[snip]
Transactions fees turn off the free market. I propose to fix it by saying an altcoin should make transaction fees 0, fund mining from perpetual new coins, and control transaction spam another way...
Upthread I explained in great detail why perpetual debasement (new coins) is very desirable from every possible consideration. Goldbugs need to read my explanation so they can break out of their incorrect macroeconomic understanding.
[snip]
Make transaction fees 0, fund from perpetual debasement, and contemplate a design to prevent pools from growing too large.
|
|
|
|
|
RAJSALLIN
|
|
April 10, 2014, 07:57:08 AM |
|
After reading this thread and a few of the links provided by Anonymint it really struck me how important not only anonymity is but also the fact that the next generation crypto should be cpu only plus zero transaction fees. The point of mining being slightly -EV but still a highly valuable feature since it allows everyone to convert fiat to crypto without any third party involved was a heureka moment for me. It's just an amazingly simple but yet extremely important feature. Not only would it solve the exchange/trust problem of bitcoin but it would also greatly facilitate the adoption of the masses.
|
|
|
|
|
AnonyMint (OP)
|
|
April 10, 2014, 09:01:27 AM
Last edit: April 10, 2014, 09:19:45 AM by AnonyMint |
|
> We eat food, not bytes, and we have physical
> needs, therefore tangible assets will never
> become worthless Fact: iron was a precious metal Fact: commodities are on a 2000 year decline in price Read the thread for the facts. Knowledge is growing in relative value. Facts don't lie. A grain of sand isn't worthless, but for all practical purposes it is. Meaning tangible things can become relatively devalued to the point where they are essentially worthless. Through enhanced knowledge tangible things can become nearly limitless (i.e. robots build robots who build tangible things), while knowledge is not fungible. Not every person has every great insight. |
|
|
|
crypty
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 3
Merit: 0
|
|
April 10, 2014, 09:04:42 AM |
|
I explained in great detail, that reasonable rates of decentralized debasement of the money supply is not deleterious for the productive people. Decentralized debasement actually can dilute the lazy large capitalists who intend to capture everything by riding stored capital, and productively transfer that capital in a competitive proof-of-work to the more productive knowledge capital producers. This is done at a very gradual rate so that money still retains a store-of-value quality as well. Bitcoin's debasement rate has been very high in recent years and still going at 11% per annum, yet the price appreciated due to influx of adoption. Would you mind explaining to a noob like me how Bitcoin is debased? Thx |
|
|
|
|
|
AnonyMint (OP)
|
|
April 10, 2014, 09:14:07 AM
Last edit: April 10, 2014, 09:31:44 AM by AnonyMint |
|
I explained in great detail, that reasonable rates of decentralized debasement of the money supply is not deleterious for the productive people. Decentralized debasement actually can dilute the lazy large capitalists who intend to capture everything by riding stored capital, and productively transfer that capital in a competitive proof-of-work to the more productive knowledge capital producers. This is done at a very gradual rate so that money still retains a store-of-value quality as well. Bitcoin's debasement rate has been very high in recent years and still going at 11% per annum, yet the price appreciated due to influx of adoption. Would you mind explaining to a noob like me how Bitcoin is debased? Thx 2017 End BTC supply 15750000 - 2013 Start BTC supply 10500000 = 5250000 5250000 ÷ 2013 Start BTC supply 10500000 = 0.5, i.e. 50% increase in BTC supply in 4 years. 5250000 ÷ 4 ÷ 2013 Start BTC supply 10500000 = 0.125, i.e. 12.5% increase in BTC supply in 2013. 5250000 ÷ 4 ÷ (5250000 ÷ 4 + 2013 Start BTC supply 10500000) = 0.111, i.e. 11.1% increase in BTC supply in 2014. 5250000 ÷ 4 ÷ (2 x 5250000 ÷ 4 + 2013 Start BTC supply 10500000) = 0.100, i.e. 10.0% increase in BTC supply in 2015. 5250000 ÷ 4 ÷ (3 x 5250000 ÷ 4 + 2013 Start BTC supply 10500000) = 0.091, i.e. 9.1% increase in BTC supply in 2016. Notice in Bitcoin the new coin production schedule is designed such that rate of increase is declining and the total supply is designed to never exceed 21 million BTC coins. However, IMO that is myopic because the mining is already centralized and if the government takes over, there is no limit to what they might do with the protocol. I argued that more upthread or in the past, where I said once the masses dominate the coin userbase, they really don't care as long as they get their debt and Walmart goodies. |
|
|
|
trainingsengineering
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 12
Merit: 0
|
|
April 10, 2014, 10:37:18 AM |
|
> We eat food, not bytes, and we have physical
> needs, therefore tangible assets will never
> become worthless Fact: iron was a precious metal Fact: commodities are on a 2000 year decline in price Read the thread for the facts. Knowledge is growing in relative value. Facts don't lie. A grain of sand isn't worthless, but for all practical purposes it is. Meaning tangible things can become relatively devalued to the point where they are essentially worthless. Through enhanced knowledge tangible things can become nearly limitless (i.e. robots build robots who build tangible things), while knowledge is not fungible. Not every person has every great insight. I think many people overlooked that you wrote trending towards zero in another post, and not zero, which is a important distinction. |
|
|
|
|
|
Siegfried
|
|
April 10, 2014, 10:54:01 AM |
|
I explained in great detail, that reasonable rates of decentralized debasement of the money supply is not deleterious for the productive people. Decentralized debasement actually can dilute the lazy large capitalists who intend to capture everything by riding stored capital, and productively transfer that capital in a competitive proof-of-work to the more productive knowledge capital producers. This is done at a very gradual rate so that money still retains a store-of-value quality as well. Bitcoin's debasement rate has been very high in recent years and still going at 11% per annum, yet the price appreciated due to influx of adoption. Would you mind explaining to a noob like me how Bitcoin is debased? Thx 2017 End BTC supply 15750000 - 2013 Start BTC supply 10500000 = 5250000 5250000 ÷ 2013 Start BTC supply 10500000 = 0.5, i.e. 50% increase in BTC supply in 4 years. 5250000 ÷ 4 ÷ 2013 Start BTC supply 10500000 = 0.125, i.e. 12.5% increase in BTC supply in 2013. 5250000 ÷ 4 ÷ (5250000 ÷ 4 + 2013 Start BTC supply 10500000) = 0.111, i.e. 11.1% increase in BTC supply in 2014. 5250000 ÷ 4 ÷ (2 x 5250000 ÷ 4 + 2013 Start BTC supply 10500000) = 0.100, i.e. 10.0% increase in BTC supply in 2015. 5250000 ÷ 4 ÷ (3 x 5250000 ÷ 4 + 2013 Start BTC supply 10500000) = 0.091, i.e. 9.1% increase in BTC supply in 2016. Notice in Bitcoin the new coin production schedule is designed such that rate of increase is declining and the total supply is designed to never exceed 21 million BTC coins. However, IMO that is myopic because the mining is already centralized and if the government takes over, there is no limit to what they might do with the protocol. I argued that more upthread or in the past, where I said once the masses dominate the coin userbase, they really don't care as long as they get their debt and Walmart goodies. Bitcoin mining is global. If somehow the government took over the major miners in the United States and forced them to change the protocol, wouldn't that just create a forked coin which people could choose not to use and instead keep using the real Bitcoin which is still mined throughout the rest of world and by smaller miners in the United States? For your scenario to play out, a total government takeover of the Internet (far more severe than the Great Firewall) and well as blanket observation and control of all commerce would be required. Even if it were technically possible for this regime to carry out this kind of extreme totalitarianism, I do not think it has the political capital and economic resources to do it. Nor do I think they are stupid enough to try. Power will adapt to Bitcoin, not destroy it. |
|
|
|
|
goin2mars
Member
Offline
Activity: 112
Merit: 10
|
|
April 10, 2014, 11:08:44 AM |
|
The point I want to make with these photos, is notice even the ladies have stopped wearing their shorts and blue jeans and are adopting expensive clothing. This is in a third world country!
[snip]
What you see below is central bank QE ZIRP carry trade, pumping massive amount of debt into the developing world.
[snip]
Thank you for helping me to refine this point in my mind into a something that I would undoubtedly come to use. I was having trouble linking quite a few conclusions i see everywhere with presumptions I've held for a long time, and though I have had the idea put in front of me many times . . this one seemed to drive it in quite well. This thread moves faster than my capacity to take in all the sourced links and shared insights, but I hope to be able to catch up with the discussion soon enough when I can get more time. |
|
|
|
|
|
alxs
|
|
April 10, 2014, 11:21:02 AM
Last edit: April 10, 2014, 11:58:41 AM by alxs |
|
alxs, I am not ignoring you, just a wait a bit for your answer while I catch up on a few unstated matters.
You made some bold unsubstantiated statements in public and I am asking if you intend to back them up, if so, when, April 15th? |
|
|
|
|
goin2mars
Member
Offline
Activity: 112
Merit: 10
|
|
April 10, 2014, 12:09:06 PM |
|
Time to learn how to use TOR anyone know of a good guide on how to set this up?
You mean browser? A great start is just downloading it. It's actually pretty friendly to use. You can take it much further, but in the very least just using the browser takes less than 5 mintues to see some great differences. |
|
|
|
|
tromp
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 978
Merit: 1087
|
|
April 10, 2014, 01:14:18 PM |
|
Perhaps multiplexing. Slow memory latency bound means we don't need very fast transient response.
Yes, multiplexing should be quite possible. So you might fit over a thousand cores on a chip, and run over 32 instances. What is the justification for memory interface saturated at 32 cores?
These cores do siphash in hardware, and have vastly simpler control logic, so they generate the memory requests much faster than x86 cpus. The number could be quite a bit less than 32. If you can get it down to a single thread, then that itself brings further simplifications. Tilera cores are 400mW, so 12.8W for 32 cores. That might be load dependent though. Are ARM or Atom CPUs more efficient?
Roughly comparable. Intel's spark is another step up in efficiency, but is not competitive in performance. Hopefully the community can arrange to provide to you access to a TILE-Gx now or in near future.
My best odds would be to write the company and try to get them interested in running the benchmark themselves, as possible promotional material. But considering Cuckoo Cycle hasn't been adopted yet, I doubt they want to invest any effort. |
|
|
|
|
|
AnonyMint (OP)
|
|
April 10, 2014, 01:20:24 PM
Last edit: April 10, 2014, 02:12:53 PM by AnonyMint |
|
alxs, I am not ignoring you, just a wait a bit for your answer while I catch up on a few unstated matters.
You made some bold unsubstantiated statements in public and I am asking if you intend to back them up, if so, when, April 15th? You have no idea how difficult it is for one man to answer posts here, as well as get any serious work done. If you actually tried to do what I am doing, you would realize how overloaded I am. Sorry I can't just jump when you say jump. I told you that you would know at the appropriate time. I am not into vaporware. I understand you want to make decisions or know it is going on, but even if I told you everything about everything I know, you still wouldn't know everything about what everyone else is doing which I don't know about. You sort of pressured me upthread into making some statements (and I didn't want others to feel despair or think that Darkcoin or Zerocash are the only options) that I didn't really want to make publicly at that time. I understand you, but you don't understand me. Please be patient. I don't dislike you don't feel animosity from me there is none. You just didn't understand whereas others got the point without me having to say it, that I will not put my name as the most important developer of any anonymous altcoin that destroys the government. I think if you were in my position, I don't think you would want to end up like this. You talk about these powerful conspiracies but then you act towards me as if you don't believe that a $trillionairie can't have any person exterminated any where in the world if it is important enough. Or perhaps you just didn't think it out. Hope you can understand now that vagueness is intentional and necessary. Answering relevant design points and responding to clarify technology is a very high priority for me (for reasons I will not elaborate on). |
|
|
|
|
AnonyMint (OP)
|
|
April 10, 2014, 01:27:49 PM
Last edit: April 10, 2014, 02:24:34 PM by AnonyMint |
|
After reading this thread and a few of the links provided by Anonymint it really struck me how important not only anonymity is but also the fact that the next generation crypto should be cpu only plus zero transaction fees. The point of mining being slightly -EV but still a highly valuable feature since it allows everyone to convert fiat to crypto without any third party involved was a heureka moment for me. It's just an amazingly simple but yet extremely important feature. Not only would it solve the exchange/trust problem of bitcoin but it would also greatly facilitate the adoption of the masses.
Note I think the EV will actually be higher with perpetual debasement, because mining has to be paid for even if you pay for it with transaction fees instead. But then not only does that design create the Tragedy of the Commons I asserted upthead (see my reply to vokain), but also it charges the security to the commerce sector which you need the most to expand in order to increase the value of the coin. Tinfoil hat investors shoot themselves in the foot with their myopic selfish greed. It starts with goldbugs not understanding what money is and not understanding basic facts about macroeconomics. Gold has never been the only money in the economy. It was always fractional reserve or coin shaving/impurities debased. Even the 1800s and the East Roman Byzantine empire were not exceptions. I was a silverbug before, so I understand very well the psychology. I am hoping some people can figure this out rationally now that I have explained it. P.S. I still think precious metals have a role to play, e.g. they are a hedge against chaotic outcomes, and I will own some. But they can't be the daily currency. Impossible. The high tech knowledge economy would implode and we would go into a Dark Age if these gold and silverbug hoarders (stackers) had their way. The velocity of money would fall into the abyss. Gold goes very high when there is chaos in the government and society. This coincides with a collapse in the velocity of money because investors are fearful and hoard capital (or a runaway hyperinflation in the case of a totally debased government that can't even sell its own bonds, which never happens with the reserve currency). And even gold's global above ground supply is debased by increasing physical supply from mining a couple of percent per year. P.S.S. I hope enough people own gold in some sort of standardized form that we can do decentralized exchange with physical meetups to trade between crypto-currency and gold. I wish the community could decide on some standard form of gold that is easy to trade without assay. And some easy test for tungsten fakes. Gold is a very compact, durable, autonomous way to physically store value without external risk. Crypto-currency has external risk because it depends on a global ledger, potentially technology with lurking bugs, and on internet communication. Don't ask me what silver's role is now. I have no idea now, as my view has changed so much now that I see silver can't be a daily currency any more. I suppose silver is still undervalued relative to gold. I certainly thought so in the past. Silver is a high technology metal due to it being best electrical, thermal conductor, most reflective, acoustical properties, second most extrudable, etc.. But typically used only in very small amounts in such applications. Perhaps silver is headed to be very valuable in the high knowledge economy. |
|
|
|
|
AnonyMint (OP)
|
|
April 10, 2014, 02:29:23 PM |
|
[snip]
Notice in Bitcoin the new coin production schedule is designed such that rate of increase is declining and the total supply is designed to never exceed 21 million BTC coins. However, IMO that is myopic because the mining is already centralized and if the government takes over, there is no limit to what they might do with the protocol. I argued that more upthread or in the past, where I said once the masses dominate the coin userbase, they really don't care as long as they get their debt and Walmart goodies.
Bitcoin mining is global. If somehow the government took over the major miners in the United States and forced them to change the protocol, wouldn't that just create a forked coin which people could choose not to use and instead keep using the real Bitcoin which is still mined throughout the rest of world and by smaller miners in the United States? For your scenario to play out, a total government takeover of the Internet (far more severe than the Great Firewall) and well as blanket observation and control of all commerce would be required. Even if it were technically possible for this regime to carry out this kind of extreme totalitarianism, I do not think it has the political capital and economic resources to do it. Nor do I think they are stupid enough to try. Power will adapt to Bitcoin, not destroy it. Circle CEO apparently disagrees and says the G20 will cooperate. I have also provided citations upthread about G20 declarations on their plans to cooperate. Two or three pools control > 50% of the hash rate. That isn't the entire internet. That is only three businesses that have to be raided. The masses won't care. Who is going to support your fork? You won't even have a majority of mining hash rate. As for individual miners switching to another pool upon that event, note one miner in East Washington had already 6 - 7% of the total Bitcoin network hash rate and is aiming to reach 10%. ASICs concentrate mining power and this will continue to get worse. |
|
|
|
|
RAJSALLIN
|
|
April 10, 2014, 02:34:12 PM |
|
As long as the net EV is slightly negative it will prevent "professional" mining cartels to form.
When it comes to gold all in all I agree with you. Gold and silver backed currencies are a thing of the past. The only theory in which gold could possibly have an economic role in the future is the freegold theory of "Another". Although there are some serious faults in that theory as well imo. Gold has held it's value for thousands of years though but to see it re-taking a role as a medium of exchange is stretching it.
Silver does have a much larger industrial side and then there is also the fact that a lot of above ground silver is deposited in dumps so the current stock is fairly limited. Although I personally think that if silver prices started touching base with the silver bug dreamers it wouldn't take long before traditional mining companies started staking land fills. Mining old electronics has got to yield ratios in the XXg/t at least in which a high enough price and they would automatically become profitable to mine. It's not like the element silver is going to be extinct on this earth like some bugs seem to believe. But yes the industrial applications of silver does make it fairly interesting.
|
|
|
|
|
alxs
|
|
April 10, 2014, 05:11:40 PM
Last edit: April 10, 2014, 07:37:15 PM by alxs |
|
You have no idea how difficult it is for one man to answer posts here, as well as get any serious work done...
You are absolutely correct, yet again...I apologize and feel bad (i may elaborate/expand on this reply in next day or so. In other words, grovel more...haha) edit: I am haunted by the totalitarian nightmare that exists today and suicidal? (not best choice of word or meaning but gets point across) picturing "If you want a vision of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face - forever. George Orwell" So am desperately seeking "hope" So again apologize for pressure. I will say flatly, not to be "fanboi" you have given me "hope" but I had "hope" with Obama so am easily fooled and a sucker. (I have a wonderful life and family, 'suicidal' is a metaphor...'depressed' is to weak...'haunted' is accurate)No need for anyone to respond to this post. I am just revealing myself and thoughts to the NSA. |
|
|
|
|
AlexGR
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1708
Merit: 1049
|
|
April 10, 2014, 05:46:31 PM |
|
P.S.S. I hope enough people own gold in some sort of standardized form that we can do decentralized exchange with physical meetups to trade between crypto-currency and gold. I wish the community could decide on some standard form of gold that is easy to trade without assay. And some easy test for tungsten fakes. Gold is a very compact, durable, autonomous way to physically store value without external risk. Crypto-currency has external risk because it depends on a global ledger, potentially technology with lurking bugs, and on internet communication.
Gold bullion coins should be adequate. There are some plastic devices that check diameter, thickness, weight etc. Something like that: http://www.goldcoinbalance.com/And even gold's global above ground supply is debased by increasing physical supply from mining a couple of percent per year.
In case price levels go to 7-10-15k USD / 1oz, we might see production (=more debasement) going up by 2-3-5x. It would be economically feasible to mine land that is now in the "non profitable" spectrum. There's too much land for additional supply when the prices rise. |
|
|
|
|
|
pungopete468
|
|
April 10, 2014, 07:27:58 PM |
|
The biggest problem with gold is the confiscation...
The powers that mismanaged our economy will expect us to work as slaves to repay this debt they've created. The taxes will be insane; as if they weren't already...
If you can't accumulate wealth anonymously then it will be taxed (legally yet unlawfully seized). No doubt the national welfare state will be expanded to place a crutch under the problem that they are perpetuating.
Gold isn't safe.
I live in the US and can't speak for other countries; the people living in the United States need a contingency plan. Should the government become oppressive, inadequate, or unnecessary, the people need to be willing and capable of abolishing and reforming. The value of life and liberty have been taken for granted and now the probability of losing both appears greater than ever before. IfWhen the financial system collapses, the government will collapse with it; like the grand finale of a great illusion it will suddenly be different than it was before. Once the curtain is pulled there will be no chance for non-violent change. *Boot-meet-face-forever*
We have a responsibility to protect those we love. The importance of what we do in the spirit of life, liberty, and love is always greater than the personal cost; especially when the cost of action might be your own life. If you have children you'll understand this...
There is no greater torture in the world than watching your children suffer. Unless the prevailing winds change; we will find ourselves in a world where each of us living today will suffer the despair of watching our loved ones transition from servants of this system to slaves of this system...
|
|
|
|
|
|
.
..1xBit.com Super Six.. | ▄█████████████▄
████████████▀▀▀
█████████████▄
█████████▌▀████
██████████ ▀██
██████████▌ ▀
████████████▄▄
███████████████
███████████████
███████████████
███████████████
███████████████
▀██████████████ | ███████████████
█████████████▀
█████▀▀
███▀ ▄███ ▄
██▄▄████▌ ▄█
████████
████████▌
█████████ ▐█
██████████ ▐█
███████▀▀ ▄██
███▀ ▄▄▄█████
███ ▄██████████
███████████████ | ███████████████
███████████████
███████████████
███████████████
███████████████
███████████▀▀▀█
██████████
███████████▄▄▄█
███████████████
███████████████
███████████████
███████████████
███████████████ | ▄█████
▄██████
▄███████
▄████████
▄█████████
▄██████████
▄███████████
▄████████████
▄█████████████
▄██████████████
▀▀███████████
▀▀███████
▀▀██▀ | ▄▄██▌
▄▄███████
█████████▀
▄██▄▄▀▀██▀▀
▄██████ ▄▄▄
███████ ▄█▄ ▄
▀██████ █ ▀█
▀▀▀ ▄ ▀▄▄█▀
▄▄█████▄ ▀▀▀
▀████████
▀█████▀ ████
▀▀▀ █████
█████ | ▄ █▄▄ █ ▄
▀▄██▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
▀ ▄▄█████▄█▄▄
▄ ▄███▀ ▀▀ ▀▀▄
▄██▄███▄ ▀▀▀▀▄ ▄▄
▄████████▄▄▄▄▄█▄▄▄██
████████████▀▀ █ ▐█
██████████████▄ ▄▄▀██▄██
▐██████████████ ▄███
████▀████████████▄███▀
▀█▀ ▐█████████████▀
▐████████████▀
▀█████▀▀▀ █▀ | .
Premier League
LaLiga
Serie A | .
Bundesliga
Ligue 1
Primeira Liga | | .
..TAKE PART.. |
|
|
|
|
alxs
|
|
April 10, 2014, 07:50:41 PM
Last edit: April 10, 2014, 08:13:14 PM by alxs |
|
The powers that mismanaged our economy will expect us to work as slaves to repay this debt they've created. The taxes will be insane; as if they weren't already...We have a responsibility to protect those we love. The importance of what we do in the spirit of life, liberty, and love is always greater than the personal cost; especially when the cost of action might be your own life. If you have children you'll understand this...
There is no greater torture in the world than watching your children suffer. Unless the prevailing winds change; we will find ourselves in a world where each of us living today will suffer the despair of watching our loved ones transition from servants of this system to slaves of this system...
(edited) Very well said. My thoughts exactly except we are already slaves of this system. The question is how do we free ourselves and I have yet to see that answer.Thinking more about your post, distinction between servants and slaves is accurate so i retract my own statement above. Have to think about this some more. Servant vs Slave... |
|
|
|
|
|
pungopete468
|
|
April 10, 2014, 08:15:06 PM |
|
We are living right on the borderline between servitude and slavery.
The difference is the opportunity for change. We have enough power left that we could make a non-violent change. The creation of an alternate financial instrument is exertion of that power to some extent...
The moment that our cooperation is no longer required is the moment it will no longer be voluntary.
Once the system collapses things will change; the line will be crossed and we will be segregated into the demographic of either slaves or criminals. The system has been primed already, most of us are criminalized by egregious and unenforced laws. The difference will not be as much in the law as it will be in the enforcement abuse of those laws...
|
|
|
|
|
|
.
..1xBit.com Super Six.. | ▄█████████████▄
████████████▀▀▀
█████████████▄
█████████▌▀████
██████████ ▀██
██████████▌ ▀
████████████▄▄
███████████████
███████████████
███████████████
███████████████
███████████████
▀██████████████ | ███████████████
█████████████▀
█████▀▀
███▀ ▄███ ▄
██▄▄████▌ ▄█
████████
████████▌
█████████ ▐█
██████████ ▐█
███████▀▀ ▄██
███▀ ▄▄▄█████
███ ▄██████████
███████████████ | ███████████████
███████████████
███████████████
███████████████
███████████████
███████████▀▀▀█
██████████
███████████▄▄▄█
███████████████
███████████████
███████████████
███████████████
███████████████ | ▄█████
▄██████
▄███████
▄████████
▄█████████
▄██████████
▄███████████
▄████████████
▄█████████████
▄██████████████
▀▀███████████
▀▀███████
▀▀██▀ | ▄▄██▌
▄▄███████
█████████▀
▄██▄▄▀▀██▀▀
▄██████ ▄▄▄
███████ ▄█▄ ▄
▀██████ █ ▀█
▀▀▀ ▄ ▀▄▄█▀
▄▄█████▄ ▀▀▀
▀████████
▀█████▀ ████
▀▀▀ █████
█████ | ▄ █▄▄ █ ▄
▀▄██▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
▀ ▄▄█████▄█▄▄
▄ ▄███▀ ▀▀ ▀▀▄
▄██▄███▄ ▀▀▀▀▄ ▄▄
▄████████▄▄▄▄▄█▄▄▄██
████████████▀▀ █ ▐█
██████████████▄ ▄▄▀██▄██
▐██████████████ ▄███
████▀████████████▄███▀
▀█▀ ▐█████████████▀
▐████████████▀
▀█████▀▀▀ █▀ | .
Premier League
LaLiga
Serie A | .
Bundesliga
Ligue 1
Primeira Liga | | .
..TAKE PART.. |
|
|
|
|
alxs
|
|
April 10, 2014, 08:35:47 PM |
|
We are living right on the borderline between servitude and slavery...
You are absolutely correct and accurate in every point stated. My feeble mind is still trying to decide if we are servants or slaves today....So you are a few steps ahead of me... |
|
|
|
|
|
AnonyMint (OP)
|
|
April 11, 2014, 12:26:46 AM
Last edit: April 11, 2014, 02:18:18 AM by AnonyMint |
|
edit: I am haunted by the totalitarian nightmare that exists today and suicidal? (not best choice of word or meaning but gets point across)
I am sure you realize this, but that is why I urged upthread that we not go further into conspiracy theories, because some of have theorized that Alex Jones is actually a tool of the elite to cause us to be so consumed by noise and our emotions, that we aren't able to calm down and react rationally. It is very unlikely that the formerly lurking now budding totalitarianism can win. The only question now is how far down the rat hole can we go before we the people win. Stoic (typically a consistent quality of men, typically women only if their children are in immediate danger, exceptions of course), resolute, methodical, reasoned, and open sourced action will achieve the goal we seek. |
|
|
|
|
pungopete468
|
|
April 11, 2014, 12:48:28 AM |
|
edit: I am haunted by the totalitarian nightmare that exists today and suicidal? (not best choice of word or meaning but gets point across)
I am sure you realize this, but that is why I urged upthread that we not go further into conspiracy theories, because some of have theorized that Alex Jones is actually a tool of the elite to cause us to be so consumed by noise and our emotions, that we aren't able to calm down and react rationally. It is very unlikely that the nascent totalitarianism can win. The only question now is how far down the rat hole can we go before we the people win. Resolute, methodical, reasoned, and open sourced action will achieve the goal we seek. I agree 100% that the people will eventually win. The knowledge is out; the old paradigm that the elites are wet-dreaming about won't self-sustain anymore. The question is how long will it take and how many casualties will the people suffer? There has never been a shortage of jack-boots willing to support tyranny/oppression... I hope that as a society we can break away from the dependency before the system collapses on top of us. The risk of dependency is just too great under this form of financial system. I hope we can change it before it mutates... I'm still following this thread even when I don't contribute. We have some very good content in here. |
|
|
|
|
|
.
..1xBit.com Super Six.. | ▄█████████████▄
████████████▀▀▀
█████████████▄
█████████▌▀████
██████████ ▀██
██████████▌ ▀
████████████▄▄
███████████████
███████████████
███████████████
███████████████
███████████████
▀██████████████ | ███████████████
█████████████▀
█████▀▀
███▀ ▄███ ▄
██▄▄████▌ ▄█
████████
████████▌
█████████ ▐█
██████████ ▐█
███████▀▀ ▄██
███▀ ▄▄▄█████
███ ▄██████████
███████████████ | ███████████████
███████████████
███████████████
███████████████
███████████████
███████████▀▀▀█
██████████
███████████▄▄▄█
███████████████
███████████████
███████████████
███████████████
███████████████ | ▄█████
▄██████
▄███████
▄████████
▄█████████
▄██████████
▄███████████
▄████████████
▄█████████████
▄██████████████
▀▀███████████
▀▀███████
▀▀██▀ | ▄▄██▌
▄▄███████
█████████▀
▄██▄▄▀▀██▀▀
▄██████ ▄▄▄
███████ ▄█▄ ▄
▀██████ █ ▀█
▀▀▀ ▄ ▀▄▄█▀
▄▄█████▄ ▀▀▀
▀████████
▀█████▀ ████
▀▀▀ █████
█████ | ▄ █▄▄ █ ▄
▀▄██▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
▀ ▄▄█████▄█▄▄
▄ ▄███▀ ▀▀ ▀▀▄
▄██▄███▄ ▀▀▀▀▄ ▄▄
▄████████▄▄▄▄▄█▄▄▄██
████████████▀▀ █ ▐█
██████████████▄ ▄▄▀██▄██
▐██████████████ ▄███
████▀████████████▄███▀
▀█▀ ▐█████████████▀
▐████████████▀
▀█████▀▀▀ █▀ | .
Premier League
LaLiga
Serie A | .
Bundesliga
Ligue 1
Primeira Liga | | .
..TAKE PART.. |
|
|
|
bigtimespaghetti
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1652
Merit: 1057
bigtimespaghetti.com
|
|
April 11, 2014, 01:09:04 AM |
|
Some great points on using debasement to fund the network instead of tx fees. Always seemed strange to me to just assume that fees are the best way to go.
|
|
|
|
|
Siegfried
|
|
April 11, 2014, 02:12:09 AM |
|
[snip]
Notice in Bitcoin the new coin production schedule is designed such that rate of increase is declining and the total supply is designed to never exceed 21 million BTC coins. However, IMO that is myopic because the mining is already centralized and if the government takes over, there is no limit to what they might do with the protocol. I argued that more upthread or in the past, where I said once the masses dominate the coin userbase, they really don't care as long as they get their debt and Walmart goodies.
Bitcoin mining is global. If somehow the government took over the major miners in the United States and forced them to change the protocol, wouldn't that just create a forked coin which people could choose not to use and instead keep using the real Bitcoin which is still mined throughout the rest of world and by smaller miners in the United States? For your scenario to play out, a total government takeover of the Internet (far more severe than the Great Firewall) and well as blanket observation and control of all commerce would be required. Even if it were technically possible for this regime to carry out this kind of extreme totalitarianism, I do not think it has the political capital and economic resources to do it. Nor do I think they are stupid enough to try. Power will adapt to Bitcoin, not destroy it. Circle CEO apparently disagrees and says the G20 will cooperate. I have also provided citations upthread about G20 declarations on their plans to cooperate. Two or three pools control > 50% of the hash rate. That isn't the entire internet. That is only three businesses that have to be raided.
The masses won't care. Who is going to support your fork? You won't even have a majority of mining hash rate.As for individual miners switching to another pool upon that event, note one miner in East Washington had already 6 - 7% of the total Bitcoin network hash rate and is aiming to reach 10%. ASICs concentrate mining power and this will continue to get worse. The one that is modified by government mandate to issue additional coins and have white/blacklists would be the fork, even if it has more hashing power, not the original Bitcoin protocol. Why do you think everyone would adopt the government-mutilated fork? People can still use Litecoin and Dogecoin even though they have less hashing power. In those cases, they are the clones; in the case you describe, the government version, even with more hashing power, would be the massively inferior imitator. |
|
|
|
|
|
AnonyMint (OP)
|
|
April 11, 2014, 02:23:32 AM
Last edit: April 11, 2014, 05:09:54 AM by AnonyMint |
|
[snip]
Notice in Bitcoin the new coin production schedule is designed such that rate of increase is declining and the total supply is designed to never exceed 21 million BTC coins. However, IMO that is myopic because the mining is already centralized and if the government takes over, there is no limit to what they might do with the protocol. I argued that more upthread or in the past, where I said once the masses dominate the coin userbase, they really don't care as long as they get their debt and Walmart goodies.
Bitcoin mining is global. If somehow the government took over the major miners in the United States and forced them to change the protocol, wouldn't that just create a forked coin which people could choose not to use and instead keep using the real Bitcoin which is still mined throughout the rest of world and by smaller miners in the United States? For your scenario to play out, a total government takeover of the Internet (far more severe than the Great Firewall) and well as blanket observation and control of all commerce would be required. Even if it were technically possible for this regime to carry out this kind of extreme totalitarianism, I do not think it has the political capital and economic resources to do it. Nor do I think they are stupid enough to try. Power will adapt to Bitcoin, not destroy it. Circle CEO apparently disagrees and says the G20 will cooperate. I have also provided citations upthread about G20 declarations on their plans to cooperate. Two or three pools control > 50% of the hash rate. That isn't the entire internet. That is only three businesses that have to be raided.
The masses won't care. Who is going to support your fork? You won't even have a majority of mining hash rate.As for individual miners switching to another pool upon that event, note one miner in East Washington had already 6 - 7% of the total Bitcoin network hash rate and is aiming to reach 10%. ASICs concentrate mining power and this will continue to get worse. The one that is modified by government mandate to issue additional coins and have white/blacklists would be the fork, even if it has more hashing power, not the original Bitcoin protocol. Why do you think everyone would adopt the government-mutilated fork? People can still use Litecoin and Dogecoin even though they have less hashing power. In those cases, they are the clones; in the case you describe, the government version, even with more hashing power, would be the massively inferior imitator. Because the masses don't care. They shop at websites, not via a downloadable Bitcoin client. The Amazons, Walmarts, etc.. will follow the government's regulation to send transactions only through regulated pools. The smaller retailers follow because they dependent on the larger ones and/or fearful of government enforcement, and the larger ones follow because they are the multinationals who benefit from their symbiotic control over the government. I had made this point in great detail at the Transactions Withholding Attack. It is not surprising to me that the Bitcoin diehards refused to accept my point. You are free to think I am wrong, and even try to succinctly refute my point here. But let's please not repeat ad nauseum that entire debate again in this thread. I don't have time and it will muck up this thread with too much extraneous tangential discussion. That thread is still open to debate it further there. I would prefer to keep this thread more high-level in scope so that it is digestible. I think the following point about 'dependency' applies to my point about the masses above. I hope that as a society we can break away from the dependency before the system collapses on top of us. The risk of dependency is just too great under this form of financial system. I hope we can change it before it mutates...
Note the system is going to collapse, and that can be either a rejuvenation or a hell hole. I was talking to my mother and said "didn't you say my grandfather walked around with a basket of potatoes on his head during the Great Depression?". She retorted, "no, he formed a trucking company and put people to work". It was FDR's New Deal that paid people to walk on the crops and use spoons to dig canals, that retarded the rebound. You can see France's Hollande and Obama creating the same sort of big government, big brother non-solutions that FDR and Hitler did. You will see that Hitler had himself filmed with the youth by his side, and Obama tries to portray himself as a defender of the youth. But in fact these tyrants destroyed the youth. There is 60% youth unemployment in some countries in Europe. Armstrong says 50% of the youth want to leave France to find opportunity. The student loan problem in the USA is huge and going to put the youth in debt slavery for life, so we need to forgive allsome that debt. http://armstrongeconomics.com/2013/01/22/why-do-politicians-always-surround-themselves-with-children/   Note some claim Hitler thought he was fighting the international bankers for the betterment of the Aryan racial supremacy (perhaps that was an element of his megalomaniac delusion which allowed him to justify his other actions ... is it no wonder he became a reclusive, drug addict). http://www.rense.com/general50/itle.htmhttp://wakeupfromyourslumber.com/node/6720Some refute that. http://realcurrencies.wordpress.com/2013/09/16/hitlers-finances-and-the-myth-of-nazi-anti-usury-activism/http://mises.org/daily/5765http://german.about.com/library/blgermyth08.htmWhat were those economic policies? He suspended the gold standard, embarked on huge public-works programs like autobahns, protected industry from foreign competition, expanded credit, instituted jobs programs, bullied the private sector on prices and production decisions, vastly expanded the military, enforced capital controls, instituted family planning, penalized smoking, brought about national healthcare and unemployment insurance, imposed education standards, and eventually ran huge deficits. The Nazi interventionist program was essential to the regime's rejection of the market economy and its embrace of socialism in one country. Armstrong has a blog post today which portrays the changing role of police, as I am sure all of us are very aware of in the USA at least. http://armstrongeconomics.com/2014/04/10/economist-asks-police-or-soldiers/  |
|
|
|
|
Siegfried
|
|
April 11, 2014, 03:05:33 AM |
|
[snip]
Notice in Bitcoin the new coin production schedule is designed such that rate of increase is declining and the total supply is designed to never exceed 21 million BTC coins. However, IMO that is myopic because the mining is already centralized and if the government takes over, there is no limit to what they might do with the protocol. I argued that more upthread or in the past, where I said once the masses dominate the coin userbase, they really don't care as long as they get their debt and Walmart goodies.
Bitcoin mining is global. If somehow the government took over the major miners in the United States and forced them to change the protocol, wouldn't that just create a forked coin which people could choose not to use and instead keep using the real Bitcoin which is still mined throughout the rest of world and by smaller miners in the United States? For your scenario to play out, a total government takeover of the Internet (far more severe than the Great Firewall) and well as blanket observation and control of all commerce would be required. Even if it were technically possible for this regime to carry out this kind of extreme totalitarianism, I do not think it has the political capital and economic resources to do it. Nor do I think they are stupid enough to try. Power will adapt to Bitcoin, not destroy it. Circle CEO apparently disagrees and says the G20 will cooperate. I have also provided citations upthread about G20 declarations on their plans to cooperate. Two or three pools control > 50% of the hash rate. That isn't the entire internet. That is only three businesses that have to be raided.
The masses won't care. Who is going to support your fork? You won't even have a majority of mining hash rate.As for individual miners switching to another pool upon that event, note one miner in East Washington had already 6 - 7% of the total Bitcoin network hash rate and is aiming to reach 10%. ASICs concentrate mining power and this will continue to get worse. The one that is modified by government mandate to issue additional coins and have white/blacklists would be the fork, even if it has more hashing power, not the original Bitcoin protocol. Why do you think everyone would adopt the government-mutilated fork? People can still use Litecoin and Dogecoin even though they have less hashing power. In those cases, they are the clones; in the case you describe, the government version, even with more hashing power, would be the massively inferior imitator. Because the masses don't care. They shop at websites, not via a downloadable Bitcoin client. The Amazons, Walmarts, etc.. will follow the government's regulation to send transactions only through regulated pools. I had made this point in great detail at the Transactions Withholding Attack. It is not surprising to me that the Bitcoin diehards refused to accept my point. You are free to think I am wrong, and even try to succinctly refute my point here. But let's please not repeat ad nauseum that entire debate again in this thread. I don't have time and it will muck up this thread with too much extraneous tangential discussion. That thread is still open to debate it further there. I would prefer to keep this thread more high-level in scope so that it is digestible. I think the following point about 'dependency' applies to my point about the masses above. I hope that as a society we can break away from the dependency before the system collapses on top of us. The risk of dependency is just too great under this form of financial system. I hope we can change it before it mutates...
I do not refuse to accept your point. Your predictions may very well come true, but I think that it is not a certainty as you make it seem. Unlike China, the United States actually has to pass regulations through a legislative process. I am well aware of the government's disregard for the Constitution, but public opinion does carry some weight. Congress's approval rating is 10 percent, Obama is despise by more than half the country, and the Federal Reserve/Goldman/Morgan is justifiably reviled by powerful elements on the left and the right. How will the government sell the idea that an amazing new free-market technology that is generating jobs, innovation, and wealth should be taken over by the hated banking sector? Imagine if the government tried to legislate that Tesla be taken over by GM, or that Netflix be taken over by Blockbuster. |
|
|
|
|
|
AnonyMint (OP)
|
|
April 11, 2014, 03:17:13 AM |
|
I am encouraged to note that others may come forward soon to take on the public aspect of role that I am not willing to take on being a lead developer on an anonymous altcoin.
|
|
|
|
|
AnonyMint (OP)
|
|
April 11, 2014, 03:24:10 AM |
|
[snip] Hopefully the community can arrange to provide to you access to a TILE-Gx now or in near future.
My best odds would be to write the company and try to get them interested in running the benchmark themselves, as possible promotional material. But considering Cuckoo Cycle hasn't been adopted yet, I doubt they want to invest any effort. There are a lot of resources in this community. I will come back to this. Have other priorities at the moment. |
|
|
|
|
AnonyMint (OP)
|
|
April 11, 2014, 05:14:10 AM |
|
The student loan problem in the USA is huge and going to put the youth in debt slavery for life, so we need to forgive allsome that debt.
Note the correction to my prior irresponsible statement. No one should be completely absolved of their responsibility else no one learns to be responsible. There need to be consequences, just not debt slavery for life. Typically 7 years (Jubilee) is the max allowed in the Bible for slavery, then you must have allowed and encouraged your slave to work him/herself out of the hole and be prepared to be a responsible member of society. Slavery should be an honorable duty to help than to exploit. Many people went back to school to avoid the prospect of being unemployed and are living off the massive student loans. My ex informed me she took out a $25,000 loan to go back to medtech school, and she told me the advisers told her that if ever she couldn't pay it, she wouldn't have to worry about it. Perhaps those advisers weren't paying attention when the USA changed the law several years ago making student loans ineligible for bankruptcy relief. I suppose there is means testing in bankruptcy court w.r.t. to extended payment programs for student loans, yet that means the debtor is a slave any way, because the debtor must be destitute and a judge is dictating the debtor's financial life. |
|
|
|
|
AnonyMint (OP)
|
|
April 11, 2014, 05:50:45 AM |
|
One final transgression in this thread about the speed of progression of the global collapse... The only countries in Europe which are not below 0.3% growth are Slovakia, Austria, Malta, Estonia, Germany, and Ireland. And most of those are below 1%. Several are already below 0%. And all are on a trajectory to fall below 0% by late next year. Europe looks like it is very close to erupting into contagion and chaos. Read also my prior post, the Russian sanctions should chase away Russian and Chinese capital ingress, that should be the final sliver of accumulated straw that breaks the European camel's back. http://www.bbc.com/news/business-13361934 |
|
|
|
goin2mars
Member
Offline
Activity: 112
Merit: 10
|
|
April 11, 2014, 06:26:33 AM
Last edit: April 11, 2014, 06:50:23 AM by goin2mars |
|
The student loan problem in the USA is huge and going to put the youth in debt slavery for life, so we need to forgive allsome that debt.
Note the correction to my prior irresponsible statement. No one should be completely absolved of their responsibility else no one learns to be responsible. There need to be consequences, just not debt slavery for life. Typically 7 years (Jubilee) is the max allowed in the Bible for slavery, then you must have allowed and encouraged your slave to work him/herself out of the hole and be prepared to be a responsible member of society. Slavery should be an honorable duty to help than to exploit. Many people went back to school to avoid the prospect of being unemployed and are living off the massive student loans. My ex informed me she took out a $25,000 loan to go back to medtech school, and she told me the advisers told her that if ever she couldn't pay it, she wouldn't have to worry about it. Perhaps those advisers weren't paying attention when the USA changed the law several years ago making student loans ineligible for bankruptcy relief. I suppose there is means testing in bankruptcy court w.r.t. to extended payment programs for student loans, yet that means the debtor is a slave any way, because the debtor must be destitute and a judge is dictating the debtor's financial life. Nice to see that you corrected it. I admit I should have a heavy bias toward leaving it uncorrected, but toward the end of it all . . a valuable service was provided and that needs to paid for somehow. Total forgiveness would only serve to dump those lost monies back into the hands of every tax payer (with the bulk of US education loans now being handled by the government, and their persistence after bankruptcy), which I could only see would serve to kill off education if the costs (both previous and future) remain unchecked. Forgiveness alone wouldn't be enough to prevent the situation from happening again. http://www.forbes.com/sites/specialfeatures/2013/08/07/how-the-college-debt-is-crippling-students-parents-and-the-economy/. More towards this . . who is going to ask or push for something like this? Going into education (USA is used for the examples), most of these people are complete idiots. Generally when they graduate, they are relatively intelligent (or at least now have the ability to become so) and have every hope in the world that everything will work out because they have a degree now. From that perspective, it would show a moral defeat to themselves if they were to change course and demand forgiveness on loans. One of the driving factors in their previous 4-5 years is undoubtedly that they are going to be able to pay back their expensive loans by getting an awesome job. From the alternative perspective, http://www.higheredinfo.org/dbrowser/?level=nation&mode=graph&state=0&submeasure=27 indicates that 45% don't graduate bachelors degrees within 6 years. This means the 45% of the 14.5 million enrolled (last year's info) aren't graduating or are taking on excessive debt. These same 7 million people will turn to more debt, like credit debt, to support themselves for the years until they either graduate or leave education. Who will tell this desperate group of people that their loans should be forgiven? How could you convince them, given the mindset achieved after seeing 55% of their peers graduating? From this perspective, they would seem like a sore loser to even ask for even a % of their loans forgiven. What I'm saying is that there seems to be significant barriers, more than what I provided for sure, for the people affected by this form of debt from actually moving toward trying to ask for less of it. How do you convince a slave that their shackles are too heavy, or their tethers too short, without getting them in the mindset that they shouldn't be wearing them at all? |
|
|
|
|
|
AnonyMint (OP)
|
|
April 11, 2014, 09:42:16 AM
Last edit: April 11, 2014, 09:55:42 AM by AnonyMint |
|
This is so pitiful, at least the hosts are entertaining. |
|
|
|
goin2mars
Member
Offline
Activity: 112
Merit: 10
|
|
April 11, 2014, 10:11:25 AM
Last edit: April 11, 2014, 11:18:16 AM by goin2mars |
|
This is so pitiful, at least the hosts are entertaining. I had seen that a few days ago, not sure where I saw the link in the first place though. The whole video is basically showing just how far the entire basis of the movement has slipped. Just seeing that video makes me think of all the backs that have been broken to get this where it is today. Sad indeed to see such a revolutionary concept being tied to a tree and embarrassingly beaten until it bleeds so freely. What was once thought of as the vessel to carry us into a new world has become nothing but a real world joke. It's very apparent, right now, that this is failing miserably. It's a toy with no more appeal to it than a common fad like a child's toy (note the adorable colors of the atm itself). This movement needs a new face, or someone needs to start standing their ground. Of course, how could you stand without the correct tools on which to base the movement? Afterthought: Given this video as an example, I'd love to see different ways of getting this currency traded for a dollar. Easy ways that don't require your ID's, hand print, and eye scan, DNA, first born, a notable percentage of your wealth in the will . . etc. Sadly, representing oneself as a currency trader/exchanger comes with inevitable regulations that can (and are currently) easily be adapted to ruin the sale due to preexisting regulations we've placed on ourselves. Focusing on how easily it can be done .. it would seem some form of representation would be required in order to prevent this from happening. Of course, the requirement for representation would only serve to centralize the idea of a decentralized currency. I think this is where many people are losing the concept. The basis of decentralization can only serve to clash with the world in which this was brought into. Naturally, the only outcome to this I see is to centralize the coin or decentralize the world. Right now the world is much bigger than the coin, so as a result videos like this will only continue to pop up. I guess I can understand, given that everyone's only trying to fit this into a world that makes sense to them. This is telling me that the concepts and fundamentals are being lost amongst the noise. One more edit: Looks like there might be hope, but it's still far off for some parts of the world. |
|
|
|
|
trainingsengineering
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 12
Merit: 0
|
|
April 11, 2014, 11:12:17 AM |
|
This is so pitiful, at least the hosts are entertaining. I had seen that a few days ago, not sure where I saw the link in the first place though. The whole video is basically showing just how far the entire basis of the movement has slipped. Just seeing that video makes me think of all the backs that have been broken to get this where it is today. Sad indeed to see such a revolutionary concept being tied to a tree and embarrassingly beaten until it bleeds so freely. What was once thought of as the vessel to carry us into a new world has become nothing but a real world joke. It's very apparent, right now, that this is failing miserably. It's a toy with no more appeal to it than a common fad like a child's toy (note the adorable colors of the atm itself). This movement needs a new face, or someone needs to start standing their ground. Of course, how could you stand without the correct tools on which to base the movement? Afterthought: Given this video as an example, I'd love to see different ways of getting this currency traded for a dollar. Easy ways that don't require your ID's, hand print, and eye scan, DNA, first born, a notable percentage of your wealth in the will . . etc. Sadly, representing oneself as a currency trader/exchanger comes with inevitable regulations that can (and are currently) easily be adapted to ruin the sale due to preexisting regulations we've placed on ourselves. Focusing on how easily it can be done .. it would seem some form of representation would be required in order to prevent this from happening. Of course, the requirement for representation would only serve to centralize the idea of a decentralized currency. I think this is where many people are losing the concept. The basis of decentralization can only serve to clash with the world in which this was brought into. Naturally, the only outcome to this I see is to centralize the coin or decentralize the world. Right now the world is much bigger than the coin, so as a result videos like this will only continue to pop up. I guess I can understand, given that everyone's only trying to fit this into a world that makes sense to them. This is telling me that the concepts and fundamentals are being lost amongst the noise. It is easier to play clown and ridicule than to understand. Just the way the pronounce bitcoin get on my nerves. I agree that the concepts and fundamentals are being lost amongst the noise. Indeed. |
|
|
|
|
goin2mars
Member
Offline
Activity: 112
Merit: 10
|
|
April 11, 2014, 11:45:09 AM |
|
It is easier to play clown and ridicule than to understand. Just the way the pronounce bitcoin get on my nerves. I agree that the concepts and fundamentals are being lost amongst the noise. Indeed.
These same reasons lead me to wonder the degree of insanity this goes to when I see entire marketing teams form for altcoins. They're all marketing to the world that's been laid out before them, rather than the one they want to see or create. They've hidden behind an ego that must be protected at all costs. It's a lack of true vision that I see, where the programmers have been beaten into punching keys on the keyboard, the investors sell short and long, the exchanges pick up the new daily hype at the drop of a hat, the miners struggle to run a program on their computer, the one-man markets take the money based on the demand, the consumer picks up a few more things they don't need and the dreamers are still sleeping. Everyone's just doing exactly what they're supposed to be doing, and that's what's coming to terrify me. Without a proper evolution into something new, we're left to be a revolution of squids in a sea of sharks. We're in the midst of what should be a coming total changeover to a new currency unit, and I hear not more than laughter at crickets. I'd love to be of more use than just offer some finger-slapping a keyboard, but what is there to do really? |
|
|
|
|
7thKingdom
Member
Offline
Activity: 107
Merit: 10
|
|
April 11, 2014, 02:49:22 PM |
|
[snip]
Notice in Bitcoin the new coin production schedule is designed such that rate of increase is declining and the total supply is designed to never exceed 21 million BTC coins. However, IMO that is myopic because the mining is already centralized and if the government takes over, there is no limit to what they might do with the protocol. I argued that more upthread or in the past, where I said once the masses dominate the coin userbase, they really don't care as long as they get their debt and Walmart goodies.
Bitcoin mining is global. If somehow the government took over the major miners in the United States and forced them to change the protocol, wouldn't that just create a forked coin which people could choose not to use and instead keep using the real Bitcoin which is still mined throughout the rest of world and by smaller miners in the United States? For your scenario to play out, a total government takeover of the Internet (far more severe than the Great Firewall) and well as blanket observation and control of all commerce would be required. Even if it were technically possible for this regime to carry out this kind of extreme totalitarianism, I do not think it has the political capital and economic resources to do it. Nor do I think they are stupid enough to try. Power will adapt to Bitcoin, not destroy it. Circle CEO apparently disagrees and says the G20 will cooperate. I have also provided citations upthread about G20 declarations on their plans to cooperate. Two or three pools control > 50% of the hash rate. That isn't the entire internet. That is only three businesses that have to be raided.
The masses won't care. Who is going to support your fork? You won't even have a majority of mining hash rate.As for individual miners switching to another pool upon that event, note one miner in East Washington had already 6 - 7% of the total Bitcoin network hash rate and is aiming to reach 10%. ASICs concentrate mining power and this will continue to get worse. The one that is modified by government mandate to issue additional coins and have white/blacklists would be the fork, even if it has more hashing power, not the original Bitcoin protocol. Why do you think everyone would adopt the government-mutilated fork? People can still use Litecoin and Dogecoin even though they have less hashing power. In those cases, they are the clones; in the case you describe, the government version, even with more hashing power, would be the massively inferior imitator. Because the masses don't care. They shop at websites, not via a downloadable Bitcoin client. The Amazons, Walmarts, etc.. will follow the government's regulation to send transactions only through regulated pools. The smaller retailers follow because they dependent on the larger ones and/or fearful of government enforcement, and the larger ones follow because they are the multinationals who benefit from their symbiotic control over the government. I think we all agree the masses don't care. Which is why, in order to avoid this situation, an alt cpu only coin is a necessary way to "opt out" of the current system and the downward spiral it is heading towards. That said, there will come a time in the future, when all this is behind us, that the masses will finally come around and adopt this decentralized "knowledge age" cpu coin. Maybe not a year or five years from now, but eventually. So what happens then, when the masses are all running there own little personal miners and contributing to the network? How are updates made and distributed to the network? If it is true that the masses either don't care or are too stupid to care, doesn't that again pose the same threat of having the masses unknowingly adopting code that goes against their own interests? They will ultimately still be the majority. How many people will update their clients without fully understanding what it is they're updating. How easily could something counterproductive towards our goals be distributed in this way, getting the majority to consent to it without even realizing or caring? While it would be harder to corrupt than bitcoin (which the masses will welcome with open arms when the time comes), it seems to me that there is still ultimately still a threat there simply because the masses will control the majority of the network. No, there won't be any one individual who can be corrupted, but combined, the ignorant and indifferent will still pose a threat, no? |
|
|
|
|
|
AnonyMint (OP)
|
|
April 11, 2014, 03:22:26 PM
Last edit: April 11, 2014, 03:42:47 PM by AnonyMint |
|
7thKingdom, I don't have all the answers for the distant future. Good to see that others are thinking deeply about the issues. I had also thought of that. However one major point is that to maintain anonymity, the users must not use centralized wallet services. So unless the desire for anonymity decreases, I think the recipients of payments are going to demand they be paid anonymously which is going to force the users to use the coin correctly. Also I already mentioned upthread the idea that pools should blacklist other pools which are not implementing the anonymity features. Seems to me nearly everyone will relish not paying taxes. I expect people will have some portion of their commerce that they declare and pay taxes on in order to justify their visible assets. This will give us a veto on government, voting by withholding funding instead of this futile "democracy" we have now. If your country is doing insane shit like making unnecessary war and water-boarding people, you withhold all funding. So this means taxes will only be well supported at a local level, because the broader the demographic, the more likely everyone has issues they don't agree to fund. Also I am positing about a new paradigm of individually owned knowledge and direct users-to-users knowledge trading, thus there shouldn't be any more Amazons, Walmarts, Bestbuys, etc.. There may be search engines and categorizing services that provide the same aggregation, but the sales should be direct. Note some Europeans countries apparently don't have those large chains, so they may not know what we refer to. I think the outcome will also depend on making decentralized websites a reality. There is a lot more work that needs to be done than just a crypto-currency. And these are the sort of things I would want to fund and be involved with technically (since I understand the technology I can play a major role). In any case, it will hopefully be very interesting to see what happens if such a coin materializes.
Disclaimer: I am not advocating that anyone break the law in their jurisdiction, nor providing any professional tax nor legal advice. I am merely discussing the theoretical and perhaps to be taken as hyperbole. Consult your own professional advisers. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
AnonyMint (OP)
|
|
April 11, 2014, 03:51:39 PM
Last edit: April 11, 2014, 04:03:09 PM by AnonyMint |
|
Any thought been made to creating an IRC type channel for further discussion on some of this?
I don't have the time for interactive discussion. Also I don't trust the anonymity. There is OTR, but still need to rely on Tor or VPN which I don't trust to be 100% reliably anonymous. Thus anything I won't say here, I also won't say in IRC. I refuted that emphatically upthread. I don't even take it seriously because it can't address mining (because all side coins are merge-mined with Bitcoin's existing mining) where the crux of the problems are. So much going on. Adam Back and some Bitcoin core developers are throwing their hat into the "let's improve Bitcoin" arena: http://letstalkbitcoin.com/blockchain-2-0-let-a-thousand-chains-blossom/Problem with this idea is it can't innovate mining because it is merge-mined with Bitcoin, which is the crux of the problem with Bitcoin. Have fun Adam. Sorry you are not going to be able to save Bitcoin, nor restrict crypto-coins to 21 million. Your goals are flawed. |
|
|
|
rdnkjdi
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1256
Merit: 1009
|
|
April 11, 2014, 04:02:21 PM |
|
Ah - how'd I miss that.
My mention of IRC was really more of a veiled suggestion that there are things I won't say here. That I would be willing to on something that at least attempted to anonymize or obscure communication. And if I'm in that boat - I am sure many more are who have much more to contribute than I do.
I am not half - or a quarter the conspiracy theorist that some of you are. But there are things I will not say here. If any governance monitoring anything bitcoin related. These forums have their full attention.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
AnonyMint (OP)
|
|
April 11, 2014, 05:22:45 PM
Last edit: April 11, 2014, 07:24:01 PM by AnonyMint |
|
Hi RAJSALLIN and other Swiss readers, what were you saying about not having worry there in Switzerland? I hope you guys realize you need the serious features I've outlined, and you need someone who can actually implement it. There are altcoins out there that dropped the ball because they were designed by committee and then got into squabbles and squandered their amazing technological breakthrough. You've got to be serious about this. This is no joke. And none of these "wannabes" or "ivory tower proof-of-concepts" (for lack of a better term coming to mind) out there are going to get the job done. There are guys out there with high cryptography credentials, e.g. Adam Back who created Hashcash which is what Bitcoin's proof-of-work is based on. But Adam did not figure out the application of Hashcash to decentralized crypto-currency for years. Satoshi figured it out. Now Adam is off on a tangent of side coins for Bitcoin, which can't deal with the major issue because mining can't be innovated in his approach. There are groups out there with interesting cryptographic technology, but they don't have the single-minded determination and resolve to get all the features done. Then you have developers such as Evan who is making Darkcoin, who have that drive and single-minded resolve, but may not have the level of insight to pull off what is needed. This shit is really F.U.B.A.R. out-of-control: http://armstrongeconomics.com/2014/04/11/socialism-at-its-best-how-to-destroy-the-wealth-of-a-nation/You know there is tax competition amongst states and cities in Switzerland which lead to great results once in terms of efficiency and therefore attracting people to take their families and move to states with lower taxation. Often quite outside of the metropoles so also helping to populate remote parts of the country.
Of course, one day the traditional high tax states got jealous, amongst them the state of Bern with the capitol and politicians there. So they introduced a new system of taxing all states and allocating the tax income of efficient states to the inefficient ones, thereby turning the competitive Swiss tax system upside down.
As a result now for 2013, the state of “Schwyz”, according to all statistics one of the states with lowest expenses for administration, with a fully balanced budget, and highly attractive for many “rich” families, turned into the state with the highest deficit per capita – precisely to the amount which has to be allocated to other states..
The perversion is – the allocation is not based on real tax income – you would be able to manage – no, it is based on how high you COULD tax your citizens based on their wealth and income ! So, the more you attracted people with high income and assets in the past due to low taxes, the more you now have to send to other states – but since you did not earn that money you now have to borrow this first and then increase taxes to amortize..
Marty, everywhere in this world there is socialism at its best.. even in the most direct democracy [Switzerland] of this planet. |
|
|
|
|
RAJSALLIN
|
|
April 11, 2014, 05:35:51 PM |
|
Hi RAJSALLIN, what were you saying about not having worry there in Switzerland? I hope you guys realize you need the serious features I've outlined, and you need someone who can actually implement it. There are altcoins out there that dropped the ball because they were designed by committee and then got into squabbles and squandered their amazing technological breakthrough. You've got to be serious about this. This is no joke. And none of these "goofballs" (for lack of a better term coming to mind) out there are going to get the job done. This shit is really F.U.B.A.R. out-of-control: http://armstrongeconomics.com/2014/04/11/socialism-at-its-best-how-to-destroy-the-wealth-of-a-nation/You know there is tax competition amongst states and cities in Switzerland which lead to great results once in terms of efficiency and therefore attracting people to take their families and move to states with lower taxation. Often quite outside of the metropoles so also helping to populate remote parts of the country.
Of course, one day the traditional high tax states got jealous, amongst them the state of Bern with the capitol and politicians there. So they introduced a new system of taxing all states and allocating the tax income of efficient states to the inefficient ones, thereby turning the competitive Swiss tax system upside down.
As a result now for 2013, the state of “Schwyz”, according to all statistics one of the states with lowest expenses for administration, with a fully balanced budget, and highly attractive for many “rich” families, turned into the state with the highest deficit per capita – precisely to the amount which has to be allocated to other states..
The perversion is – the allocation is not based on real tax income – you would be able to manage – no, it is based on how high you COULD tax your citizens based on their wealth and income ! So, the more you attracted people with high income and assets in the past due to low taxes, the more you now have to send to other states – but since you did not earn that money you now have to borrow this first and then increase taxes to amortize..
Marty, everywhere in this world there is socialism at its best.. even in the most direct democracy [Switzerland] of this planet. I'm almost offended that someone of your calibre would mix up Switzerland and Sweden. Why is it that Americans do this all the time? I guess because both are supposedly neutral nations and begin with SW. Anyway Sweden has historically been one of the most socialistic nations in the world so your reference might as well apply here anyway. I'm very concerned with anonymity, the future of my children and a lot of other things I think is ***** up and we are being mislead to believe. That's why I'm here.. I still have hope though. |
|
|
|
|
AnonyMint (OP)
|
|
April 11, 2014, 05:43:16 PM |
|
Actually I was thinking you might have written Sweden but I didn't feel like digging in that "Quality TA" thread for your post since it is probably buried. It was a post where you mentioned that you don't have to worry about being tracked down in your country for interacting with Bitcoin.
Apologies. Actually it is still a good indicator of my memory capacity that I can remember the general thrust of your prior posts in other threads and not only you but other users that I have interacted with.
|
|
|
|
|
RAJSALLIN
|
|
April 11, 2014, 06:09:04 PM |
|
Actually I was thinking you might have written Sweden but I didn't feel like digging in that "Quality TA" thread for your post since it is probably buried. It was a post where you mentioned that you don't have to worry about being tracked down in your country for interacting with Bitcoin.
Apologies. Actually it is still a good indicator of my memory capacity that I can remember the general thrust of your prior posts in other threads and not only you but other users that I have interacted with.
No problem at all. I'm impressed with so much of your writings so I will let this little flaw go To be fair you probably have a much better memory than me. My memory is not one of my stronger suits.. |
|
|
|
peri1224
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 10
Merit: 0
|
|
April 11, 2014, 06:16:44 PM |
|
Where was the confusion between Switzerland and Sweden? Sweden was never mentioned except by the poster. The facts in the story were all about Switzerland with correct local place names.
|
|
|
|
|
|
AnonyMint (OP)
|
|
April 11, 2014, 06:58:52 PM |
|
Where was the confusion between Switzerland and Sweden? Sweden was never mentioned except by the poster. The facts in the story were all about Switzerland with correct local place names.
RAJSALLIN is from Sweden, I had forgotten and attributed him to being Swiss. My mistake. |
|
|
|
|
|
mrpopgun
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 21
Merit: 0
|
|
April 11, 2014, 08:10:23 PM |
|
I have been reading your posts and am somewhat mesmerized by the breadth of your observations, explicit research and quite ordered analysis. Many if not most of your conclusions will need to be judged by future outcomes, but they ring highly probable to my lay ear. This brings me to the reason for me message. I am absolutely new to crypto-currencies. While I thought I knew little, now that I've been reading the the depth of this understatement is a bit overwhelming. While I would like to enter into this market (for both finacial and sociopolitical reasons) I am struggling with the coalescing of control I see in bitcoin. If at this point in time the only way to effectively continue the generation of bitcoin towards its intrinsic currency cap is through huge expenditure of resources, then only the "whales" are actually functional in the market. This appears to be exactly what Satoshi was against. If it isn't, it is something *I* am against.
For me to enter into bitcoin, my current options are to a) exchange fiat for it b) expend the resources to become a "producer" of monumental scale or c) provide services, knowledge or products in exchange for bitcoin. While those are all perfectly fine options, I'm not certain I want to further bitcoin and it's increasing centralization. What does that leave other than altcoins? If altcoins, where does one even start? While there are a plethora to delve into, most all seem to be less than useful or plagued with fundamental issues. I am drawn to currencies that are constructed to try and withstand industrial scale takeover of mining such that the Commons can continue to participate in currency creation well into the future; keeping the currency truly decentralized. I am a fan of anonymity in transactions as governments have proven all to clearly they are willing to exploit, break or create laws that favor their continuance of power and exertion of control on the populace.
What options would you point a new entrant into the cryptocurrency world look at? Wait for a better market contender? Consider a handful of coins that have existing merits beyond the rest of the pack? Back bitcoin until an alternative emerges that isn't clearly ephemeral? I truly am having a hard time picking out potentials (if only for research and not financial entrance) from a field I am only now becoming familiar with. Any advice you could provide would be truly helpful. There are many voices on the forums and in blogs, but not so many that are so rigorously dedicated to the facts and not their dogma.
|
|
|
|
|
klee
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1498
Merit: 1000
|
|
April 11, 2014, 08:10:37 PM |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
AnonyMint (OP)
|
|
April 12, 2014, 05:04:27 AM |
|
Upthread I had also cited the news about the Circle CEO's comments. [snip]
Notice in Bitcoin the new coin production schedule is designed such that rate of increase is declining and the total supply is designed to never exceed 21 million BTC coins. However, IMO that is myopic because the mining is already centralized and if the government takes over, there is no limit to what they might do with the protocol. I argued that more upthread or in the past, where I said once the masses dominate the coin userbase, they really don't care as long as they get their debt and Walmart goodies.
Bitcoin mining is global. If somehow the government took over the major miners in the United States and forced them to change the protocol, wouldn't that just create a forked coin which people could choose not to use and instead keep using the real Bitcoin which is still mined throughout the rest of world and by smaller miners in the United States? For your scenario to play out, a total government takeover of the Internet (far more severe than the Great Firewall) and well as blanket observation and control of all commerce would be required. Even if it were technically possible for this regime to carry out this kind of extreme totalitarianism, I do not think it has the political capital and economic resources to do it. Nor do I think they are stupid enough to try. Power will adapt to Bitcoin, not destroy it. Circle CEO apparently disagrees and says the G20 will cooperate. I have also provided citations upthread about G20 declarations on their plans to cooperate. Two or three pools control > 50% of the hash rate. That isn't the entire internet. That is only three businesses that have to be raided. The masses won't care. Who is going to support your fork? You won't even have a majority of mining hash rate. As for individual miners switching to another pool upon that event, note one miner in East Washington had already 6 - 7% of the total Bitcoin network hash rate and is aiming to reach 10%. ASICs concentrate mining power and this will continue to get worse. |
|
|
|
|
AnonyMint (OP)
|
|
April 12, 2014, 05:27:31 AM
Last edit: April 12, 2014, 05:44:02 AM by AnonyMint |
|
[snip]
For me to enter into bitcoin, my current options are to a) exchange fiat for it b) expend the resources to become a "producer" of monumental scale or c) provide services, knowledge or products in exchange for bitcoin.
While those are all perfectly fine options, I'm not certain I want to further bitcoin and it's increasing centralization. What does that leave other than altcoins?
With a cpu-only coin, you could mine with your existing computer and with stronger anonymity, you could do it without anyone tracing you. So what do you think will be the most popular way to obtain crypto-currency. If altcoins, where does one even start? While there are a plethora to delve into, most all seem to be less than useful or plagued with fundamental issues.
Indeed no altcoin yet has coalesced a complete feature set. They are piecemeal wonders. And to those who think Doggie ( Beanie Babies) marketing is useful, I want to point a reality of the relatively low networth demographic statistics for Dogecoin vs. Bitcoin as follows in the quote of myself. Even Bitcoin is no where near saturating the serious white male investor demographic. Hordes of them will be coming when the confiscations and capital controls begin. Barking at the masses now, is barking up the wrong marketing tree (all doggie puns intended). Before taking the mass market (fiat has to fail for them and) the crypto-coin must lay a solid foundation. Even Usain Bolt does his 400 meter basis training. Even a miler runs long-distance to build a foundation for the speed work.
My 0.01% - 0.03% guesstimate was 600,000 to 1.8 million based on world population of 6 billion. Dogecoin (why don't they pronounce it "doggiecoin" or "dog-ecoin" ) claims 100,000 users yet the mcap is only $43 million. Apparently it is the copper-zinc penny coin (feel good marketing, donations, cute dogs) and Litecoin is the current silver to Bitcoin's gold. Isn't market cap more relevant+concrete than the nebulous concept of "users" (not all types of users are the same). [snip] 1. The hassle of recording and paying tax for numerous daily tidbit transactions is far outweighed by the insignificant value loss of holding $500 in your checking account (exhibit my prior post that average Dogecoin holding is claimed to be $430 per user). 2. You are not thinking like the masses who are not the rich precisely because they don't have a lot of savings to invest. And thus they don't have the same priority set as you. But you as an investor in what you want them to use, need to think like them to understand this investment. I saw this within my initial study of Bitcoin yet Risto (and you?) apparently haven't registered this in your consciousness yet after years of being invested. The wildcard is if there could be an application (other than investing) that targeted the rich demographic which is investing in Bitcoin. Well that is...anonymity. They will need it to survive what is coming! And Bitcoin doesn't have it. [snip] Again you misjudge the masses, because you are not one. You can't put yourself in their mindset and priority set. I can. [snip] My gosh you missed the main point. The masses like fiat! They don't require that the digital currency of the world needs to not be a fiat. And you did not address the point that the masses don't like the properties of Bitcoin: - Mixes traceable illegal activity with their funds
- No protection against theft
- No refundable protection
- No consumer protection
- Very volatile price
- Must convert to and from fiat which is a hassle
- Very slow transactions, and confusing
- No government guaranteed deposit insurance
- Can't obtain a loan or credit card in bitcoins
- There is no cash version to use offline.
Fiat doesn't have those weaknesses. Fiat has other weaknesses which we are concerned about, but the masses don't care about those weaknesses that bother us. Later the masses will fall into the abyss, then some of them will learn to appreciate our ideals but most of them won't learn.
I am drawn to currencies that are constructed to try and withstand industrial scale takeover of mining such that the Commons can continue to participate in currency creation well into the future; keeping the currency truly decentralized. I am a fan of anonymity in transactions as governments have proven all to clearly they are willing to exploit, break or create laws that favor their continuance of power and exertion of control on the populace.
What options would you point a new entrant into the cryptocurrency world look at? Wait for a better market contender?
IMO wait for the one that has every feature it should have. Expend the intervening time learning about what those features should be. [snip]
There are many voices on the forums and in blogs, but not so many that are so rigorously dedicated to the facts and not their dogma.
Everyone is biased even myself. Only you can decide who speaks to the necessary features and delivers them. Even I don't know what everyone will do. I do know that it is very, very rare for a committee or group to produce a winning design and implementation. See the Mythical Man Month and note the politics that ensues with more cooks arguing over the pot. Open source has prospered when there is one exceptional leader who accepts all efficient help, e.g. Linus Torvalds. I can't tell you who that is in the crypto-currency arena. You have to make the determination based on available information. I don't want to be a famous personality. I want to see us get what we need with minimal extraneous noise. |
|
|
|
|
AnonyMint (OP)
|
|
April 12, 2014, 05:53:19 AM |
|
http://armstrongeconomics.com/2014/04/11/debt-taxes-wisdom-from-the-past/One of the more interesting aspects of the coming final Blood Moon on September 28, 2015, this one also coincides with the end of the Jewish Shmita year. This is when the Israelites are to let the land rest and cancel all debts. This occurs every 7 years (2000-2001, 2007-2008, 2014-2015). The Ten Commandments forbids Marxism for its clearly states that you should NOT covet thy neighbor’s goods. Socialism is all about taking money from people who earn it. The other aspect concerning the cancellation of debts that the IMF refuses to allow Ukraine to do is interesting:
Deuteronomy 15:1-3 Does Armstrong read this thread or do our minds just so often have the same thoughts. This occurs often where he and I write the same point independently. I did not email him the second quote below about the 7 year Biblical Jubilee. http://armstrongeconomics.com/2014/04/09/the-coming-tetrad-the-blood-moons/That said, this is a group of four consecutive total lunar eclipses in 2014 and 2015 – a series known as a Tetrad – four successive total ‘blood-red’ lunar eclipses each followed by six full moons. The more interesting aspect of the coming Tetrad is that the date lines up with this peak in the Economic Confidence Model 2015.75 and is off only by 2 days in advance. Indeed, NASA has confirmed that the Tetrad has only happened three times in more than 500 years – 1493, 1949, and 1967. [snip] The incredible alignment has only happened a handful of times in the last two thousand years but, remarkably, on each of the last three occasions it has coincided with a globally significant religious event. Looking at the phenomenon, over a five millennium span from 1999 BC to 3000 AD, the max number of eclipse Tetrads that can take place in any century is eight ( , which occurs this century. This is the Tetrad Season since the last time this took place was during the 9th century AD. [snip] There was a Tetrad in 1493 that marked the discovery of the New World. The next coincided with the establishment of the State of Israel – after thousands of years of struggle – in 1949 and the end of World War II. This was followed by 1967 and the Six-Day Arab–Israeli War. Therefore, I do not see where this has any specific forecasting significance. Nonetheless, it is fascinating that it correlates at this time when our own models are jumping off the charts. Well doesn't he know this coming "Tetrad season" which begins April 15, 2014 is because to the birth of anonymous, decentralized, cpu-only crypto-currency is born on April 15, 2014. Amazing the Tetrad season has only occurred 3 times this millennium, corresponding to the birth of New World, Israel (end of WW2), and Arab-Israel war. And now on April 15, 2014 is born the antidote to central banking. This date is coincidentally a giant middle finger to the USA tax deadline.
The student loan problem in the USA is huge and going to put the youth in debt slavery for life, so we need to forgive allsome that debt.
Note the correction to my prior irresponsible statement. No one should be completely absolved of their responsibility else no one learns to be responsible. There need to be consequences, just not debt slavery for life. Typically 7 years (Jubilee) is the max allowed in the Bible for slavery, then you must have allowed and encouraged your slave to work him/herself out of the hole and be prepared to be a responsible member of society. [snip]
|
|
|
|
|
AnonyMint (OP)
|
|
April 12, 2014, 06:12:32 AM |
|
The totalitarian dollar hegemony is imminent 2015.75. All the more reason an anonymous coin will skyrocket in importance for those wise who want to opt-out and sustain the economy to avoid a Dark Age. There is so much work that needs to be done, and it won't be done with a first release of some wondercoin. Sustained success will require sustained, stoic effort and refinements. For example, cloaking the protocol. |
|
|
|
|
AnonyMint (OP)
|
|
April 12, 2014, 07:29:28 AM
Last edit: April 12, 2014, 03:47:21 PM by AnonyMint |
|
Regarding the upthread conspiracy theories discussion which I discouraged from elaborating on further in this thread (since it is sort of offtopic except on a high-level perspective), please consider moving further discussion on that to the following quoted thread. This is the show down which is the first (or is it last?) line of defense against the Agenda 21 and plan to turn the west of the USA into a controlled zone where the population can only operate on highways and a major cities. That linked video explains that anyone that sets foot on "dirt" (off the highway) is carted off to federal prison. The BLM is removing the cattle and making "we the people" the cattle. Welcome to 1984. http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message878048/pg1 Cliven Bundy explains his rights: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vxjly8pLCYwThe snipers: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=90LtLwXXnp4Globalist (CNN owner) Ted Turner's Georgia Guidestones' double-speak inscriptions are apposite. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgia_Guidestones#Inscriptions- Maintain humanity under 500,000,000 in perpetual balance with nature.
- Guide reproduction wisely — improving fitness and diversity.
- Unite humanity with a living new language.
- Rule passion — faith — tradition — and all things with tempered reason.
- Protect people and nations with fair laws and just courts.
- Let all nations rule internally resolving external disputes in a world court.
- Avoid petty laws and useless officials.
- Balance personal rights with social duties.
- Prize truth — beauty — love — seeking harmony with the infinite.
- Be not a cancer on the earth — Leave room for nature — Leave room for nature.
| - [i.e. megadeath and eugenics]
- [i.e. make humans infertile, hate children, family, etc]
- [i.e. end diversity and unify global control]
- [i.e. the Global Commission knows what is best for each person]
- [i.e. Global courts are less rancorous than local diverse ones]
- [i.e. Subjugate local courts to global courts]
- [i.e. eliminate local government]
- [i.e. social "justice" meaning collective theft]
- [i.e. our Global control is truth, beauty, love, and harmony]
- [i.e. Humans are a cancer]
|
|
|
|
|
|
AnonyMint (OP)
|
|
April 12, 2014, 11:45:47 AM
Last edit: April 12, 2014, 12:28:16 PM by AnonyMint |
|
Personal anonymity doesn't increase corruption, cash was anonymous throughout man's history. Rather centralized control and identification means corruption moves up the ladder so that only a few can do it and control everyone else as slave.
Refer to my upthread posts (twice) about legalizing drugs to prevent the few corrupt from controlling the drug economy. Hope I don't need to repeat it again, this is the third time.
My upthread point about Dogecoin is that it had 100,000 users (roughly 1/10th of Bitcoin), yet had only $43 million market cap (roughly 1/100th of Bitcoin). Thus the marketing of Dogecoin is 1/10th as efficient (more costly).
This thread is about crypto-currency, not about crypto-barbies. If you wanted a professional search service you would choose "google" over "finddoggie".
Making crypto-currency user friendly is important. But in my professional opinion, making it a cartoon is not wise and is as far as I know not supported by the marketing data.
|
|
|
|
|
AnonyMint (OP)
|
|
April 12, 2014, 12:26:48 PM |
|
Protecting our personal identities going forward.
When you want to write something that you think you could be penalized for saying, use Tor (best if bundled with Tails run from a DVD if you are really paranoid), Tor browser only, create a new forum username.
If this forums blocks you, click "New identity" in Tor and reload the page.
Running a non-logging VPN in conjunction with Tor could help, if you trust that VPN to not be honey pot.
Better alternatives might come in the future, but for now that is what we've got.
Note AnonyMint is not a covert identity. It is well attached to my real personal identity. Thus you can expect me to be more careful what I say as AnonyMint.
|
|
|
|
lenam
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 44
Merit: 0
|
|
April 12, 2014, 07:50:55 PM |
|
With a cpu-only coin, you could mine with your existing computer and with stronger anonymity, you could do it without anyone tracing you. So what do you think will be the most popular way to obtain crypto-currency. I can think of smart metering and authorities quickly recoginizing your "unnormal" energy consumption. So mining a coin and using quite a lot of enery 24/7 could quickly be traced ?! Couldn't that become a problem with the proof of work concept? |
|
|
|
|
hurricandave
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 966
Merit: 1003
|
|
April 12, 2014, 11:09:11 PM |
|
Most miners don't use more electricity than a second refrigerator or window mounted A/C that runs 24-7. If tracking down miners thru resource usage was instituted, they would most likely look at internet patterns of use. The miner program is designed in a way that it uploads and downloads in a predictable pattern of size and frequency. It would be much easier to pick out the miners on the communication patterns than electrical consumption.
|
|
|
|
|
peri1224
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 10
Merit: 0
|
|
April 13, 2014, 08:35:45 AM |
|
They would never bother about individual miners. If a known and proven facility existed that allows the totally anonymous transfer of funds, it is a given that criminals would also make use of it.
If the government can't stop their online process of transferring bytes, you can be sure that they would go after the exchanges, which is the weak point of any crypto coin. As long as bytes are not commonly accepted as payment, they will have to be changed into currency, gold, silver, whatever.
A truly anonymous coin is assured to be the government's enemy No. 1, and you would see them go ballistic, because the control freaks are unlikely to tolerate anything that late in the game that spoils plans for their iron grip on everything.
The first thing they would do is smear the new coin as a tool of terrorists, drug dealers, child traffickers, etc. They would just have to do a few coin transfers themselves and then "catch" the perps in the act to have all the proof they need.
Hitler was smeared for many things he didn't do because he operated a money system outside their control. A new coin outside their control would see horror propaganda on that level, meaning they would try to destroy the reputation of the coin early. They are specialists at that. If that is not enough, they will come down on the exchanges with hammer and thongs. Those involved would be hunted like sandmen in the movie Logan's Run, because ever since Hitler there has been nothing that seriously undermined their control over money. How few central banks are still outside their control? How many have they taken over in the last few years alone?
Beside the Russians and Chinese they don't see much they can't control, so IMO they would react severely to anything in their own backyard that gives them real competition to their paper monopoly.
Absence of a strong reaction to a coin would mean they don't really consider it a threat.
|
|
|
|
|
wizzardTim
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1708
Merit: 1000
Reality is stranger than fiction
|
|
April 13, 2014, 10:06:03 AM |
|
When a man thinks freely, he thinks well. I'm glad that someone (AnonyMint) has the insight to see whats going really beyond the scenes and even foresee some aspects of the future. I haven't read such an article here for a long time..
There is a need for a truly anonymous coin, that everyone can participate in its creation, that is secure and untraceable, can be selfprotected from botnets, has fast confirmations etc..
Bitcoin made the start. Studying its drawbacks, it is time for THE successor to be built. The need is clearly shown, the past teaches us how to evolve & where to focus. the question is who is gonna build it and how?
|
Behold the Tangle Mysteries! Dare to know It's truth.
- Excerpt from the IOTA Sacred Texts Vol. I
|
|
|
|
AnonyMint (OP)
|
|
April 13, 2014, 03:38:52 PM |
|
The can't attack easily decentralized P2P exchanges, and I don't mean localbitcoins because it is a centralized website.
If we can change the way websites work so they sit behind an obfuscating P2P layer, then we can also hide all the mining traffic in website traffic. And no more certificate authorities for HTTPS which are probably all backdoored.
Then it is checkmate.
They can try to take down parts of the internet and the HAM and shortwave radio operators will bring it back up. Also I don't think every country would join them in the march to total blackout and destruction.
The USA is weakened, they can't put their military every where at once. Russia and China wait to attack once it gets spread out too thin.
Can you spell C H A O S imminent?
|
|
|
|
wizzardTim
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1708
Merit: 1000
Reality is stranger than fiction
|
|
April 13, 2014, 06:25:56 PM |
|
If we can change the way websites work so they sit behind an obfuscating P2P layer, then we can also hide all the mining traffic in website traffic. And no more certificate authorities for HTTPS which are probably all backdoored.
What if the website is included in the blockchain, like data in datacoin? |
Behold the Tangle Mysteries! Dare to know It's truth.
- Excerpt from the IOTA Sacred Texts Vol. I
|
|
|
|
AnonyMint (OP)
|
|
April 14, 2014, 09:43:35 AM |
|
If we can change the way websites work so they sit behind an obfuscating P2P layer, then we can also hide all the mining traffic in website traffic. And no more certificate authorities for HTTPS which are probably all backdoored.
What if the website is included in the blockchain, like data in datacoin? Essentially yes, but there are scaling, redundancy, and minimum path (max bandwidth) issues, so need to use a DHT at least. I posted about this a bit in another thread I started. And also in this thread. |
|
|
|
|
AnonyMint (OP)
|
|
April 15, 2014, 08:18:03 AM |
|
Sen. Reid on Cattle Battle: "It's not over"
Powerless clowns with their weapon of choice: death by a 1000 paper cuts
[snip] The TSA at the airport, that is death by a 1000 paper cuts. You are not stopped. Things just suck more and more. The power vacuum of democracy never gives up until you defund it by making taxation technically impossible. It is a paradigmatic cancer. It is not the fault of anyone. Even beheading the megalomaniacs won't make the problem go away, the paradigm will sprout new heads spontaneously. The only solution is to defund the paradigm technologically. In the past this was done by people hiding in the black market, but now due to the internet, that means stepping back into the stone age and the velocity of money and productivity would plummet. That is why the only solution is anonymous crypto-currency. |
|
|
|
|
counter
|
|
April 15, 2014, 10:05:21 PM |
|
I agree with alot of your overall assessment but I'm thinking there is more then what meets the eye to your analysis. As you suggest there is much need for anonymity in the future.
I think it's a better option to reaveal the things you know but don't want to share but that is your decision.I do appreciate the thought and effort you put into explaining your views.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
counter
|
|
April 16, 2014, 06:26:10 AM |
|
I wouldn't say I'm dreaming just holing up hope that the masses will wake up. I look at the Bundy case as a good thing to wake people up. I do see the threats and trust me I'm saying things are gonna work out great. Just holding out hope that people will fight for their rights. I guess you call it dreaming I just call it keeping hope alive I guess.
|
|
|
|
|
goin2mars
Member
Offline
Activity: 112
Merit: 10
|
|
April 16, 2014, 09:18:17 AM |
|
I wouldn't say I'm dreaming just holing up hope that the masses will wake up. I look at the Bundy case as a good thing to wake people up. I do see the threats and trust me I'm saying things are gonna work out great. Just holding out hope that people will fight for their rights. I guess you call it dreaming I just call it keeping hope alive I guess.
AnonyMint has laid out a logical set of plans that would seem to unfold in a series of events, leading to a particular outcome. You both seem to be in agreement that there will be an end in which everything will work out (after a series of events occur) . . which would be the logical end to any scenario in particular not just this one. Your presented flow of events is, "people will wake up and we'll all be better off" . . which seems quite non-descriptive. Could you provide a basis for your argument? Perhaps one rooted in facts in the past, rather than one rooted in your own personal faith in humanity? I'm not trying to say that you're wrong, or that you have a baseless argument . . as faith itself is something fundamental that I can't really argue against or for . . It's more that you haven't given much of a foundation for anyone to build off of. I'm just looking to you to provide an example(s), similar to perhaps the Bundy case, in which I can logically conclude that this wouldn't escalate toward MAD. |
|
|
|
|
|
AnonyMint (OP)
|
|
April 17, 2014, 04:02:03 AM |
|
I just put ... and Martin Armstrong into SCIgen and it produced for me a verbatim transcript of Anonymints posts as presented on Bitcointalk, postulating his Theory of Everything . Hey fool, Martin Armstrong is always correct. http://armstrongeconomics.com/2014/03/02/the-cycles-of-war-model-why/QUESTION: Mr. Armstrong, I have followed you since your 1985 conference in Princeton. It was your advertisement in the Economist that caught my eye when you bluntly stated that the deflation was over and a major change in trend was at hand. I watched you forecast the takeover boom and I was shocked by your forecast that the Dow Jones would rally from 1000 to 6000 back then. The 1987 Crash was a real eye opener for the very day you pronounced the low was in place and new highs would be seen, the Elliot Wave people said a crash like 1929 was beginning. I watched in amazement your call on Japan, then the currency crisis of South East Asia. Your forecast for the fall of communism and then Russia in 1998 was shocking, however, I must confess, I was not entirely certain how you could do politics and markets. Then the rumors were Goldman Sachs and Buffet wanted you silenced. When it came to markets, I do not think there is anyone who can even come close to your track record. Now I have watched your Cycle of War and after all of these years I think the light has finally gone on. This is what you mean when you say it is all connected. You cannot be right on so many trends for so long unless you were correct about the structure. So do I now get a gold star?
Thanks for everything;
JCH Include his recent prediction that Gold & silver would top in 2011 and then decline to below $1200 into 2014 at least. Goldbugs were resisting all the way down, until they finally capitulated to $1150 recently. Edit: here is another list of amazing predictions he did correctly: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=160612.msg2864869#msg2864869Add: here is yet another list I compiled years ago and had forgotten about: http://goldwetrust.up-with.com/t11p30-stocks-vs-precious-metals-vs-bonds-vs-real-estate#4728
http://armstrongeconomics.com/2014/04/16/20305/A client has tweeted a picture of a slide from our 1998 World Economic Conference tour we did around the globe. In retrospect those forecasts were simply astonishing all based upon alignments with the ECM. I think if I had another whole lifetime, this whole thing would keep me occupied trying to figure out this amazing order masked by what people think is random chaos. The ECM is simply the frequency of life for everything seems to align with it no matter what the field. The mere fact there are the Four Blood Moons that line up to 2 days before the turning point 2015.75 when there was no input regarding planetary movement is just mind-bending.
This is not my theory – it was my discovery.  http://armstrongeconomics.com/2014/04/16/is-anything-really-random/ANSWER: It is impossible to create any system that is random. No matter what, in computing, a pattern will always emerge precisely as this pretend random image that quickly falls into a pattern. It is simply impossible to create a truly random number generator. In gambling, there are card counters that they make illegal. Look at a casino and you will notice that they rotate the dealers regularly moving them from table to table. WHY? Because they will end up in a pattern. Armstrong is correct. The more scientific way of stating is that the entropy of the universe is not infinite, rather it trends to maximum. Thus Bitcoin's proof-of-work is more randomized than proof-of-stake, because the entropy of spontaneous outcomes includes every computer in the network trying to guess the mathematical solution (for the nonce of the hash) to the next block in the block chain. How can you all continue to deny that NOTHING in the universe is random? The Second Law of Thermodynamics (which even Einstein said was more fundamental than his relativity) says entropy trends to maximum, not is infinite. Infinite entropy would be required for a truly random universe. If you want to explore more the meaning of infinity w.r.t. to our universe and the properties of our minds, see my two blog essays: http://unheresy.com/The%20Universe.html#Matter_as_a_continuumhttp://unheresy.com/Information%20Is%20Alive.html#Algorithm_!=_Entropy Rather the appearance of disorder (a.k.a. randomness) is an illusion of complexity of high entropy. Maximum entropy is obtained with the maximum number of potential equiprobable outcomes, i.e. maximum degrees-of-freedom which is same as saying maximum potential energy. I explain that and give citations at following posts: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=355212.msg3804256#msg3804256https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=355212.msg4576810#msg4576810https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=355212.msg3852724#msg3852724 |
|
|
|
aminorex
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1596
Merit: 1029
Sine secretum non libertas
|
|
April 17, 2014, 04:53:15 AM |
|
I don't even take it seriously because it can't address mining (because all side coins are merge-mined with Bitcoin's existing mining) where the crux of the problems are.
The issuance could be moved to a side-chain. The attraction is that block rewards could then be issued more frequently, in smaller size. This would reduce the pressure for pool consolidation, and reduce that vulnerability proportionately. The perfect is the enemy of the good, perhaps. Bitcoin may or may not be incrementally perfectible -- it is difficult to see a lilypad path of local pareto optima which takes us all the way from here to there -- but bitcoin could be improved and made more robust against these threats. Re-decentralizing mining would be a very constructive step, and seems like an achievable one. The very desirable step which does not seem achievable yet is changing the hashing algorithm. Miners obviously would not co-operate. But that may not be strictly necessary in order to prevent bitcoin from being seized through control of mining: If the granularity of block rewards is small enough, pools will be obsoleted. It is increasingly difficult to mine profitably. Large pools may collapse in bankruptcy, leaving only fully distributed amateur nodes minting blocks, operating at a nominal loss, in order to keep the network strong. After that occurs, a consensus among miners might be achievable, allowing a change of the hash function. |
Give a man a fish and he eats for a day. Give a man a Poisson distribution and he eats at random times independent of one another, at a constant known rate.
|
|
|
aminorex
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1596
Merit: 1029
Sine secretum non libertas
|
|
April 17, 2014, 05:24:58 AM |
|
http://twister.net.co/ Twister p2p microblog system. https://bitmessage.org/wiki/Main_Page bitmessage p2p messaging system
|
Give a man a fish and he eats for a day. Give a man a Poisson distribution and he eats at random times independent of one another, at a constant known rate.
|
|
|
|
AnonyMint (OP)
|
|
April 17, 2014, 07:08:22 AM |
|
I don't even take it seriously because it can't address mining (because all side coins are merge-mined with Bitcoin's existing mining) where the crux of the problems are.
The issuance could be moved to a side-chain... Are you sure? How would they insure the 21 million total supply isn't increased? That was the entire point of Adam's proposal and why it must be merged-mined. |
|
|
|
aminorex
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1596
Merit: 1029
Sine secretum non libertas
|
|
April 17, 2014, 08:46:33 PM |
|
I don't even take it seriously because it can't address mining (because all side coins are merge-mined with Bitcoin's existing mining) where the crux of the problems are.
The issuance could be moved to a side-chain... Are you sure? How would they insure the 21 million total supply isn't increased? That was the entire point of Adam's proposal and why it must be merged-mined. Yes. Naively, the side-chain proposal doesn't affect mining. Transactions get processed on side chains despite a lack of coin issuance, because they are merge-mined, so the transaction fees are an approximately cost-less gain for the miners. Fine. But it doesn't matter which chain the mining occurs on because the same hashing gets done either way. If a special chain does all the issuance, it can run at a different block reward rate. If the block award rate is higher (and the reward reduced proportionately) then the variance problem for miners is diminished by that factor. Thus miners have much less incentive to pool. The coin issuance rate is unchanged overall, so the 21 million limit is unaffected. The only reason anyone could object to this is because they want to attack bitcoin, and it makes it harder for them to do so. |
Give a man a fish and he eats for a day. Give a man a Poisson distribution and he eats at random times independent of one another, at a constant known rate.
|
|
|
|
AnonyMint (OP)
|
|
April 18, 2014, 10:06:34 AM |
|
I don't even take it seriously because it can't address mining (because all side coins are merge-mined with Bitcoin's existing mining) where the crux of the problems are.
The issuance could be moved to a side-chain... Are you sure? How would they insure the 21 million total supply isn't increased? That was the entire point of Adam's proposal and why it must be merged-mined. Yes. Naively, the side-chain proposal doesn't affect mining. Transactions get processed on side chains despite a lack of coin issuance, because they are merge-mined, so the transaction fees are an approximately cost-less gain for the miners. Fine. But it doesn't matter which chain the mining occurs on because the same hashing gets done either way. If a special chain does all the issuance, it can run at a different block reward rate. If the block award rate is higher (and the reward reduced proportionately) then the variance problem for miners is diminished by that factor. Thus miners have much less incentive to pool. The coin issuance rate is unchanged overall, so the 21 million limit is unaffected. The only reason anyone could object to this is because they want to attack bitcoin, and it makes it harder for them to do so. I had no idea what this gibberish is supposed to mean, but if a side-chain is awarding new coins, then 21 million will increased. Merged-mining means the side-chain does not issue its own new coins. Please study your Bitcoin 101. |
|
|
|
|
AnonyMint (OP)
|
|
April 18, 2014, 10:20:10 AM |
|
I appreciated very much your views on Europe and especially Germany. Most of what I read says that Germany is really rockin' even while not mentioning the strong ties that Germany has with the rest of (faltering) Europe. Your comments balance that noise... Don't get me wrong, Germany is still kind of rocking, at least compared to much of the rest of the EU...
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=365141.msg6167555#msg6167555
All of Europe will sink into negative growth later this year or next.
Global sovereign debt BIG BANG starts 2015.75.
And it will be worse than horrific.
WTF is wrong with you people? This is a 200 - 300 year high in global debt (even the IMF said that).
This is a 200 year event.
This ain't gonna' be no Great Depression 2.0. It is going to be like the collapse of Rome from 1.4 million to 30,000 population and stayed that way for 600+ DARK years.
Do you boiling frogs have any freakin' clue why? Look at what the bastards are doing:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=564097.msg6278398#msg6278398 |
|
|
|
|
JorgeStolfi
|
|
April 19, 2014, 09:05:27 PM |
|
Dear @AnonyMint, we could hardly be further apart in our political views, especially the value and role of government. Therefore I would rather not discuss that topic, but would like to comment on a few peripheral points:
* It is debatable whether Europe went into 600 years of darkness after the fall of Rome. Our view of History is biased towards recorded History, and the end of the Empire meant the end of the largest and most punctillious record keeping organization of that Millenium. The centralized administration collapsed, and with it the supply network that sustained the large population in Rome; but it seems hard to evaluate whether the life of the Europeans as a whole regressed in the following centuries, or continued to improve. Many cities throughout Europe surely kept growing and became more "civilized". Perhaps the "total degree of civilization" kept increasing, but in a quantitative rather than qualitative sense --- that is, a lot of people improved, while a few regressed. To tell whether this happened or not, one would need statistics that seem largely unavailable.
Moreover, if one looks a bit beyond Europe, one can say that the center of civilization simply moved elsewhere, to the Caliphate -- that built an Empire about as large as the Roman one, and was just as civilized and progressive as the Romans had been.
* You are right that knowledge may be 1000x more valuable than matter, in terms of the results it may produce; but value does not equate to price (that is, how much one can obtain in exchange for it). Just consider that air is infinitely more valuable than caviar, for example.
In a free market, the price of a product eventually settles to the cost of production plus a few percent. But the cost of duplicating knowledge is almost nil now. Threfore, if/when knowledge will be traded in a few market, it will cost almost nil. We are seeing it happen now: newspaper paywalls, copyright, and DRM are only a nuisance, since people can get most of the news and entertainment they want from free sources.
Copyright and patent royalties can be collected only when and where the government is corrupted by the "intellectual property owners" to forcefully prevent the development of a free market of information. If that free market existed, "knowledge makers" would be paid only for producing new knowledge, and only while they are producing it; not for selling or renting knowledge that they "own" -- just as a mason only gets paid while he works, not for rent in perpetuity of the houses that he built.
* I am very skeptical of anonimity as a "weapon of freedom". On one hand, one cannot build a functional society only with anonymous interactions. What makes society work it is the network of person-to-person interactions, where the parties know and trust each other. In anonymous interactions, outside the reach of government, there is no incentive to honor deals or build a reputation.
Bitcoiners claim that their contraption removes the need for mutual trust or a trusted intermediary in commercial transactions, but that is not true. A commercial transaction involves two transfers, money in one direction and goods or services in the other direction. Bitcoin only handles the former; but one still needs trust (or a trusted intermediary with teeth), in order to ensure that the customer will pay for the goods that have been sent, or that the merchan will ship the goods that have been paid. I don't see how to get that with anonymous transactions and without a government to enforce honest dealing.
Anonimity would be important in times when democracy has failed and citizens need to conspire underground in order to remove an illegitimate, undemocratic government. Unfortunately, such governments can and will easily prevent anonimity. Even technically sophisticated citizens will have little chance against a determined ditactorial government.
|
Academic interest in bitcoin only. Not owner, not trader, very skeptical of its longterm success.
|
|
|
|
AnonyMint (OP)
|
|
April 19, 2014, 10:43:05 PM |
|
* It is debatable whether Europe went into 600 years of darkness after the fall of Rome. Our view of History is biased towards recorded History, and the end of the Empire meant the end of the largest and most punctillious record keeping organization of that Millenium. The centralized administration collapsed, and with it the supply network that sustained the large population in Rome; but it seems hard to evaluate whether the life of the Europeans as a whole regressed in the following centuries, or continued to improve. Many cities throughout Europe surely kept growing and became more "civilized". Perhaps the "total degree of civilization" kept increasing, but in a quantitative rather than qualitative sense --- that is, a lot of people improved, while a few regressed. To tell whether this happened or not, one would need statistics that seem largely unavailable.
Moreover, if one looks a bit beyond Europe, one can say that the center of civilization simply moved elsewhere, to the Caliphate -- that built an Empire about as large as the Roman one, and was just as civilized and progressive as the Romans had been.
Pottery records show activity collapsed after the 5th century. That activity continued or increased elsewhere is of no consolation to those who had to abandon all their real estate as Rome collapsed from 1.3 million to 30,000 population. No mention those who lost their lives. * You are right that knowledge may be 1000x more valuable than matter, in terms of the results it may produce; but value does not equate to price (that is, how much one can obtain in exchange for it). Just consider that air is infinitely more valuable than caviar, for example.
That shows how utterly stupid you are, to compare an abundant fungible resource to knowledge production that is not fungible. [snip]
* I am very skeptical of anonimity as a "weapon of freedom". On one hand, one cannot build a functional society only with anonymous interactions. What makes society work it is the network of person-to-person interactions, where the parties know and trust each other. In anonymous interactions, outside the reach of government, there is no incentive to honor deals or build a reputation.
You entirely missed the upthread point made that reputation does not require personal identity. Btw, we always had anonymity with cash, now we are losing it. And so now we move to the slavery State if we don't have anonymity. The real goal (and Agenda 21 fits in) is Smart Growth which is moving people into cities to be slaves: http://youtu.be/hfbpNpq0YBIThe man-made global warming hoax, environmentalism, carbon taxes, Smart Electric Meters, and Technocracy is all tied in. Make sure you see my Agenda 21 and Georgia Guidestones posts upthread. Dumb-ass masses have been manipulated by fear, and their pre-frontal cortex shut down and converted into Malthusians. Malthusians have never been correct ever in the history of mankind since Mesopotamia. This is a global plan and you can see most of the dumb-ass masses all over the world have fallen into this "Save the Earth" mass delusion. |
|
|
|
Dr.Zaius
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 28
Merit: 0
|
|
April 20, 2014, 03:14:08 AM
Last edit: April 20, 2014, 03:29:31 AM by Dr.Zaius |
|
If you want anonymity use paper cash, gold etc, and stay off the internet.
The NSA revelations have merely proven what many have warned for ages. The internet is far from anonymous nor private.
Anonymint, I don't get what you are trying to convey here. You want a 100% anonymous internet based crypto coin that is fundamentally based on government approved and pioneered cryptography? And you want the world using it before your projected 2015-2016 debt apocalypse. Sorry to tell you, but that scenario involves rolling power blackouts(see Greece), kind of nips your idea in the bud. Crypto currencies require sophisticated infrastructure RUNNING in order to work.
|
|
|
|
|
Dr.Zaius
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 28
Merit: 0
|
|
April 20, 2014, 03:18:22 AM
Last edit: April 20, 2014, 03:30:26 AM by Dr.Zaius |
|
Dear @AnonyMint, we could hardly be further apart in our political views, especially the value and role of government. Therefore I would rather not discuss that topic, but would like to comment on a few peripheral points:
* It is debatable whether Europe went into 600 years of darkness after the fall of Rome. Our view of History is biased towards recorded History, and the end of the Empire meant the end of the largest and most punctillious record keeping organization of that Millenium. The centralized administration collapsed, and with it the supply network that sustained the large population in Rome; but it seems hard to evaluate whether the life of the Europeans as a whole regressed in the following centuries, or continued to improve. Many cities throughout Europe surely kept growing and became more "civilized". Perhaps the "total degree of civilization" kept increasing, but in a quantitative rather than qualitative sense --- that is, a lot of people improved, while a few regressed. To tell whether this happened or not, one would need statistics that seem largely unavailable.
Moreover, if one looks a bit beyond Europe, one can say that the center of civilization simply moved elsewhere, to the Caliphate -- that built an Empire about as large as the Roman one, and was just as civilized and progressive as the Romans had been.
* You are right that knowledge may be 1000x more valuable than matter, in terms of the results it may produce; but value does not equate to price (that is, how much one can obtain in exchange for it). Just consider that air is infinitely more valuable than caviar, for example.
In a free market, the price of a product eventually settles to the cost of production plus a few percent. But the cost of duplicating knowledge is almost nil now. Threfore, if/when knowledge will be traded in a few market, it will cost almost nil. We are seeing it happen now: newspaper paywalls, copyright, and DRM are only a nuisance, since people can get most of the news and entertainment they want from free sources.
Copyright and patent royalties can be collected only when and where the government is corrupted by the "intellectual property owners" to forcefully prevent the development of a free market of information. If that free market existed, "knowledge makers" would be paid only for producing new knowledge, and only while they are producing it; not for selling or renting knowledge that they "own" -- just as a mason only gets paid while he works, not for rent in perpetuity of the houses that he built.
* I am very skeptical of anonimity as a "weapon of freedom". On one hand, one cannot build a functional society only with anonymous interactions. What makes society work it is the network of person-to-person interactions, where the parties know and trust each other. In anonymous interactions, outside the reach of government, there is no incentive to honor deals or build a reputation.
Bitcoiners claim that their contraption removes the need for mutual trust or a trusted intermediary in commercial transactions, but that is not true. A commercial transaction involves two transfers, money in one direction and goods or services in the other direction. Bitcoin only handles the former; but one still needs trust (or a trusted intermediary with teeth), in order to ensure that the customer will pay for the goods that have been sent, or that the merchan will ship the goods that have been paid. I don't see how to get that with anonymous transactions and without a government to enforce honest dealing.
Anonimity would be important in times when democracy has failed and citizens need to conspire underground in order to remove an illegitimate, undemocratic government. Unfortunately, such governments can and will easily prevent anonimity. Even technically sophisticated citizens will have little chance against a determined ditactorial government.
Well said. Bitcoiner's using the term "trust-less" is ridiculous. This has done nothing but lead people into a den of scams and thieves. Trust requires prudence which is a moral virture. A successful society therefore must be a moral society. Economic exchange cannot occur on large scale without trust. The bitcoin ecosystem is the exact evidence of this, a "trustless" system where 1 in 2 transactions are scams of some sort. Anonymint is pretty correct about Rome collapse. Capital flight took place on a mass scale, and gold was hoarded to the point where we are still digging up old coins. However monks ended up salvaging most of civilization and building fortress monastery's which are still evident in Europe. Eventually they were able to civilize the barbarians which had ravaged most of Italy. This took hundreds of years, I don't think 600 is accurate. It was also the first time in history where human labor was actually valued. Roman's were not progressive's, their economy was based on slavery and money lending. It wasn't until the Christian monks instilled a value for human labor to the barbarians that Western Europe began slowly recovering. Benedictine monks are the fathers of European identity, and exhibited one of the most successful applications of decentralized local rule systems ever. Despite the false promises of the internet, the modern world is more centralized then at any point in human history, even more-so then the Romans at peak empire. |
|
|
|
|
|
RAJSALLIN
|
|
April 20, 2014, 05:58:43 AM |
|
* I am very skeptical of anonimity as a "weapon of freedom". On one hand, one cannot build a functional society only with anonymous interactions. What makes society work it is the network of person-to-person interactions, where the parties know and trust each other. In anonymous interactions, outside the reach of government, there is no incentive to honor deals or build a reputation.
Choice is freedom. If you aren't anonymous in a transaction since you trust the other party that should be your choice. But on the other hand it should be my choice to stay anonymous if I prefer so. In other words the choice and option to stay anonymous is what drives freedom. In a society were you have no choice and are instead forced to stay un-anonymous there is no freedom. Anyone who doesn't aggree with this should re-read Orwell's 1984. Also we have come to a time and place were you can't compare a transaction from a 100 years ago to a transaction to today. 100 years ago you could make a non anonymous transaction with someone you knew and be certain no one elese saw this transaction. Today in a non anonymous currency you have the fear of the whole world witnessing the same transaction. So it's not solely the question of a trusted person to person interaction being anonymous or un-anonymous but a question of the network being trusted in the first place and that trust will greatly increase if you are certain the network is anonymous. |
|
|
|
|
AnonyMint (OP)
|
|
April 20, 2014, 07:40:33 AM
Last edit: April 20, 2014, 08:10:39 AM by AnonyMint |
|
Sometimes I wish this site wouldn't allow n00bs newbies to post in my threads, until they've gained some reputation. I wish I had a moderator setting for that. I could delete their posts, but that would make it look like I have no counter-argument. Any way, I guess it is good to refute this drivel, but I grow weary of repeating myself... Well said. Bitcoiner's using the term "trust-less" is ridiculous. This has done nothing but lead people into a den of scams and thieves. Trust requires prudence which is a moral virture. A successful society therefore must be a moral society. Economic exchange cannot occur on large scale without trust. The bitcoin ecosystem is the exact evidence of this, a "trustless" system where 1 in 2 transactions are scams of some sort.
Cash was anonymous and this did not lead to a world where 1 in 2 transactions are scams of some sort. Well actually the entire fiat financial system is a scam, but you wouldn't be bothered with that minor detail would you. And even if were true, why would I care? Each party can choose to know the reputation of the person they are dealing with. Whether you pay with sea shells or wampums doesn't make any difference. The anonymity is optional. What you mean to say is you don't want there to exist any anonymous form of payment, because you want the police to be able to catch all the criminals. This is the most insane fantasy bubble thinking which stems from reading Peter Pan and The Little Mermaid when you were a child and never living in the real world hence. First of all, the police are always last to the crime scene and when they are first it is because they are doing the crime. More saliently yet, if you remove all anonymity, then when the power vacuum of democracy (i.e. promise everything, leave nothing unstolen) leads to totalitarianism as it does periodically through out history, then a fully tracked 666 society means megadeath and eugenics on a massive scale that will make Hitler and the Stasi look like child's play. Anonymint is pretty correct about Rome collapse. Capital flight took place on a mass scale, and gold was hoarded to the point where we are still digging up old coins. However monks ended up salvaging most of civilization and building fortress monastery's which are still evident in Europe. Eventually they were able to civilize the barbarians which had ravaged most of Italy. This took hundreds of years, I don't think 600 is accurate. It was also the first time in history where human labor was actually valued. Roman's were not progressive's, their economy was based on slavery and money lending. It wasn't until the Christian monks instilled a value for human labor to the barbarians that Western Europe began slowly recovering. Benedictine monks are the fathers of European identity, and exhibited one of the most successful applications of decentralized local rule systems ever. Despite the false promises of the internet, the modern world is more centralized then at any point in human history, even more-so then the Romans at peak empire.
Sorry to bust your fantasy, but feudalism is not an economically prosperous paradigm. The velocity of money (commerce) plummeted and stayed that way as everything was buried into private hoards and warlords. The anti-usury Dark Age was miserable abject poverty. Have you forgotten Robin Hood? And the barbarians co-opted and became ( imitated) the Roman system, they were never conquered so to speak. And the Roman system was all about maximizing production via road networks and military protection for commerce. It just so happened that in that era, manual labor was so valuable that the system ran the best on an indentured model, because otherwise there was no means to fund the military and keep the movement of goods over a road network that spanned Europe all the way to the UK. I have explained upthread that we now enter a Knowledge Age, where knowledge is not fungible (manual labor mostly was) and thus slavery is a non-functional paradigm. If you want anonymity use paper cash, gold etc, and stay off the internet.
They can still track you. The NSA has satellites that can read the 2 inch (5 cm) VIN# on the dashboard of your car. New cars have GPS tracking built in. There are cameras every where tracking your license plate. The government will soon require you join Facebook in order to receive government services (and that will include a permit to drive on government highways). They track your cell phone. etc. The NSA revelations have merely proven what many have warned for ages. The internet is far from anonymous nor private.
We are fixing this. It is time to replace the internet protocols. Anonymint, I don't get what you are trying to convey here. You want a 100% anonymous internet based crypto coin that is fundamentally based on government approved and pioneered cryptography?
Yes on first part, and no on Bitcoin. We don't want government approved crap. And you want the world using it before your projected 2015-2016 debt apocalypse. Sorry to tell you, but that scenario involves rolling power blackouts(see Greece), kind of nips your idea in the bud. Crypto currencies require sophisticated infrastructure RUNNING in order to work.
WiFi mesh networking is now in the iPhone and coming in Android. I guess you've heard of batteries. |
|
|
|
cocoakrispies
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 23
Merit: 0
|
|
April 20, 2014, 12:07:32 PM
Last edit: April 20, 2014, 04:56:17 PM by cocoakrispies |
|
Sometimes I wish this site wouldn't allow n00bs newbies to post in my threads, until they've gained some reputation. I wish I had a moderator setting for that. I could delete their posts, but that would make it look like I have no counter-argument.
It's too bad that there's no legitimate way to automatically measure whether or not someone's new here, a lot of people recycle their identities into new profiles. The repetitive bashing that results is fantastic though. * I am very skeptical of anonimity as a "weapon of freedom". On one hand, one cannot build a functional society only with anonymous interactions. What makes society work it is the network of person-to-person interactions, where the parties know and trust each other. In anonymous interactions, outside the reach of government, there is no incentive to honor deals or build a reputation.
This logic is pretty fuzzy. When I go to an ATM and deposit cash . . and then use those funds to purchase something online . . it's effectively an anonymous transaction as far as the merchant is concerned. They don't have any way of knowing that it was my own cash from my own wallet that ended up in their account. They never have. They take the bank's word, on trust, that I paid for what I purchased and that the money is in their account. In this situation, the bank(s) are acting as a type of escrow. You said that the parties trust each other. That is wrong. The parties trust the bank when a debit or credit card is involved. This has become pretty much every single time. It's now increasingly rare for people to use cash. Even people that have trust in cash have even more trust in their cards: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/03/business/newly-wary-shoppers-trust-cash.html?_r=0Also, I feel like you're severely limiting the interpretation of anonymous transations, and using that to try and justify your main point. You have every ability to make the tx's non-anonymous by exchanging them in person or using a trusted escrow system(where trust takes the place of mistrust in anonymity). This system can be manifested through an actual person or group, or automated like the paypal or now bitstamp bitpay system. This institution has already been built on anonymous transactions. This can easily be carried over and repeated with anonymous internet money. Afterthought: Actually this is one of my major focuses that I'd like to work on. If anonymous currencies were to exist, and someone were to develop a banking system on that foundation . . what types of parallels would we expect to see with the current system of exchanging money through a bank? Does bitcoin, with a traceable blockchain history, negate the need for banking because of the lack of trust necessary? Does an anonymous solution invite them? If we were to fit this into our present solution to inspire trust amongst consumers and merchants by using banks, would creating them again be the only way an anonymous coin would work? Apart from those questions, the need for anonymous transactions would still be fulfilled in a world where banks built trust in anonymous currency . . because you'd still have the ability to find someone in the world who accepts your cash that trusts you personally to not screw them on the deal (without it being able to be recorded back to you). In this sense, there is quite a bit of anonymity and you only give it up to develop trust in situations where there can be none (for whatever reason). Also, by saying 'trust' I only mean for the particular transaction. Not that you'd be comfortable sharing details of murder with the person. Just one simple instance of trust. |
|
|
|
|
|
JorgeStolfi
|
|
April 21, 2014, 03:51:48 AM |
|
[...] What makes society work it is the network of person-to-person interactions, where the parties know and trust each other. In anonymous interactions, outside the reach of government, there is no incentive to honor deals or build a reputation.
You entirely missed the upthread point made that reputation does not require personal identity. Btw, we always had anonymity with cash, now we are losing it. And so now we move to the slavery State if we don't have anonymity. Yeah, sorry, I skipped several pages. Cash itself may be anonymous, but most cash transactions are not. I have lunch at the corner cafe every day; the owner notes the amount down on a 3x5 card, and every Friday I pay whatever he says I owe, with cash; and he doesn't mind waiting until next Monday if I am out of cash in my "hot wallet". That is because we both know and trust each other. But I would not send cash in an envelope to pay for a bill, of course. Even when the parties have never met before and don't know each other's name, they can tell a lot about each other, with passable confidence, just from their appearance and context. The mere fact that the other guy is NOT hiding his face may be sufficiently reassuring. I might buy a hot dog from a seller in a stadium, even if I never saw the guy before; but not from a stranger in a run-down street who wears a ninja costume and a ski hood... In the political context: anonimity may be a valuable "tactical weapon" when fighting an oppressive illegitimate government. However, by the time it is necessary, it will be very difficult to obtain. Moreover, it is not very effective -- because anonimity is essentially act of cowardice, an admission of weakness and defeat. It is fleeing rather than fighting, the way of the rat rather than of the badger. The most effective time and way to fight such governments is before they take power -- openly, not anonymously. |
Academic interest in bitcoin only. Not owner, not trader, very skeptical of its longterm success.
|
|
|
klee
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1498
Merit: 1000
|
|
April 21, 2014, 07:53:12 AM |
|
[...] What makes society work it is the network of person-to-person interactions, where the parties know and trust each other. In anonymous interactions, outside the reach of government, there is no incentive to honor deals or build a reputation.
You entirely missed the upthread point made that reputation does not require personal identity. Btw, we always had anonymity with cash, now we are losing it. And so now we move to the slavery State if we don't have anonymity. Yeah, sorry, I skipped several pages. Cash itself may be anonymous, but most cash transactions are not. I have lunch at the corner cafe every day; the owner notes the amount down on a 3x5 card, and every Friday I pay whatever he says I owe, with cash; and he doesn't mind waiting until next Monday if I am out of cash in my "hot wallet". That is because we both know and trust each other. But I would not send cash in an envelope to pay for a bill, of course. Even when the parties have never met before and don't know each other's name, they can tell a lot about each other, with passable confidence, just from their appearance and context. The mere fact that the other guy is NOT hiding his face may be sufficiently reassuring. I might buy a hot dog from a seller in a stadium, even if I never saw the guy before; but not from a stranger in a run-down street who wears a ninja costume and a ski hood... In the political context: anonimity may be a valuable "tactical weapon" when fighting an oppressive illegitimate government. However, by the time it is necessary, it will be very difficult to obtain. Moreover, it is not very effective -- because anonimity is essentially act of cowardice, an admission of weakness and defeat. It is fleeing rather than fighting, the way of the rat rather than of the badger. The most effective time and way to fight such governments is before they take power -- openly, not anonymously. If you have any better strategy to fight the 1% of the 1% I am all ears.. |
|
|
|
|
|
AnonyMint (OP)
|
|
April 21, 2014, 09:09:07 PM |
|
I might buy a hot dog from a seller in a stadium, even if I never saw the guy before; but not from a stranger in a run-down street who wears a ninja costume and a ski hood...
That is why this new anonymity coming will be superior as it won't be differentiated and stand out negatively that way. In the political context: anonimity may be a valuable "tactical weapon" when fighting an oppressive illegitimate government. However, by the time it is necessary, it will be very difficult to obtain.
You sure proclaim a lot without knowing all the technical details. Moreover, it is not very effective -- because anonimity is essentially act of cowardice, an admission of weakness and defeat. It is fleeing rather than fighting, the way of the rat rather than of the badger. The most effective time and way to fight such governments is before they take power -- openly, not anonymously.
Can't fight openly because by the time the masses realize, it is already too late. Fighting by blending in is the most successful war strategy in history, guerrilla war fare. Not weak at all. It has never been defeated. Because the State can never figured out if they've killed the last guerrilla. |
|
|
|
|
AnonyMint (OP)
|
|
April 21, 2014, 09:12:52 PM |
|
Why we need anonymity. http://armstrongeconomics.com/2014/04/21/how-your-cell-phone-threatens-your-liberty/In Ukraine, part of the propaganda that it was inspired by a CIA plot covered up the fact that it was truly a grass-roots uprising against corruption. The other aspect that was covered up has been how even Yanukovich employed the technology of the day to try to intimidate the people in Maidan. This is a lesson to everyone for it is the dark side of technology that is the core reason why the NSA is monitoring everything just like any other secret police organization.
We are all familiar with how even Google tracks where you are to tailor advertisements based upon your location. However, this technology in the hands of government can be extremely deadly. In Ukraine, as here, the telephone companies know directly your location by simply having a mobile phone that send a signal so if someone calls you it knows what tower to route the call to find you. Given the civil uprising in Ukraine, the telephone companies reported the location of people to the government so they knew precisely who was in Maidan. Yanukovich then sent SMS text messages to everyone there bluntly stating “you are registered as a participant in a mass disorder” and this actually inspired people to continue knowing if they stopped, they would be jailed and probably tortured. The mobile provider in Ukraine actually belonged to Russians. After the fact, of course, everyone from the police to the mobile provider denies sending this SMS. However, it could not have been sent without the cooperation of the telephone companies.
The importance of this event sending text messages to those in Maidan is quite critical. The experience in Ukraine should be a warning about technology to the rest of the world. If you are going to participate in any type of protest, even such things as the Occupy Wall Street movement, you can count on the government knowing precisely who was there at all times. There is a file on EVERY person even in the USA thanks to the NSA. All they need to do is put in your name and everything will come up including every phone call and text message you have sent. This is NOT speculation – this is the cold harsh reality of what is going on behind the curtain – the NSA is the US version of the East German Stassi. The only possible solution is to never take your mobile phone with you for it does not matter – even turning it off still identifies where you are to a mobile carrier. Clearly, those involved in civil unrest should NEVER take their phone in any country.
The greatest danger facing the Ukrainian people is politics. The people in Ukraine realize what will happen if Russia were to take Kiev shows they are now just a pawn. Many were using the Russian version of Facebook known as Vkontakte for communication. The founder had refused to turn-over to the Russian government lists of all Ukrainians with accounts that were part of groups associated with the Ukrainian Revolution or Maidan. Now, you cannot have a blog in Russia without government approval.
However, the ownership of Vkontakte has now changed. As they typically have a sponsor of things like Niki for the Olympics, the common saying in Kiev is that the sponsor of the Ukrainian Revolution in Maidan was the US version of Facebook. This explains a lot.
Turkey has blocked access to things such as Twitter. Social Media has become increasingly more important within society for the younger generation rely upon this technology for communication. This is the real reason behind the NSA tapping into Facebook. This has absolutely nothing to do with terrorism, it is what Harry Reid just called the rangers in Nevada rising up against his corrupt dealings in Nevada – Domestic Terrorists. Effectively, the definition of a “terrorist” today is merely someone who protests against the establishment for whatever reason. You can bet the NSA has a list over participant in the Occupy Wall Street movement precisely as did Yanukovich.
The terrifying situation in Ukraine that has developed is the harsh reality of politics and technology. The people of Maidan are for the most part gone. The temporary government hand-picked by the West is in place and will most likely remain in place with the May 25th elections following the orders of Christine Lagarde at the IMF. She will drain the Ukrainian people to pay the bankers as she destroyed Cyprus. Her domination of the IMF is seriously destroying the world economy and what she is doing to Ukraine means an economic decline of great hardship going into 2020. She is destroying everything the people sought to change and the
Worse yet, the Ukrainian people themselves have been abandoned and their uprising against corruption has been usurped by the politicians. They have been told behind-the-scenes that if they rise up again against the new government put in place by the West, they will not be supported by the West. This leaves them in a chilling position caught between the West and Russia. Exercise your sovereign right to demand freedom, and the West will not support you. West has installed just another corrupt version of politicians that lean the other direction. Ukraine lost its freedom.
In Europe, the popular notion in France is that the whole Ukrainian event was organized by the USA in order to sell its gas to Europe. Other parts also speak of resentment toward the USA because of the corrupt past events with the invasion of Iraq that they see was for Cheney and oil. This is a sad part that the USA has lost its credibility which is tarnishing the respect for the Ukrainian people. If Putin were to invade and take all of Ukraine, Europe will not lift a finger. The Ukrainian people may have won the battle but lost the war for their freedom.
The propaganda put out by Russia that the people of Maidan are Fascists and Nazis has been totally false. The people of Maidan were neither part of any such movement nor were they orchestrated by the CIA. Of course there are fringe extremists among every movement. Nonetheless, their uprising against corruption was true and totally organized through Facebook telling people to join the movement. Why? They were against Russia for you cannot even protest there – you will be immediately arrested, not unlike the USA that arrests you for walking on the grass of lacking a permit of some kind. If you hold up a sign in Russia, that is jail-time; but if you were merely present, then you are fined and given a government job you must perform for several weeks for free. There were Russians who posted pictures of themselves holding one of these orders to report for work to prove they supported the people in Ukraine. This is what Maidan was all about – a protest against corruption and a demand for freedom. Those who spun stories about CIA plots did these people much harm and it proves the dark side of humanity where people will say anything to get attention. Yanukovich and his sons were installing Russian Oligarch-type system where people had to pay for protection from government and were being denied the right to protest.
We have to realize the tremendous risk that technology has brought. People once could just hop on a plane and leave with a suitcase full of gold to start over in a new land. Those days are long gone. Between metal detectors and desperate tax agents, you cannot simply leave with your own money anymore. Now the events in Ukraine serve as a warning to the rest of the world – cell phones can lead to the loss of your freedom for not merely does Google know where you are, so does your phone-company and we know what the NSA has already done to them. The NSA is not after terrorists by monitoring Facebook. They are after “domestic terrorists” as Harry Reid calls anyone who disagrees with him and his pockets full of other people’s money. Someone should tell him, you can’t take it with you.
This is another reason I think bitcoin will succeed. Zerohedge claims the US may go after Putin's $40 billion dollars in financial assets stored in Switzerland: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-04-20/means-war-us-target-putins-personal-40-billion-stashWhether you agree or disagree that Putin's fortune is "fair" and whether you agree or disagree that it is right for the US to take his wealth, I believe that if you were in Vladimir Putin's position you'd feel more comfortable with a cool billion (2.5% of his financial wealth) sitting in a secure brain wallet, and perhaps another billion or so in carefully planned m-of-n wallets. I wonder if Vladimir understands bitcoin. Problem is Bitcoin isn't anonymous and the mining is 51% controlled by two pools and few major holders of ASICs. |
|
|
|
|
AnonyMint (OP)
|
|
April 21, 2014, 09:14:29 PM |
|
Here comes Peter Thiel (Paypal) taking over Bitcoin from every angle (see also upthread posts about his role in Bitpay): Facebooks is going to ask for a bank license so it can distribute peer-to-peer money transactions.
It took over Transwise, which already did more as a billion in transactions and together with whatsapp and facebook, which is installed on almost every smartphone its going to be the new number one.
Backed with Peter Thiel, In-Q-Tel an investment department of the CIA, which are also sitting in Facebooks Board they have the tech Elite and Governmant support.
Good that he likes the word 'peer' |
|
|
|
|
AnonyMint (OP)
|
|
April 22, 2014, 09:28:09 AM |
|
Here comes the Mad Max... http://armstrongeconomics.com/2014/04/21/uk-hunting-the-rich-abandon-uk-before-you-cannot/UK Hunting the Rich – Abandon UK Before you cannot.  A reader posted this new ad campaign in Britain. These politicians have squandered everything and now they are hunting down capital everywhere and the view is people have to pay whatever they demand or you are just a criminal. Nobody even bothers to look at what they are doing to the world economy. These advertisements are appearing everywhere and they will only succeed in created the worst economic collapse since the Great Depression. Putin is raising taxes for taking Crimea. |
|
|
|
|
AnonyMint (OP)
|
|
April 22, 2014, 09:41:15 AM |
|
Cross-posting... You can see some photos of the mall where I was today. Young employees of the DENR (Dept of Environment and Natural Resources) were handing out brochures with "Global Warming" in scary red blood dripping vampire-like font. The global conspiracy is paying the people to spread this nonsense as gospel. I tried to explain to these youthful employees that this is all lies and it is part of a global plan to indoctrinate the people how to be good slaves and submit to various taxes and multi-national corporate control. We are moving into the end game of Fascism and headed into Mad Max totalitarianism. By the time you boiling frogs realize it, it will be too late for you already. Click my name and then click "read latest posts" to dig into the supporting evidence I have posted over the past few weeks. For those who want to opt-out of this coming hell, you had better figure out which train to board... ...and stop wasting your time reading all of this bla bla bla, which can't help you. |
|
|
|
CoinCube
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1946
Merit: 1055
|
|
April 23, 2014, 12:24:54 AM |
|
I am surprised that Armstrong seems to have not paid any attention to cryptocurrency. In theory cryptocurrency can restore the ability to hop on a plane and take all your wealth with you. However, to achieve this the link between a particular cryptocurrency account a particular individual must be severed. |
|
|
|
|
AnonyMint (OP)
|
|
April 23, 2014, 12:50:56 AM |
|
Cross-posting... I've not followed the story much, but my first impression is that Bundy should pay his fucking fees like everyone else or adjust his operation to roll with the changing times. If he is not competitive without mooching off the commons (which, by definition, everyone owns) and causing generally considered unacceptable ecological damage to them then he should either buy land out of his own funds or downsize.
I don't accept that Bundy has some sort of God-given right to the land because his granddaddy used it just as I don't accept that currently respiration African Americans or Indians (native Americans) have some sort of special claim because their distant ancestor were abused.
He was ready to pay the grazing fees and the applicable taxes. But the BLM prevented the authorities from accepting them.
Wasn't he refusing to pay fees to anyone but Nevada, when they are owed to the BLM? Based on some tinfoil-hat redneck fear of the federal government? The idea that he has any 'right' to the land because his great-granddad grazed there is ridiculous. Now it seems that he got hundreds of armed thugs to turn up and threaten BLM agents and their families until they backed off, and is now claiming a "civil rights victory". Sad day for democracy and best argument for gun control I ever saw. The above two comments are indicative of how Americans don't know their own Constitution, and thus the Constitution is dead. If you two dumbfucks had any clue, you would understand that from my prior detailed post: ...once a territory becomes a state, the Fed must surrender all claims to the land as if it were still just a possession or territory. If you want to educate yourself, click my link above and learn. Any way, you two have a lot of idiot brethren: http://www.infowars.com/statists-call-for-drone-strike-on-bundy-supporters/http://www.infowars.com/msnbc-smears-bundy-supporters-as-insurgents-attacks-infowars-drudge/So where does that leave us? Well the up 5,000 militias are not going to back down (and remember militias are a fundamental right provided for in the Constitution): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LaJ6IPF6PNghttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=79xKxWbBYcwhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c41ogSHJVJsThe line has been drawn in the sand, and battle over the Constitution will be fought on Bundy's ranch if the Federal government doesn't go away permanently. So as Armstrong had predicted, the USA headed for civil war, because these idiots who have no clue of the Constitution and the freedom fighters who do understand what is at stake here. If the idiots win, we end up with a Technocracy top-down Fascist society like China. And here is what is happening in China: http://www.infowars.com/chinese-citizens-beat-government-bureaucrats-during-mass-riot/  Unfortunately, the idiots who don't understand where this shits leads, are what cause this total chaos. Be prepared, we are headed into total chaos all over the world, because of the natural failure of collectivism and the idiots who have no clue. http://www.infowars.com/eastern-europe-braced-for-a-violent-spring-of-discontent/Eastern Europe is heading for a violent “spring of discontent”, according to experts in the region who fear that the global economic downturn is generating a dangerous popular backlash on the streets.
According to the most recent estimates, the economies of some eastern European countries, after posting double-digit growth for nearly a decade, will contract by up to 5% this year, with inflation peaking at more than 13%. Many fear Romania, which joined the European Union with Bulgaria in 2007, may be the next to suffer major breakdowns in public order.
“In a few months there will be people in the streets, that much is certain,” said Luca Niculescu, a media executive in Bucharest. |
|
|
|
|
AnonyMint (OP)
|
|
April 23, 2014, 12:57:16 AM
Last edit: April 23, 2014, 01:09:09 AM by AnonyMint |
|
I am surprised that Armstrong seems to have not paid any attention to cryptocurrency. In theory cryptocurrency can restore the ability to hop on a plane and take all your wealth with you. However, to achieve this the link between a particular cryptocurrency account a particular individual must be severed. He thinks the powers-that-be can shut it down at any time with their control over the internet and their ability to regulate the exchanges. I've tried to email and explain that decentralization, anonymity, and other technologies (in an improved altcoin that is not Bitoin) might be able to overcome. He has not responded on those points. I expect his unspoken stance is that: - Show me, don't talk.
- It won't gain enough scale fast enough to make a difference
- Substantive solutions will always be collectivized
I think it is our challenge to prove there is a new Knowledge Age paradigm. I understand his skepticism. Also I think he is very concerned about the chaos that is going to hit the world, regardless of any such crypto-currency. I hope he will admit that rescuing some of private capital is better than let it all be destroyed. |
|
|
|
|
AnonyMint (OP)
|
|
April 23, 2014, 03:06:03 AM |
|
This is what we've got to opt-out of. Roughly 75% of the population is going to defend the Titanic as it sinks. The above two comments are indicative of how Americans don't know their own Constitution, and thus the Constitution is dead. If you two dumbfucks had any clue, you would understand that from my prior detailed post: News flash Annoyneymint; nobody reads your bullshit. Your 5000 dingbats include about 50% provocateurs(*) in a big honeypot designed to ident the tiny few actual nutcases. This so that TPTB can point to them and scare the bejesus out of 200x10^6 more or less normal people. Boilerplate social engineering in modern Americana. I don't like it any better than the next guy, but I can at least identify a winner and a loser, and your looney-toons are going to be the big losers in any conception of the future that you (profess) to have. Actually, here's what very possibly could happen: The Feds will enlist your 'patriots' to serve as right-wing death squads. With free ammo and carte blanche to shoot anything which moves (including women and children) these types will be as happy as a clam. * I was looking into things a bit and saw that guy bragging about their strategy of putting their women and children in front of the big bad malitia dopes so they would get shot first by the evil Federales. I mean, it's possible to have no skill at PR, but it's simply not possible to be THIS bad at it!Crash and burn idiot. You will along with the Titanic you are clinging to. You've identified the losing side. I guarantee you. A study of history is on my side. Collectivism -> Fascism -> Totalitarianism has repeated throughout the history of mankind. If megadeath and egregious collapse is your idea of normal, then go ahead and reap what you sow. FYI, I know for a fact that some readers are reading my posts, because they private message me and thank me for it. You can go look at the votes on my threads, and see 33% support what I have to say. You can see from the survey about Global Warming that roughly 25% of the people in the USA are not idiots like you. P.S. There is civil war coming because we don't agree with you idiots. And we demand to have a place where we can practice private property rights and limited government. And you fools need to have your own large government that kills you. We refuse to be part of your self-inflicted eugenics system. |
|
|
|
klee
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1498
Merit: 1000
|
|
April 23, 2014, 08:16:23 AM |
|
This is what we've got to opt-out of. Roughly 75% of the population is going to defend the Titanic as it sinks. The above two comments are indicative of how Americans don't know their own Constitution, and thus the Constitution is dead. If you two dumbfucks had any clue, you would understand that from my prior detailed post: News flash Annoyneymint; nobody reads your bullshit. Your 5000 dingbats include about 50% provocateurs(*) in a big honeypot designed to ident the tiny few actual nutcases. This so that TPTB can point to them and scare the bejesus out of 200x10^6 more or less normal people. Boilerplate social engineering in modern Americana. I don't like it any better than the next guy, but I can at least identify a winner and a loser, and your looney-toons are going to be the big losers in any conception of the future that you (profess) to have. Actually, here's what very possibly could happen: The Feds will enlist your 'patriots' to serve as right-wing death squads. With free ammo and carte blanche to shoot anything which moves (including women and children) these types will be as happy as a clam. * I was looking into things a bit and saw that guy bragging about their strategy of putting their women and children in front of the big bad malitia dopes so they would get shot first by the evil Federales. I mean, it's possible to have no skill at PR, but it's simply not possible to be THIS bad at it!Crash and burn idiot. You will along with the Titanic you are clinging to. You've identified the losing side. I guarantee you. A study of history is on my side. Collectivism -> Fascism -> Totalitarianism has repeated throughout the history of mankind. If megadeath and egregious collapse is your idea of normal, then go ahead and reap what you sow. FYI, I know for a fact that some readers are reading my posts, because they private message me and thank me for it. You can go look at the votes on my threads, and see 33% support what I have to say. You can see from the survey about Global Warming that roughly 25% of the people in the USA are not idiots like you. P.S. There is civil war coming because we don't agree with you idiots. And we demand to have a place where we can practice private property rights and limited government. And you fools need to have your own large government that kills you. We refuse to be part of your self-inflicted eugenics system. this time... |
|
|
|
|
|
AnonyMint (OP)
|
|
April 23, 2014, 05:00:23 PM |
|
I don't think we will get to that, because I think humans will adjust their thinking as events worsen. But perhaps I am underestimating how engrained the mindset is that believes in government.
If we say gigadeaths, most people would dismiss us as kooks.
In any case, the features we need in a better crypto-currency have far reaching synergies in positive ways such as micro payments and fostering new paradigms in knowledge and social interaction on the internet.
So we don't need such a dire scenario of Armageddon, in order to drive a desire for a better crypto-currency than Bitcoin.
|
|
|
|
|
AnonyMint (OP)
|
|
April 23, 2014, 08:11:11 PM |
|
Armstrong thinks gigadeaths are a possibility. http://armstrongeconomics.com/2014/04/23/the-two-most-dangerous-idea/Europe failed to understand that it is the people who are a nation’s greatest asset and their total productivity. This is why Communism failed for it suppressed the very element that makes a country rich – the total productivity of its people. Communism was a French idea they sold to Marx. The French elite like Christine Lagarde and Thomas Piketty are at it again determined to impose their brain-dead idea of “social justice” upon the world that made Russia so hated. No other idea has been responsible for more wars and the death of millions than this French idea of “social justice”.
To survive the future, it is time to realize “social justice” suppresses economic growth and lowers the living standards for everyone. Not every country can have a trade surplus. Someone has to have a trade deficit. This theory is simply insane. It is indistinguishable from handing out the same grades in school regardless if the students show up at all for we have to be fair to everyone. This is about as stupid as thinking that landmass equals power. Both of these ideas threaten our future like nothing every before. If we are not careful, we will once again see half the population of the world killed by these two terrible ideas. |
|
|
|
cocoakrispies
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 23
Merit: 0
|
|
April 23, 2014, 08:39:33 PM |
|
I don't think we will get to that, because I think humans will adjust their thinking as events worsen. But perhaps I am underestimating how engrained the mindset is that believes in government.
If we say gigadeaths, most people would dismiss us as kooks.
In any case, the features we need in a better crypto-currency have far reaching synergies in positive ways such as micro payments and fostering new paradigms in knowledge and social interaction on the internet.
So we don't need such a dire scenario of Armageddon, in order to drive a desire for a better crypto-currency than Bitcoin.
How powerful a scenario will be needed in order to counter the pervasive nature of the reality that's generally accepted today... To what extent can any knowledge paradigm be introduced that can counter the pretty lights and repeating patterns and alluring whispers? How can 100s of millions of people come to accept, within any measurable amount of time within their own lifetime, that most of what they've come to accept as knowing or caring about within that frame of time is incorrect? How can I convince Erich that his fascination with Call of Duty is completely meaningless, and he should instead learn about finance like he said he wanted? How do I tell Erica that she should probably have gone to nursing school instead of marrying that wifebeater that she ended up with? These people have left society in pursuit of completely useless efforts, and instead chose to live as simpler animals. How can one hope to reason that that's incorrect? I've yet to be shown that the faith in humane efforts can go that far . . as I'm not convinced that they are physically capable of going that far. Think about it . . with IQ tests, multi-tiered verification of intelligence through Associate's, Bachelor's, Masters, Phd's, tens of thousands of further tiered certifications . . it's impossible to refute that there's a distinctive bell curve present in human capacity and desire for knowledge. With the appearance of such a curve . . one so perfectly conforming to probability . . how can this go any further . . when that very appearance of the bell implies that the potential is maximized? There used to be a very low bar for everyone to pass. What we have now may very well be the extent of what humanity can manifest . . knowledge wise. There's just no more juice. That's not to say that the pursuit of knowledge is dead, only that it's pursuit by the majority of the population is exhausted. The majority of what we're left with is debt farms. With television, video games, endless supplies of pornography, limitless troughs of food of infinite varieties, consumer culture, and an otherwise bottomless supply of past-times . . what shift in paradigm could possibly be manifested that would foster a particular interest for integration, differentiation, chemistry, physics, programming languages, manufacturing processes, computer architecture, astronomy, creation of art, cryptocurrencies, conceptual drawing, or pursuit of other true knowledge? Underestimating? I fear most that hive-mind is the mind, not the mindset . . that for the first time in history the hive is set to become the world rather than towns, states, countries combined. I also fear that I don't know whether or not that's something to fear at all. Removing the Armageddon scenario from this situation requires an insurmountable force . . which may very well come to be the crypto-currency you mention. I know it's not Bitcoin, but all I can continue to do is keep reading until it decides to show itself . . or given infinite time I'll make it myself. |
|
|
|
|
|
AnonyMint (OP)
|
|
April 24, 2014, 03:43:44 PM |
|
Cross-posting... A female US Air Force veteran of 9 years, explains what is going on very well. Indeed most of the world right now deserves the Armageddon that is coming to them, because they refuse to put their lives on the line to stand their ground.
Ok, you've graduated to full-on crazy now. Go post in one of Actor_Tom_Truong's threads, he'll help you prepare for your final battle against the thirteen european bloodlines of the illuminati terrorists. Let us know how it goes! Tell that to Hitler and the next European tyrant (Putin?) coming like him very soon, because you socialists fucks don't grasp the pathology of your philosophy. That 'former sheriff' guy has simply got to be a plant.
You are ignorant. Learn who Sheriff Mack is and learn what the proper role of the Sheriff is in our Constitutional form of government: http://www.amazon.com/The-County-Sheriff-Americas-Last/dp/B002PKCMFOhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Mackhttp://sheriffmack.com/http://cspoa.org/category/sheriff-richard-mack/Next we have Bundy being progressively more pathological. Lies about his land history, starts in with over-the-top racial insults, etc. Things particularly apt to get people like myself and a great many other semi-decent people pretty disgusted.
Only you getting more pathological in your attempt to spin his correct statements. Socialist megakillers such as yourself always think they are innocent and don't understand the pathology of their collective philosophy. There is no way to reason with you chattel. We must opt-out of your hell and watch you fuck yourselves. Then, of course, the idea of a bunch of loons chasing away the feds who were basically trying to do their job which is pretty reasonable. Of course this will (and has) gotten casual observers baffled and alarmed that miscreants like the militia crew has so much power, and it is all because they have guns.
You make me puke. You don't deserve America (U.S.A.), rather you deserve Amerika (U.S.S.A - United Socialist States of Amerika). I will be very happy when you and I no longer share the same citizenship. I am not going to repeat the Constitutional points already made, because you are never going to defend the Constitution. So just go on and continue the slide into the hell you deserve. We will find a way to opt-out of your hell and laugh at you. Just leaving things as they are now with the Feds slinking away achieves a pretty strong effect in forming public opinion about the power and danger of firearms of militias.
Indeed there is war being incited between the Communist/Fascists which is about 75% of the population, and the remaining Constitutionalists which is 25% or less of the population. We Constitionalists will lose the country, but we will gain the victory where it matters most by opting out in way that you can't touch us and then we will watch you fucks crash and burn. I have my popcorn ready.
...You can see from the survey about Global Warming that roughly 25% of the people in the USA are not idiots like you. P.S. There is civil war coming because we don't agree with you idiots. And we demand to have a place where we can practice private property rights and limited government. And you fools need to have your own large government that kills you. We refuse to be part of your self-inflicted eugenics system. |
|
|
|
|
AnonyMint (OP)
|
|
April 24, 2014, 04:36:39 PM |
|
Sent to the author of a blog you should make sure you are reading: http://armstrongeconomics.com/armstrong_economics_blog/---------------------------- Original Message ---------------------------- Subject: People aren't sheep, rather they love Communism From: AnonyMint Date: Thu, April 24, 2014 12:31 pm To: "N" < armstrongeconomics@gmail.com> -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Martin, You recently wrote that the people are sheep and can only see as far as the rear-end of the sheep next to them. I am sorry but after writing in public forums since 2005, you are wrong. Roughly 75% of the poeple love Communism (see the survey linked in the following bitcointalk post). Here read this exchange in the Bundy ranch thread and tell me it isn't so? https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=564097.msg6373991#msg6373991So that is why your idea of spreading the word won't stop the coming collapse. I wish you would admit this publicly. At this point, what we need to be doing is figuring out how to opt-out of the coming collapse so we can eat popcorn while it crashes and burns. I am asserting that a superior crypto-currency is going to play a vital role. |
|
|
|
|
RAJSALLIN
|
|
April 24, 2014, 09:41:58 PM |
|
Well written. Interesting to see if/what he replies.
|
|
|
|
|
RAJSALLIN
|
|
April 25, 2014, 05:58:07 AM
Last edit: April 25, 2014, 07:03:26 AM by RAJSALLIN |
|
Talking of Armstrong this is the first time I've seen him make an error:
"Beware of history and its lessons. Russia’s air force just provoked the West sending its long-range bombers into Western Europe where they violated the Dutch airspace and had to be forced out by sending up NATO fighter jets."
It was Sweden not Holland that got a visit from Russian air force. Obviously no big mistake but kind of funny since to reach Holland the Russians would have to fly through half of Europe.
Edit: Also the Russian jets weren't forced out by Nato jets. Nato jets were sent up too late to intercept so they just followed the Russians at a distance.
Edit2: Actually the most comical part of this story was that the Swedish air force didn't have any jets ready since it was easter holliday (last year). So if anyone wants to attack Sweden do it on a Holliday.
|
|
|
|
|
AnonyMint (OP)
|
|
April 26, 2014, 08:49:58 AM
Last edit: April 26, 2014, 09:17:51 AM by AnonyMint |
|
Cross-posting... Generative essence of why humans prefer slavery Let's reduce this Bundy ranch debate to its generative essence. http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/04/26/us-korea-north-usa-idUSBREA3P02U20140426Obama reminds North Korea of U.S. 'military might'
"So like all nations on Earth, North Korea and its people have a choice. They can choose to continue down a lonely road of isolation, or they can choose to join the rest of the world and seek a future of greater opportunity, and greater security, and greater respect - a future that already exists for the citizens on the southern end of the Korean peninsula." Obama's rhetoric above cloaks the true meaning which is that world government is "greater opportunity, and greater security, and greater respect" than sovereign countries, counties, and individuals. The powers-that-be create a conflict (China supporting N. Korean and USA supporting S. Korea) in order to frighten individuals and cause them to think a world government is necessary for security. The powers-that-be are doing it again with China threatening the Philippines over the Spratly islands and the Philippines taking their claim to UN tribunal. What Obama's rhetoric doesn't reveal is that instead of a diversity of sovereign countries, counties, and individuals (which includes allowing individuals to express and live their own opinions of diverse issues such as race, work ethics, and marriage), the world government means all that freedom of expression and life will be subjected to the will of those powers-that-be who manage the world 'democracy' by promising the people everything, manipulating 75% of their emotions, and taking everything for themselves. This is how the power vacuum of 'democracy' has always worked and will always work. Upthread we have Communists who vehemently express their hatred of diversity of expression and life. They prefer a society that is top-down managed, so the powers-that-be can enforce all their control-freak pet peeves they want the community enslaved within. The subconscious (root) motivation of these upthread antagonists is they won't want to see anyone have something they don't, i.e. jealousy. They convince themselves they are fighting for the good of all, but the truth is they are subconsciously jealous that individuals could compete and excel without their control over them via their powers-that-be proxy. So I don't want to speak to these brain-dead antagonists who throughout history have destroyed themselves in repeating bouts of economic gridlock collapse and megadeath. I speak today to those who want to opt-out of their killing machine. Join me. I have the solution. I'm ceasing debate with the antagonists. Their fate is sealed. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
AnonyMint (OP)
|
|
April 29, 2014, 10:36:40 AM |
|
---------------------------- Original Message ---------------------------- Subject: Plz martin, plz look at all the circumstantial evidence of a global plan From: AnonyMint Date: Tue, April 29, 2014 6:32 am To: armstrongeconomics@gmail.com-------------------------------------------------------------------------- Come on Martin, don't be hoodwinked into thinking that Obama is just dumb. He is doing the work of the global plan to collapse the economy and maintain the globalist hegemony. Please take my prior email and then also this new post into your calculus: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=365141.msg6452672#msg6452672Please Martin, your failure to grasp this so far, is your main error. And you are very important voice of reason to those millionaires who are targeted by the globalists in this coming economic collapse. If we don't find a way for your readers to maintain their wealth in a transportable form, then the globalists will win and take us into a global technocracy of digital slavery. As you have lamented, rare coins and artwork are not going be tranportable this time, and also they are not a form of currency that is fungible enough to keep commerce moving. The ONLY SOLUTION is an anonymous crypto-currency. What is Socrates saying about the possible rise of an anonymous crypto-currency as an alterative to the state-controlled digital fiats you see on the horizon?? |
|
|
|
|
AnonyMint (OP)
|
|
May 02, 2014, 01:47:38 AM
Last edit: August 20, 2014, 08:54:22 PM by AnonyMint |
|
Cross-posting from the following linked post: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=558316.msg6501774#msg6501774
It is time to squash Proof-of-Stake once and for all. It can NEVER remain decentralized. Satoshi's Proof-of-Work is the only known solution to the Byzantine General's Problem (was a known unsolved problem since at least the 1970s). Apologies I've been busy and hadn't had time to squash bytemaster's latest N.A.O.D. (nonsense algorithm of the day). First of all, he never was able to address the issues I raised about Transactions as Proof-of-Stake quoted as follows. This proposal appears to be flawed, unless I am missing something. I have only read the first 4 pages thus far. 1. You propose to decrease the coin rewards as coin-days-destroyed volume increases, so this makes it less costly for an attacker to obtain > 50% of the hash rate assuming the attacker includes all the transactions. You apparently are attempting to imply there is no useful attack to do if the attacker is including the most coin-days-destroyed? Please confirm or deny then I will dig into more analysis of this vector. 2. Also how do you choose between someone who generates a proof-of-work hash with lower coin-days-destroyed several times sooner than the network propagation delay versus another who generates it that much delayed with a higher coin-days-destroyed? If you choose the latter, then you've killed the proof-of-work incentive because it means it will always pay to be later and wait for more transactions to arrive. 3. You claim to defeat my Transactions Withholding Attack, by blacklisting those who send blocks with transactions that were not recently seen by all miners. I retorted against this recently. This centralizes the network (all for one and one for all outcome) by requiring every miner to be responsible for the incoming network connectivity of other miners. And it centralizes the network in other ways, such it can't tolerate a temporary partitioning of the network due to connectivity outages. P.S. By coin-days-destroyed, I assume you mean coin value x days, otherwise you would motivate proliferation of dust. The most significant flaw of any proof-of-stake system and any system that diminishes coin rewards, is it can't distribute currency from the hoarders to the users of the currency, thus it will end up with the hoarders (the banksters) accumulating all the coin and the currency usage dying.
This is because the wealthy spend a much lower % of their net worth than the masses do.
[snip]
Whereas those who actually mine are proactively using their time, ingenuity, initiative and capital to secure the network, thus it seems more capitalistic they should receive the redistribution from the hoarders. Besides it may beis the only viableplausible way to secure the public ledger.
The other attacks you describe all derive from the fundamental reason I declared all non-proof-of-work systems to be insecure back in April.
My logic was mathematically fundamental. The input entropy set is quite deterministic and well known and thus can be preimaged. For example, accumulating a lot of coin-days-destroyed and then targeting them in clever ways to subvert the security.
The randomness (entropy) of each proof-of-work is fundamental and mathematical and it can not be preimaged. It can only be surely defeated with > 50% of the network hash rate. Note I recently offered what I believe to a solution to the selfish-mining attack (the one at hackingdistributed.com that claims 25 - 35% attack).
I am skeptical that you can characterize all possible attack vectors of proof-of-stake in one coherent mathematical proof. Thus you will not know formally what the security is; instead a list of adhoc attacks and counter-measures.
[snip]
Edit: Perhaps coin-days-destroyed in some attack vectors motivates not transacting for long periods of time.
The bottom line is that no proof-of-stake system can ever remain decentralized. They all will require some sort of delegation of reputation to achieve consensus. I would have to go through a laundry list of examples to cover all the cases. For example, in Transactions as Proof-of-Stake it is required to delegate trust of propagation to the other nodes as I explained above. Thus there needs to be some reputation system to enforce this, e.g. blacklisting, whitelisting, etc.. All the other proof-of-stake systems have a requirement for some form of delegated reputation. I have many times explained to bytemaster and others the fundamental problem is that any system that attempts to replace proof-of-work will rely on some form of reputation, and reputation is centralization. And centralization is precisely what decentralized crypto-currency is not supposed to be because centralization will always end up control and manipulated (i.e. it is a fiat system). Trust is orthogonal to reputation and centralization. I can trust Proof-of-Work, which is decentralized trust without reputation. Reputation isn't needed in Proof-of-Work, because the input entropy is fresh (can't be preimaged) on every new TB.
You can 75% attack it if you like, but your nodes wont have any trust, so that block chain will just be ignored.
(In any non-Proof-of-Work design, ) It is mathematically impossible for there to be external consensus trust of the honest chain if the dishonest chain is controlled by more than 51% of the peers. We've covered some of the scenarios upthread, and it always boils down to that the external viewers can not know who to trust except by trusting the majority of peers. The only mathematical way around this is to centralize the network, by placing more trust in some peers than others over time. Indeed long-term reputation is a mathematically viable alternative to Proof-of-Work. This is centralization. There are tradeoffs. So this is not "7 billion individually watching the network", but rather a fewer # of peers with reputation being trusted. This is just the political power vacuum all over again with its contingent problems of vested interests Olsen power scramble: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=226033 ( No Money Exists Without the Majority) Notwithstanding the above, any non-Proof-of-Work system can be attacked with much less than 51% of the peers, due to the fact that the input entropy is preimageable, as I explained upthread. Again the only way to work around this is to trust some established peers to guard against this. Financial transactions must be recorded in a public or private ledger trusted by both the spender and the recipient, otherwise funds could be unspent or double-spent to a plurality of recipients. To provide a ledger that can't be captured, Satoshi described a proof-of-work (PoW) scheme where transaction peers communicating over the network compete to be the first to solve a computational puzzle which is unique for each block of transactions added to a public ledger. The security of this ledger against double-spends has three (3) essential requirements.
1. The computational puzzle can't be preimaged, i.e. nothing can be known about solving the puzzle until the prior block's puzzle is solved.
2. Without at least 50% of the aggregate computational power of all transaction peers, it is not possible to create a modified chain of blocks starting from any present or past block, which would contain more blocks than the block chain controlled by the remaining cooperating peers. Thus the longer chain is trusted.
3. The block chain is cryptographically linked in forward order, such that the historical proof-of-work and transactions can be independently verified at any time in the future. Thus the transaction peers may leave and rejoin the network at will without need for a trusted centralized storage.
Note security point #1 eliminates from consideration PoW schemes in which the puzzle is some real-world computational work because the puzzles are known a priori and are thus pre-imageable. Non-PoW voting and membership schemes disqualify because the ordering of designation of authority (to decide which transactions are in each block) to transaction peers is pre-imageable, or requires peers trusted by reputation which is centralizing on a slippery slope towards Olsen capture.
You must also consider the negative impacts of design features when you state the positive impacts.
Reputation has many downsides:
a. It can be stolen, e.g. threaten first to extort private key, then kill, and keep key.
b. Censorship based on metadata which doesn't always correlate rationally.
c. Discriminate against early adopters out of jealously, i.e. retribution for #b.
d. Regulatory authorities can require the BitName same as they now do Social Security # and Id. They can now establish the BitName is real, because it has (duration) reputation.
The high cost to transfer or revoke a name also has many downsides, e.g. see #d.
I thinking the pool operator (server) does so little relative to work of the pool miners that it doesn't need to charge a very high fee. Thus there isn't much ability (incentive for pool miners) to undercut competitors based on fee.
So there just needs to be a slightest incentive to encourage pool miners to seek out another pool as a pool grows large. This will encourage a poliferation of pools.
How do pool miners know that a pool server isn't cheating them by paying some of the earnings to themselves pretending to be a pool miner?
Go down that line of thought and you will discover what I am thinking.
The only way you can prove a pool isn't cheating is by estimating the hash rate of the pool and comparing it to the number of blocks found. Unfortunately, you could probably still skim a couple of a percent this way. Modern protocols (GBT & Stratum) both have the full coinbase transaction visible to the miners, meaning you can verify that the block being built will be paid to a certain address or has a certain message encoded in the block that identifies the pool. This allows you to audit if the pool is trying to skim blocks if certain users start seeing work without a coinbase message that identifies the pool. In the case of BTC Guild, it's both, they always pay to the same address and always include "Mined by BTC Guild" in the coinbase message. It's not no-trust, but all it would take is a few % of users monitoring this to determine if a pool was trying to skim blocks by sending a certain % of work that doesn't include identifying marks. How could anything less than 100% of the pool miners know if some of the coinbase transactions were to addresses not owned by pool miners who contributed shares? Since you can never know if you are the 100% (because mining pool shares* are not recorded in the block chain), thus seems to me there is no way to verify if there is skimming or not, as bytemaster and I wrote. *For those who don't know the terminology, a pool share is a proof-of-work hash below some threshold that is easier than the current network difficulty. It might also be a block solution. Why don't you just use P2Pool? Is there any reason?
I was waiting for bytemaster to answer because I wanted to know his thoughts. Seems to me that you have no way to stop the Share Withholding Attack since it is decentralized. And every peer has to run more of a full client if I am not mistake. And there is a lot more overhead I believe. And perhaps also much less resistance against denial-of-service flooding. Frankly I didn't analyze for long enough to be very sure of my initial intuition which is to stay away from it. I know it is generally impossible to enforce reputation on a 100% decentralized system. So I am intuitively skeptical of P2Pool. P.S. I won't have time to go back here and debate. I am technically qualified and I am 100% sure I am correct.
I believe transactions-as-proof-of-stake (the heaviest subtree model) is probably the best alternative to proof-of-work - and it isn't all that good. Agreed. One issue is that it makes risk analysis difficult. This means the simplicity of wait for x confirmations and you are safe (unless attacker has a majority of the hashrate) no longer applies. I don't know if I have missed some discussion that would have changed the understanding I formed, but I pointed out egregious flaws in the original proposal for Transactions as a Proof-of-stake. The fundamental math problem with using any metric from the block chain (or any consensus voting such as proof-of-stake) is that it can be gamed deterministically unlike proof-of-work which is a randomized process, i.e. the input entropy is not orthogonally unbounded as it is in the randomization of proof-of-work.
AnonyMint seems absolutely convinced that PoS cannot work. You both seem confident in your respective opinions. Does your CPoS system address any of his concerns?
It can't. Let them go ahead and waste their time (and probably other people's money). I have no desire to try to stop them from failing or doing another investment pump. They will invent more and more verbose obfuscations of the fundamental issue of why PoS can't. Btw, traditional financial systems are not fully decentralized. Even if you did solve the insoluble issue of centralization as it applies to security of the block chain (in the most general sense where control to fork or influence the design of the system is considered an insecurity), you can never solve the problem that it doesn't redistribute coin from the accumulators in the power-law distribution of wealth back to the spenders, thus just like gold, it can never be a currency. The way society has solved that is socialism. PoW could in theory solve it by routing the debasement decentrally to the spenders, especially if the spenders are the ones mining (and no one seems to know how to make this happen but I think I do). Nothing at Stake wasn't the problem. The argument that stakeholders won't destroy their investment is a red-herring strawman or off-topic! Our overlords who own our financial system now don't destroy their investment when they destroy us with their control of the financial system. Stakeholders can drive the system in directions that benefit the oligarchy, without destroying the double-spend security. A Benevolent Dictator is preferable over an rent seeking oligarchy, because the latter can never do good due to a Tragedy of the Commons, at least former does sometimes (e.g. Julius Caesar). PoS will always trend towards control by the accumulators in the power-law distribution of wealth. Even PoW does too unless you make mining uneconomic yet necessary. So that is why people have argued that it makes no difference and might as well use the one that consumes less energy and is more efficient. But there are experts on both sides. Vitalik just recently being a convert. And SlipperySlope here as well.
I know gmaxwell has posted about 'Nothing at Stake' attacks, but that appears now to be a solveable issue. Infact, Vitalik wrote a whole article about them and it appears as a result of his article sparking debate, a solution was found.
Two very smart guys (cryptographers I believe), but my intuition is they lack holistic economics and political science understanding. They are math nerds. SlipperySlope I believe is outside his field of expertise in crypto-currency. I don't think he is a cryptographer nor a programmer nor an economist nor a political scientist. He has an applied math background if I remember correctly, which is pretty general if considered in this context. If were in an applied math forum, I better shut up and listen more to him. |
|
|
|
|
AnonyMint (OP)
|
|
May 06, 2014, 05:44:40 AM |
|
Cross-posting... Armstrong doesn't understand what is frontier now; thus his myopia on globalismArmstrong is still exploring (attempting to refute) the contention about whether there is globalist agenda and what is/are the potential solution(s) to the enslavement of the people as fodder in geopolitical top-down control. It amazes me that he apparently can't visualize what is obvious to me as the only potential explanation and outcome. Let me try to see if I can more convincingly elucidate the map I 'see' in my brain. http://armstrongeconomics.com/2014/05/04/complexity-in-trends/COMMENT: Marty,
This is a European reply to the Ukraine / CIA coup etc. discussion. For me, you now hit the nail on the head for we are experiencing both: revolutions AND coups !
Yes, there is global uprising by people against their corrupt government. By the way this is happening in every country, if you ask me, just in different stages for instance in central Europe the people are only grumbling by now but they will stand up sooner or later as well.
But there are also coups where mainly Europe and the US fight against each other riding any uprising wave to bring their cronies into foreign governments. Look at Ukraine: Merkel tried to bring this boxer and supported in parallel the blond princess just that the US won this time..
I am truly sorry for the people of Ukraine seeing their people killed for nothing. But what can one win when you uprise against a corrupt president but the next is just a new crony either supported by the West -let me call this kind of coups “democratic” invasion- whereas the East is invaded military by other corrupts ?!
Now, you regret and claim that the Europeans are so diverted by conspiracy thinking that they are not willing to fight for the Ukraine people. Why don’t you see it from this angel: Every family sending a son or husband to fight as a NATO soldier in Ukraine for the people first of all fights already for the corrupt governments of the West, and, as it looks now, would only support the next corrupt crony on either side, Western and Eastern part of the Ukraine.
No, this uprise by the people country-by-country is not to win at the moment. Only once this movement is getting global and insofar coordinated by if you like the invisible hand of Adam Smith, putting all corrupt governments plus their agencies plus their military leaders under pressure all together the same time, there is a chance for us, the people to fight a successful revolution for more freedom again.
But I am afraid, it looks more like 2032 onwards – the next public wave, isn’t it ?
J
REPLY: You may be correct that the big uprising is 2032. The 2014 turning point is the beginning – not the end and by no means the peak. Yes, we have people who are getting really fed up with this corruption. This will get worse as the economy turns down. Then we have government trying to retain power. These are individual trends and that is my point. This can never be reduced to a single cause and effect. It is far more complicated than that. Exactly! That was my prior point to Armstrong. Why should we fight for either side (Russia or West) since we only fighting for the elite and their corrupt power structure. Now here is the very key point. Pay close attention. If the people can't win on a local level, then it means any proposed solution will be supporting loss of local sovereignty. You simply can't amass resources collectively and avoid the corruption of the power vacuum of democracy. Understanding Mancur Olson's (in his book The Logic Of Collective Action) thesis is fundamental to understanding where we are and are headed: http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=984 (Some Iron Laws of Political Economics) Thus you see the ultimate outcome of this country-by-country uprising is to turn over control to those who have the levers of control (over the power vacuum) in the wider-scale collective, e.g. the USA, EU, Russian bloc, subservient Asia bloc (China). And you can thus see it will culminate with war and then ending war with socialist "international cooperation". I refer readers to my prior post about the Long Wave Generational Cycle, and how the youth will take control 2032ish after a widespread chaos, and they will be indoctrinated with "international cooperation" themes (from their state schools, facebook, mass media, etc) such as the man-made global warming hoax. So the end game of all of this is reset of the global order, discrediting local sovereignty, and awarding control the wider-scale globalists who will have the youth movement in their back pocket, just as they did in the 1960s in the USA. And so tell me there isn't a globalist agenda and it is all just random chance that such as global order outcome is inevitable? Now is there any other possible solution? Yes there is, and that is anonymous crypto-currency to defund the globalist beast. But this won't scale fast enough to derail the beast entirely. It can displace a portion of the beast. So what is really happening in a bigger picture perspective? I explained this is the death of passive capital. The globalist beast is moving to higher economies-of-scale, because it is being made irrelevant by the death of the Industrial Age and the rise of the Knowledge Age, see following linked explanations: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=355212.0https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=495527.msg6103426#msg6103426https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=557732.msg6077596#msg6077596 (read all my posts from this one going downthread) We have two competing yet coexistent trends. The political-industrial passive capitalists (fascists) are consolidating power because their paradigm is an economic dinosaur which is being displaced by the competing trend. The competing trend is the rise of individual knowledge and power to reach the market and produce directly from one's brain (and computer). So on the one hand we will see a rise in consolidation of global hegemony, Orwellian technocracy, and multi-national corporate fascism and massive decline in economic production, while only the other hand we will see the 'hackers' (the broader definition meaning knowledge worker) break away in a sub-economy and we will see much chaos and rapid economic growth in this subspace. http://armstrongeconomics.com/2014/05/04/conspiracy-or-just-one-step-at-a-time/Yes, the CIA wanted me to build a computer for them after our model predicted the collapse of Russia That the FT broadcast in advance on its front page of the second section. True I declined. It is also true that within 6 months PEI was attacked. I have a copy of the slide presentation prepared by the lawyers for Republic National Bank that outright lied misrepresenting their illegal trading as me to hide those losses from the Japanese when I owned the accounts – not the Japanese.
Those in the Justice Department were ignorant of international currency transactions and in the criminal complaint they stated that they “have been informed by the attnorneys for Republic Bank”. The US Government did not even do the analysis. The notes were in yen which was what we owed – Japanese yen. What the dollar did was irrelevant – they were not dollar based notes. This was Safra trying to save his sale of the bank for $10 billion to HSBC. Then HSBC did its own due diligence and found the allegations were false and backed out. The allegations were all based on dollars not the currency of the note denomination – yen.
Safra then had to reduce his personal shares by $1 billion and agree to indemnify HSBC. Why? If the public got anything less, then they would have sued Republic/HSBC and the truth would come out. So Edmond took the haircut personally to prevent any lawsuit by shareholders.
I have the documents. So I know HOW this began and who did what. There was no coordinated group behind everything. It was one step at a time. Just as in Ukraine the West seizes the situation of a grassroots uprising to use it for its own benefit. This is how it always comes down – one step at a time – not some giant scheme carried out over decades. It is always the same pattern. Martin speculates that the "Justice Department were ignorant of international currency transactions". He has no way to prove that they did not fully understand but decided to pretend they did not. This is just an example where a human is not as objective as a computer, because emotions and confirmation biases are difficult for humans to eliminate from their subjective analysis. Any way, Armstrong has demonstrated nothing above about whether a global agenda exists or not. One can envision that to keep all the parties vested in a global agenda involves a lot of corruption and that corruption can't always be contained in predictable ways, and the system AUTONOMOUSLY adjusts to sustain the corruption (because corruption binds them together otherwise they could all be jailed). The evidence of that effect is the corrupt system put Armstrong in the slammer for 7 years on a bogus contempt of court charge. The case was steered to Judge Owen by the SEC to ensure they could control the case and moved to make sure there were no lawyers allowed even though corporations cannot be represented by a director. Nobody bothers with the law because they know it will take you years to get to the Supreme Court and the Second Circuit Court of Appeals is in the pocket of the Justice Department. So there is no possible way to obtain a fair trial in New York City. It will NEVER happen.
Goldman Sachs then hired Alan Cohen and put him directly on the board. This has never been done before. I believe because Cohen then seized all the evidence documenting the manipulation of markets to protect the other banks including files and many taped phone calls including with people at Goldman. The Princeton office was raided and Socrates was unplugged and taken to a special lab in NYC located in the World Trade Center – the old Saloman Brother’s building. They turned it on and discovered it had self-destructed. They then in writing demanded I turnover the source code or PEI would be shut down. I said go ahead, you will never get the code. And with all the coorperation amongst a large group, amazingly Armstrong thinks the "NY Club" is isolated and not part of any larger globalist agenda. And he presents absolutely no proof to support such an incredulous position, given the volumes of evidence I have presented to show not only is there a globalist agenda, but there is actual laws and actions occurring that implement that agenda globally in every country on earth. Is Martin blinded to the Agenda 21 activities against farmers in Latin America? https://www.google.com/search?q=Agenda+21+activities+against+farmers+in+Latin+AmericaIs Armstrong blind to the manipulation of Greece's economy done by Goldman Sachs, and then appointments of Goldman Sachs persons as leaders all over Europe recently. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/analysis-and-features/what-price-the-new-democracy-goldman-sachs-conquers-europe-6264091.htmlFirst Republic pleads guilty to $700 million. The the head prosecutor Richard D. Owens explains to the court on January 9th, 2002 that in reality the notes were in yen not dollars and now Republic only needs to pay $650 million but the yen remained the same. Then 30 days later, it is now $606 million. Owens handed HSBC $400 million in profits belonging to Princeton.
Amazingly, when it comes to the banks, suddenly the government lawyers understand the transactions were in yen not dollars Duh Martin, then why did you write that assumption above. Now, this is the sequence of events. Yes, you can create a conspiracy and say Goldman, CIA, and Safra all coordinated together to accomplish this. But the more likely than not truth, it is a sequence of independent events one step at a time that cascades into a mess they never foresaw. Then please explain why Goldman has its tentacles throughout the EU fuckfest. You even noted that the creation of the EU was designed to be flawed. Is that random? No! It was by design. This is where the conspiracy buffs go wrong. They create false images of all-powerful groups that mysteriously manipulate the world for purposes that vary between world dominance to just greed. They cannot see that these are separate groups colliding and at times fighting among each other. Martin you understand statistics. What is the probability of that level of integration by Goldman due to random orthogonal events and greed. ROUGHLY ZERO. I am tired of this nonsense. Armstrong is smarter than this. I don't know why he can't do some actual research and overcome his confirmation bias. Obstinance? I do not see how it is possible to have some unified secret group that everyone agrees and extended for hundreds of years. This is inconsistent with human nature. Because there is a power vacuum of democracy and it must be filled. You should understand thermodynamics. This vested interest binds them together, because they can't win control of that power vacuum otherwise. This is entirely consistent with nature. Now look at Ukraine. These conspiracy theorists just have to denigrate the people and presume it is some CIA plot so nobody cares about them. The people are incidental to them and incapable of rising up on their own. They deny human nature exists yet yell there is some all-powerful group to which I am blind. To them, the American Revolution and French Revolution are propaganda and the people were never capable of rising up on their own. They not only fail to understand politics yet claim to know everything about it without ever stepping behind the curtain to witness anything. Armstrong is conflating orthogonal issues again. I am empathizing with the plight of the Ukrainians, but there is nothing we can do to help them, because we would be merely fighting for the elite and helping the manipulation. The only way for Ukrainians to win is either to have armed themselves with a gun under every blade of grass like in the USA, or for some technological solution to come which enables them to side-step (opt-out) of the power vacuum of democracy, i.e. defund the taxation and political-industrial complex. And those prior revolutions were also manipulated for outcomes which favored the elite. We would need to get into a deep study of history to debate that, and I don't have time right now. I do believe there was more chaos at that time, because communication and travel was slower thus the chance we see now with anonymous crypto-currency was instead at the time taking the form of distance from the powers-that-be in Europe in the case of the American Revolution. These people project nothing but speculation connecting dysfunctional groups and linking them to statements of David Rockefeller to justify as proof. This idea of a one world government would eliminate war is stupidity. But it was behind the drive to create a Federalized Europe. Nevertheless, that is not proof that some group controls the world. Armstrong also has nothing but speculation, at least I have provided volumes of evidence. The difference now is that global technocracy is a reality and they can track everything. You bring the idealistic youth onboard and they will create an EU style fuckfest "international cooperation" for the entire world. And Rockefeller et al will have achieved their Agenda 21 consolidation of control and power over taxation and issuance of debt. There is no political system that has ever lasted intact because there is a correction process that comes from the grass-roots that we call – REVOLUTION. The only effectual physical revolution you will be seeing are the zombie idealistic youth for "international cooperation", after the global war and chaos from 2016 to 2024 or 2032. This globe has been shrunk by technology. The only remaining frontier for freedom is cryptography. Armstrong has a dinosaur perspective and he needs to correct this pronto!  "Protester Paul Connor sits on the lawns of Parliament House on day 34 of his hunger strike calling for climate change action, on Dec. 10, 2009, in Canberra, Australia." Rockefeller. His net worth of $2.8 billion is not very much in the scheme of things. Rockefeller's true networth is in the $trillions and is hidden behind NGOs, corporations, etc.. I have even sat at a Washington Dinner at the table with environmentalists who thought I and a friend Dick Fox being associated with Temple University were kin to their thinking. Their agenda is to reduce population growth using the environmental issues as the weapon to hide their true motives. This is the agenda behind global warming and the argued UN Article 21. We let them talk and then my friend Dick Fox who was Chairman of Temple University and the Fox Business School is names after him finally sprung the question on them. Whose grandchild are we trying to prevent from being born? Your’s or mine?
The Democrats have been sold on this environmentalist agenda, but I guarantee they have never heard what I heard that night. Obama is not into depopulation; he is just stupid and believes in global warming blaming cars and factories for the past 120 years being capable of changing the planet long-term. Obama is using the environmental movement not to depopulate, but to raise money and tax using the same theory of cigarettes just calling it the carbon taxes. The conspiracy theorists would then link Obama to depopulation as the secret agenda rather than agreeing further tax collection Whether Obama is stupid or not is irrelevant because he isn't the mastermind. He could be (and is likely) compartmentalized. You again speculate. The reality is the agenda is being put into action, and the youth will be indoctrinated and ready to embrace it as "international cooperation". These people remain blind to the motives behind such taxes and cannot grasp that politicians are only about money. No politicians are about sustaining the cooperation that keeps their brethren in control of the power vacuum of democracy. That is a fundamental myopia of Armstrong. He must correct this. These conspiracy theorists connect everything as if some single mind controls everything. They cannot point to a single thing this group has done without speculation or bold statements they were behind it. It doesn't even matter if there is a mastermind or not, the reality is Armstrong doesn't even identify the main trend in place, which is not just taxation but rather subjugating sovereignty to the collective on a wider scale as I have explained. They refuse to consider what if there is nobody actually in charge? What happens when all of these conflicting self-interests collide? Historically, you get revolution. That is the only way this will be resolved. And now finally I understand why Armstrong doesn't get it. He thinks the revolution will be physical. He hasn't realized the world has shrunk due to technology, and physical revolution can't overcome the great powers and the global technocracy. These revolutions will all be manipulated by the great powers. The revolution and frontier is cryptography. I've been trying to tell him this for several months. |
|
|
|
|
AnonyMint (OP)
|
|
May 06, 2014, 11:14:56 AM |
|
Cross-posting on cpu-only proof-of-work algorithm of CryptoNote: Which file in the source code contains the proof-of-work algorithm?
I've tried to locate it and can't seem to find it quickly.
I want to analyze the cpu-only claim.
src/crypto/slow-hash.c On quick glance, I see AES code. Is this the MemoryCoin algorithm and not the one described in the CryptoNote whitepaper which is memory latency bound? I do not think it is the memorycoin algorithm. Analyzed it. It is employing AES as another means of defeating GPUs (in addition to the memory latency bound), similar to MemoryCoin. https://cryptonote.org/inside.php#equal-proof-of-work3. GPUs may run hundreds of concurrent instances, but they are limited in other ways See prior analysis of that strategy, which concluded that GPUs would be 2.5 to 3X faster but would perform no better in hashes per Watt: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=355532.msg3976656#msg3976656I pointed out that ASICs would implement AES much more efficiently: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=355532.msg3977088#msg3977088Here follows my conclusions. - slow and thus DDoS prevention will be hampered, which will also likely eliminate any chance of supporting 0 transaction fees
- roughly both memory latency and computation bound (instead of the ideal of being only latency bound), thus if Tilera CPUs or GPUs add dedicated AES support or if ASICs are mated to large fast SDRAM caches, the cpu-only claim will fail.
- it is not leveraging hyperthreads
In short, it is too computation heavy, not maximizing the CPU's hyperthreads, and thus not only will it not be the best cpu-only PoW algorithm possible, it will also fail to be remain cpu-only if it becomes widely adopted. Also being computation heavy, it is consuming more electricity than the ideal cpu-only PoW algorithm. |
|
|
|
|
AnonyMint (OP)
|
|
May 06, 2014, 05:55:13 PM
Last edit: July 22, 2014, 06:51:22 PM by AnonyMint |
|
Another cross-posting on cpu-only proof-of-work algorithm of CryptoNote: Which file in the source code contains the proof-of-work algorithm?
I've tried to locate it and can't seem to find it quickly.
I want to analyze the cpu-only claim.
src/crypto/slow-hash.c On quick glance, I see AES code. Is this the MemoryCoin algorithm and not the one described in the CryptoNote whitepaper which is memory latency bound? I do not think it is the memorycoin algorithm. Analyzed it. It is employing AES as another means of defeating GPUs (in addition to the memory latency bound), similar to MemoryCoin. https://cryptonote.org/inside.php#equal-proof-of-work3. GPUs may run hundreds of concurrent instances, but they are limited in other ways See prior analysis of that strategy, which concluded that GPUs would be 2.5 to 3X faster but would perform no better in hashes per Watt: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=355532.msg3976656#msg3976656I pointed out that ASICs would implement AES much more efficiently: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=355532.msg3977088#msg3977088Here follows my conclusions. - slow and thus DDoS prevention will be hampered, which will also likely eliminate any chance of supporting 0 transaction fees
- roughly both memory latency and computation bound (instead of the ideal of being only latency bound), thus if Tilera CPUs or GPUs add dedicated AES support or if ASICs are mated to large fast SDRAM caches, the cpu-only claim will fail.
- it is not leveraging hyperthreads
In short, it is too computation heavy, not maximizing the CPU's hyperthreads, and thus not only will it not be the best cpu-only PoW algorithm possible, it will also fail to be remain cpu-only if it becomes widely adopted. Also being computation heavy, it is consuming more electricity than the ideal cpu-only PoW algorithm. There is another egregious flaw in the proof-of-work algorithm. AES encryption is being employed as the hash function and assumed to be a random oracle with perfect distribution in order to provide the randomized memory access. Problem is that AES is not suitable as a hash (certainly not when employed as encryption) for it has too small of a output space (repeating patterns will be over a few number of bits), thus it will be possible to attack this with an algorithm to reduce the scratchpad size significantly from the 2MB. |
|
|
|
|
AnonyMint (OP)
|
|
May 06, 2014, 10:11:34 PM |
|
Cross-posting the follow up: There is another egregious flaw in the proof-of-work algorithm. AES encryption is being employed as the hash function and assumed to be a random oracle with perfect distribution in order to provide the randomized memory access. Problem is that AES is not suitable as a hash (certainly not when employed as encryption) for it has too small of a output space (repeating patterns will be over a few number of bits), thus it will be possible to attack this with an algorithm to reduce the scatchpad size size significantly from the 2MB. In the memory hard phase, and it uses 256-bit key sizes. This is followed by a number of SHA3 candidates at the bottom. Even if you broke the memory hard AES phase, you'd still have to contend with those. So, whoever breaks 256-bit AES keys in the memory hard section is awarded most of the hash rate for the network. Good for them, and good luck to them. I have no real concern with keeping it "CPU only". Whoever innovates the first GPU miner or ASIC miner or whatever should be rewarded accordingly for their efforts. I think you've misunderstood my point. From ocular inspection of the code, the current 16 word value in the 2MB array is 'hashed' by applying AES encryption and this produces a new value and index into the array to store. Thus the uniform, random oracle, and thus non-patterned distribution of indices is assumed, otherwise an algorithm similar to a birthday attack can be applied to reduce the storage requirements in order to fun it faster on for example a GPU because more instances could be run simultaneously. In short, AES encryption is not a cryptographic hash function and shouldn't be employed as one. Thus I am not talking about breaking CryptoNote's slowhash function, rather I am pointing out that by misusing AES encryption, you are breaking the memory hard assumption. If you are not concerned with keeping it CPU-only, then why call it "CPU only"? There are so many altcoins which have deceived on this point. |
|
|
|
|
AnonyMint (OP)
|
|
May 07, 2014, 02:27:17 AM |
|
Cross-posting again on one more followup: If you are not concerned with keeping it CPU-only, then why call it "CPU only"? There are so many altcoins which have deceived on this point.
I can agree with the spirit of this, but from common usage on this forum "CPU only" just means currently a GPU miner isn't available. Usually someone comes along and develops one, often demanding payment to open source it. ASICs follow if/when economic feasibility allows. So it seems valid at least as far as the thread title goes. The CryptoNote developers' description of their PoW as "egalitarian" (implying true CPU only) is a different issue. In any case, I changed it to say "CPU only currently". As the algorithm currently is implemented, I believe that is more honest for the time being. If AES was replaced with a true cryptographic hash that was exceptionally faster (so that it would be only latency bound and no AES birthday-like attack possible) and if that hash was not efficiently implementable on GPUs, then I would consider the PoW to be strongly CPU only. I would think even an ASIC wouldn't likely outperform significantly since it would be up against all the economies-of-scale of Intel's fabs. In short, your PoW got very close to what I think is possible for design but is missing critical elements. If such a design I envision is open sourced, then you can copy it later.
I think you've misunderstood my point. From ocular inspection of the code, the current 16 word value in the 2MB array is 'hashed' by applying AES encryption and this produces a new value and index into the array to store. Thus the uniform, random oracle, and thus non-patterned distribution of indices is assumed, otherwise an algorithm similar to a birthday attack can be applied to reduce the storage requirements in order to fun it faster on for example a GPU because more instances could be run simultaneously.
So, I'm trying to understand -- AES does not take in completely random input size and value, and output a consistent length string, but instead takes in a consistent length random value string, and outputs a consistent size string? The effect being that you have limited your sources of particular outputs (inputs) to strings of size 'x' rather than strings of any size? The issue as I understand it (see the link I provided upthread) is that encrypted output is not designed to model a Random Oracle, whereas a cryptographic hash has certain qualities which are more approximate of a Random Oracle. In particular, there is no requirement that 1 bit of change in input to AES changes most of the bits of the output. A cryptographic hash is irreversible so has greater leeway to incorporate more confusion and diffusion. Whereas, an encryption algorithm by definition is reversible with decryption. |
|
|
|
|
AnonyMint (OP)
|
|
May 08, 2014, 12:53:13 AM
Last edit: May 08, 2014, 01:12:13 AM by AnonyMint |
|
Cross-posting about anonymity coins... I go into detailed discussion with tromp in my thread: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=557732.0Also you can find some discussion between him and myself in the MemoryCoin 2.0 PoW thread which I linked to upthread. In short, I don't believe it is CPU only currently, but (and I think we agreed this, but ask him) it might be the appropriate algorithm for mobile later if CPUs move to extremely high number of cores. Our discussion concluded with more testing is needed and I would try to help him get a TileGX in future if I can. I'm much more interested in your thoughts on HoneyPenny's PoW, as it's claimed to be an improved and future-proofed version of the CryptoNote algo: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=577267.0As far as I can see (unless I am missing something), I think it is silly and doesn't resolve the issues I explained upthread. I would like to comment on this issue of fairness and premine. I offer a "reality check" like water on the face. Apologies. In my opinion, the coin that wins is the one that has the best developers. Developers need to be paid. When I say developers, I mean several people like myself (or apparently smooth?) who are extremely capable programmers and computer scientists. That coin will win regardless of the level of premine retained to pay the bounties. I would hope the original CN developers could be paid. Communism sucks. The CryptoNote coins at this time all have a problem that they are too difficult to mine and use. The are not CPU only. They are not anonymous because they don't obscure the IP address and Tor is a honeypot. They do nothing to decentralize pools. Two Bitcoin pools control more than 50% of the network. There are many development issues that need to be addressed, e.g. decentralized exchanges. I suspect there is no way you get there without a premine to pay development costs. I mean we are talking about man-months or man-years of development. In my opinion (as a person who has developed million user commercial software projects), we can't just take some ByteCoin C code and slap a few tweaks on it and release it and expect to complete all the development work that needs to be done.
Add: I don't have time to read the entire thread but I've already seen political catfights. Nothing great gets done by committee nor a Foundation. A fair-minded Benevolent Dictator takes charge and delivers the goods. Then then people avail of it, because it works.
Zerocash will be announced soon (May 18 in Oakland? but open source may not be ready then?). Here is a synopsis of the tradeoffs compared to CyptoNote: 1. Zerocash hides everything, even the money supply so if the master key was compromised or if the highly complex bleeding edge crypto is cracked, no one will know. 2. They will claim to generate the master key at a ceremony or devise a way to compute in parts, but nothing they can do will insure it isn't compromised. CPUs even have special firmware that allows the NSA to reprogram them remotely, and even computation can be intercepted wireless with RF signals. Whereas we have to place all trust in a single party with Zerocash, with CN the trusted parties are changing on each transaction. Compromising the master key doesn't compromise the anonymity, but does compromise the money supply which could be expanded invisibly. Cracking the highly complex bleeding edge crypto which has not been sufficiently vetted over years, could compromise the anonymity ex post facto (it is all on the block chain). 3. Both CN and Zerocash use a form of cryptography which is not immune to quantum computation attack, if that becomes a reality in the future. 4. Zerocash transactions add up to 3 minutes of additional transaction delay which is much worse than Zerocoin. Zerocash (full node computation and block chain) resource requirements are centralizing but much improved over Zerocoin. 5. Zerocash hides everything so it is not necessary to obscure your IP address. Thus on balance I prefer CN, but I like to see it altered to use a quantum computer resistant algorithm. And then we need to add IP address obfuscation as well that is superior to Tor and I2P. Darkcoin (CoinJoin innovation) is really not at the level of the two above. You can review my comments in the Darkcoin thread to see why.
Thus on balance I prefer CN, but I like to see it altered to use a quantum computer resistance algorithm. And then we need to add IP address obfuscation as well that is superior to Tor and I2P.
Darkcoin (CoinJoin innovation) is really not at the level of the two above. You can review my comments in the Darkcoin thread to see why.
Thanks for the overview. What do you recommend that's superior to Tor? What I envision isn't available yet.
Somebody is attemping to relaunch == steal Monero bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=599580.0 I advise against posting in his topic at the moment to avoid bumping I would strongly suggest partial closed source until market dominance is achieved. Having the best developers will likely mean others can't readily fill in the gaps to release clones early in the ramp up. |
|
|
|
|
AnonyMint (OP)
|
|
May 08, 2014, 09:57:52 AM |
|
Cross-posting... strange when none of these accounts were around for the discussions that took place 3 weeks ago. Such vested interests with no prior indications. Hmm..
I just found out about it a few days ago. I was aware of CryptoNote and Bytecoin for a few weeks. Don't be so paranoid. Politics isn't what wins the race, rather it is development of features. I have already listed several features that no CN coin has, and I have several more in mind on top of that. And more on top of that, until all the major killer features have been satiated. The race has only just begun and being ahead by a few weeks is meaningless. Altcoin history shows that except in the case of premine (Tenebrix), the first implementation stays the largest by a wide margin. We're repeating that here by outpacing Bytecoin (thanks to its 80% mine prior to surfacing). No other CN coin has anywhere near the hashrate or trading volume. Go check diff in Fantom for example or the lack of activity in BCN trading. Tomorrow you can watch this Monero "relaunch" troll coin fail when it goes live.
The only CN coin out there doing something valuable is HoneyPenny, and they're open source too. If HP develops something useful, MRO can incorporate it as well. Open source gives confidence. No need for any further edge.
I never advocated entirely closed source, nor a long term partial open source. There are many things that give confidence and I think the ability to hold off clones and fund rapid development, and demonstrate superior features also generates confidence. Thus I am stating that I think Monero has adopted the wrong model, but only time will tell. Specifically I don't think radical innovation can come from design by open source committee. There needs to be a strong leader who drives the innovation. For example, you make a bounty for a pool design, but there are many innovations that could come in a the pool that won't be there due to lack of a strong innovative leader driving the project. Open source is very good at copying and propagating existing innovation, but not very good at creating it. Open source is a refinement protocol, not an innovation and creation protocol. |
|
|
|
|
AnonyMint (OP)
|
|
May 08, 2014, 11:57:03 PM |
|
Cross-posting... https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=583449.msg6622339#msg6622339There are at least two critically necessary improvements needed to the CryptoNote anonymity algorithm to make it function well in the real world. I am withholding my ideas until I see a coin that has an extremely capable Benevolent Dictator For Life (none of this Foundation and communism BS that has wrecked Bitcoin), a premine to fund contributions, and partial open source to prevent a plethora of clones in the ramp up phase. Upthread I have alluded to other improvements (e.g. CPU only, better IP obfuscation than Tor and I2P, pools that force decentralization, one click mining for the masses, etc) to which I implied I know of the solutions to. I have stated what I want to see in order to offer my support. If you think you can win with what you have now, I think you are mistaken. Good luck. |
|
|
|
|
AnonyMint (OP)
|
|
May 09, 2014, 02:42:13 AM |
|
Cross-posting... Someone (C++ skilled) did private optimized miner a few days ago, he got 74H/s for i5 haswell. He pointed that mining code was very unoptimized and he did essential improvements for yourself. So, high H/S is possible yet.
Can the dev's core review code for that?
Let me explain a bit about how open source works. Anyone is free to contribute. The lead developer and core team reviews the proposed changes and either adopts them or not. There is at least one of the core team who does work on optimization, and posted some optimizations. I would not be surprised if he develops further optimizations as well. So if you have proposed code changes, please submit them. Some sort of statement -- backed up by zero evidence -- about a unicorn miner that someone has is not helpful. Every altcoin has these "Kaiser Soze" miners who supposedly have much faster mining code than everybody else. Sometimes it's true and sometimes it isn't. We can't force anyone to contribute their code. The PoW algorithm needs to be highly optimized from public launch. Also IMHO, closed source on the PoW algorithm would be best until several weeks of ramp up is complete so clones are too far behind. Open source is a very effective paradigm for refining (because of the Linus law, "given enough eyeballs, every bug or refinement is shallow"), but it is not as effective at innovation because innovation requires pride+ownership (in one's work), investment of effort, and most of all leadership. Eric Raymond (the creator of the term "open source") opened a discussion on this last year (see the comments): http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=4946 (Adobe in cloud-cuckoo land) For example, how do you plan to decentralize pools? You will need some innovative leadership on an algorithm for that, lest you end up same as Bitcoin with two pools controlling greater than 50% of the network hash power. Ditto making mining easy enough for grandma to do. Etc. Does anyone know of any innovative project (created many new killer features) that was created by open source (and not open sourced after those innovative features were completed)? Btw, Russians are very astute at algorithmic optimization: http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=4901 (National styles in hacking) |
|
|
|
|
AnonyMint (OP)
|
|
May 09, 2014, 02:59:57 AM |
|
Cross-posting... https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=583449.msg6624426#msg6624426One more issue comes to mind. If the leader (lead developer) of an anonymous coin which successfully threatens the banksters' global hegemony over fiat, is not also anonymous, then he can be coerced by the powers-that-be in numerous ways (e.g. tax audit, trumped up criminal charges on something since there are so many laws everyone of us is breaking a federal or EU law every day, etc). Thus the lead developer can't gain from fame in the usual way of open source projects, e.g. Linus Torvalds. These issues need to be contemplated BEFORE launching your coin. If you are only interested in pump and dump, then this issue isn't important. But if you are serious about long-term development and success of the coin, then the issue should be discussed. If you choose instead a leaderless open source strategy to combat the above issue, then you have the issues of my prior post. |
|
|
|
|
David Latapie
|
|
May 09, 2014, 11:35:53 AM |
|
My answer here, in order not to derail the main Monero thread: Also IMHO, closed source on the PoW algorithm would be best until several weeks of ramp up is complete so clones are too far behind. Did you read what happened three days ago? Angry community. Look at all coins that suffered of the word "premine" even when the premine was actually used for good things. Same goes for closed-source and accidentel instamine. Crypto holders have been abused so often they do not have much patience for mistakes. The technology behind a project is nothing without a community, something a lot of experts trapped in their ivory tower fail to capture. We can lament this, but that's how it works. Open source good for refining not for innovating Agree, like a lot of major OSS proponents. Not that it is an impasse, though. Not being good doesn't mean being unable - Apple's proprietary' OS X boasted about compressed RAM in Maverick; Linux had it two years before it. So, that's a trend, not a rule. For example, how do you plan to decentralize pools? You will need some innovative leadership on an algorithm for that, lest you end up same as Bitcoin with two pools controlling greater than 50% of the network hash power. Asking tough questions is part of the open source idea. So thank you to highlight the issue. We should have a collaborative feature list somewhere - done Ditto making mining easy enough for grandma to do. Etc. The Monero one-liner is a step in this direction. A script (a mere encapsulation) will soon follow, then porting it to other Unixes and finally to Windows. And finally a GUI. Does anyone know of any innovative project (created many new killer features) that was created by open source (and not open sourced after those innovative features were completed)? Reminds me of something... Thus, almost everything is imitation. The idea of The Persian Letters was taken from The Turkish Spy. Boiardo imitated Pulci, Ariosto imitated Boiardo. The most original minds borrowed from one another. Miguel de Cervantes makes his Don Quixote a fool; but pray is Orlando any other? It would puzzle one to decide whether knight errantry has been made more ridiculous by the grotesque painting of Cervantes, than by the luxuriant imagination of Ariosto. Metastasio has taken the greatest part of his operas from our French tragedies. Several English writers have copied us without saying one word of the matter. It is with books as with the fire in our hearths; we go to a neighbor to get the embers and light it when we return home, pass it on to others, and it belongs to everyone. If the leader (lead developer) of an anonymous coin which successfully threatens the banksters' global hegemony over fiat, is not also anonymous, then he can be coerced by the powers-that-be in numerous ways (e.g. tax audit, trumped up criminal charges on something since there are so many laws everyone of us is breaking a federal or EU law every day, etc). You assume that we are important to the coins. We are not. We are by now by virtue of not having a lot of people in. A good leader is an expendable leader. That's how the guerilla movement work, by the way - you can't cut the head because either there is no head of, like the Lernaean Hydra, another head growths when one is severed. In system administration, we call it SPOF - single point of failure. As long as leader remind they are expendable, there is no single point of failure. Wikileaks would survive the demise of Assange, monero, given enough momentum, would survive the demise of the present team - it happened in the past. You are still right on one point: the leader must be proactive in reminding they are expendable. Otherwise, it would lead to sacralization and this is not good (private interest over general interest). |
|
|
|
|
AnonyMint (OP)
|
|
May 09, 2014, 10:19:11 PM |
|
The community is stupid and doesn't know what it needs, which is why it's an uphill battle to convince everyone why certain features are important. The community doesn't think transaction fees are an issue. They think cpu-only coins are bad because "omg botnets." They think money supply should be fixed because "omg inflation." They think premines are evil because they're only interested in the short-term profitability of the coin.
However, the community will adobt a currency that is convenient and simple, in spite of the features everyone thinks are negative. User experience and design is everything when it comes to adoption. Mining should be as simple as running an app and clicking a giant green button that says "START MINING." Making transactions should be equally brainless. The need to specify ambiguity and tx outs when making transactions is stupid and adds unnecessary complication. All of those parameters should be fixed and secure by default.
I told TFT to let me design a beautiful GUI for easy mining to implement before launching. He said okay, but then launched without me. A beautiful and simple GUI wallet also needs to be implemented before launch. Beyond that, if you only do what the community thinks is important, you will never make progress.
Thank you for sharing this with me. Leaderless organization is good for defending what you have (see the Apache and the first chapter of the book The Starfish and the Spider) and it allows for individual innovation because each person is their own leader (and in fact my currently paused effort with Copute is about modularization of open source via higher-order semantics to facilitate this type of disorganized, open source innovation), but in the near-term it doesn't metastasize as well project-wide innovation. Additionally, large groups can be manipulated by the powers-that-be, so the project doesn't even remain leaderless long-term. If no individual is important, then usually no one bothers to give their best effort. Collectivism is lazy and half-assed. Linux would not be what it is today if Linus Torvalds had not been there to say "no" to certain commits: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ZRvHbHxr-k (hear it from his mouth) Without a leader, you end up with political gridlock, e.g. Bitcoin. This is the power vacuum of democracy. Mancur Olsen described this in the The Logic of Collective Action. http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=984 (Some Iron Laws of Political Economics) It doesn't matter what these early miners say and think. The important demographic are the 7 billion out there. Make the miner available to them and bypass the whiners who complain about a premine. If I launched an altcoin, the thread would be self-moderated and all political comments would be deleted. Because I know very well what is needed and what will drive massive adoption. I don't need their feedback, because I've been studying and getting feedback in the BTT for over a year. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
AnonyMint (OP)
|
|
May 11, 2014, 02:50:06 AM
Last edit: May 11, 2014, 04:10:27 AM by AnonyMint |
|
Cross-posting... https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=583449.msg6662938#msg6662938Zerocash will be announced soon (May 18 in Oakland? but open source may not be ready then?).
Here is a synopsis of the tradeoffs compared to CyptoNote:
1. Zerocash hides everything, even the money supply so if the master key was compromised or if the highly complex bleeding edge crypto is cracked, no one will know.
2. They will claim to generate the master key at a ceremony or devise a way to compute in parts, but nothing they can do will insure it isn't compromised. CPUs even have special firmware that allows the NSA to reprogram them remotely, and even computation can be intercepted wireless with RF signals. Whereas we have to place all trust in a single party with Zerocash, with CN the trusted parties are changing on each transaction. Compromising the master key doesn't compromise the anonymity, but does compromise the money supply which could be expanded invisibly. Cracking the highly complex bleeding edge crypto which has not been sufficiently vetted over years, could compromise the anonymity ex post facto (it is all on the block chain).
3. Both CN and Zerocash use a form of cryptography which is not immune to quantum computation attack, if that becomes a reality in the future.
4. Zerocash transactions add up to 3 minutes of additional transaction delay which is much worse than Zerocoin. Zerocash (full node computation and block chain) resource requirements are centralizing but much improved over Zerocoin.
5. Zerocash hides everything so it is not necessary to obscure your IP address.
Thus on balance I prefer CN, but I like to see it altered to use a quantum computer resistant algorithm. And then we need to add IP address obfuscation as well that is superior to Tor and I2P.
Darkcoin (CoinJoin innovation) is really not at the level of the two above. You can review my comments in the Darkcoin thread to see why.
ZerocashOn further analysis, sending a transaction to Zerocash without reliable obfuscation of your IP address, means the NSA and other national security agencies know you are transacting even though they don't know the amount nor payee. But we know the NSA is sharing data now with G20 tax authorities (I have a citation for this), thus the tax authorities can demand you provide the details of the transaction. Thus Zerocash's anonymity is useless (or at least very risky) against the coming wave of confiscation and taxation, without something more reliable than Tor and I2P for obfuscating the IP address. Tor and I2P being low-latency Chaum mix-nets are subject to timing attacks by a global adversary such as the NSA, as well the Tor servers are likely honeypots (Q: who has a motivation to provide all that traffic for free? A: the NSA). I have citations for these statements. CryptoNote / Monero et alCryptoNote's one-time ring signature as a way of obfuscating who is the payer (the spender), is optional and can only be used when there are other payees who have matching input amounts. In other words, it can't do any obfuscation for you on spending unless there are other coins that have the same balance as yours. That very infrequent opportunity for use is coupled with constant use of elliptical curve cryptography which is known to be broken under quantum computing, as well is suspect to broken by the NSA[1] or could be broken since it is number theoretic public key cryptography. And the use of one-time ring signatures mucks up the pruning of the block chain of spent addresses. There is a tweak to improve this over the current CryptoNote (one of the tweaks I alluded to upthread). Bottom line is most of your anonymity will come from obfuscating your IP address with something more reliable than Tor and I2P, not from the block chain mixing of CryptoNote or Zerocash/coin, i.e. if your IP is correlated to your identity, then the one-time ring signature doesn't obscure your identity when you spend. The case where the one-time ring signature is really useful is a transaction with multiple inputs wherein the spender is merging his coins, thus enabling tracing of those coins to the same entity (the current spender). And it is very unfortunate the one-time ring signature is optional in this case, because it is the identity of the upchain spenders who suffer from this action by the current spender, thus the motivation is not there. So we can see as it is currently structured, CryptoNote doesn't really support anonymity much. Sorry to blow holes in your enthusiasm. Reality sucks if you haven't taken the time to do some serious work before launching. Note that the use of a separate payee address for each transaction is a very useful strategy. This is a positive aspect of CryptoNote that adds anonymity, but again it is not so effective without reliable IP obfuscation, as the payee will reveal himself on spending. [1] http://crypto.stackexchange.com/questions/10263/should-we-trust-the-nist-recommended-ecc-parametershttps://www.schneier.com/essay-446.htmlhttps://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2013/11/elliptic_curve.html#c2200076https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2013/09/the_nsa_is_brea.html#c1676105https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=500994.msg5518821#msg5518821 (read entire thread) https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=548418.msg5975715#msg5975715https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=240410.msg3973597#msg3973597
CryptoNote / Monero et al
CryptoNote's one-time ring signature as a way of obfuscating who is the payer (the spender), is optional and can only be used when there are other payees who have the inputs amounts. In other words, it can't do any obfuscation for you on spending unless there are other coins that have the same balance as yours.
That very infrequent opportunity for use is coupled with constant use of elliptical curve cryptography which is known to be broken under quantum computing, as well is suspect to broken by the NSA or could be broken since it is number theoretic public key cryptography.
This is actually pretty easy to solve and CryptoNote already implements it: every transaction is broken up. There will always be outputs in the blockchain matching the broken-down components. Unlike CoinJoin, this is done without any participation from anyone else. The other matching amounts are not being spent at the same time; in fact they can be used as many times as needed as an ambiguity factor without actually being spent. This means the opportunity to use ring signatures isn't infrequent at all -- you can send any amount you want and it will be appropriately matched and mixed. (See section 4.5 in the white paper.) You haven't addressed my point that eliminates the ability to prune the block chain, because you will never know which outputs have been spent. Automatically (is this enforced or optional per wallet?) breaking the transaction outputs into constant units, e.g. 1 coin, 0.5 coin, 0.25 coin etc, will radically bloat the block chain. The ring signatures are going to be huge if you need to obfuscate among say for example 256 payers (1/256 probability of being non-anonymous) each for several inputs, e.g. for 1.76 MRO spend 1 MRO, 0.5 MRO, 0.25 MRO, 0.01 MRO, as well as payee addresses for each of those fractional amounts. And it won't solve the problem unless the smallest of those enforced fractional amounts match up with the fractional remainder of your transaction, which implies radical block chain bloat. All of that waste, and still if your IP is not obfuscated you lose anonymity. Whereas, if your IP address is obfuscated, then you don't need all that waste above (and don't incur the risk of relying on elliptical signatures being compromised ANY TIME IN THE FUTURE DECADES breaking your historic anonymity on the block chain). And with IP address obfuscation your anonymity is assured regardless what happens on the block chain tracing. However it might still be an improvement to enforce one-time ring signatures only when merging balances, i.e. multiple inputs to a transaction. But the issue of partitioning transactions to fixed fractional amounts and block chain bloat has to be weighed. If you think that bloating the block chain is irrelevant then I remind you that two Bitcoin pools control more than 50% of the network, so if the government takes over these pools (even insidiously), they can defeat you (in numerous ways, e.g. they can help correlate your IP address by controlling the destination and source of your transaction sends and mining awards respectively). It already takes hours to days to download the Bitcoin block chain, and you are proposing to increase that by orders-of-magnitude.
From what little I'm familiar with though, wouldn't something like ip-obfuscation be more exclusive of the currency protocol itself and have more to do with data is transferred through an IP? At least, if it were to surface in the world, I would imagine it to be aimed at something much more main-stream than a cryptocurrency. Like an email system or some other sort of messaging system would seem a much more valid proof of concept, rather than having it surface in a cryptocurrency for the first time.
Yeah IP obfuscation could be more generally applicable to internet activities. That is why Tor and I2P exist. Unfortunately they may not be that perfect. Let's pull a guesstimate out of our arse that they are anonymous 80% of the time to a global adversary and thus to tax authorities and governments. That means every 5th of your transactions is not. edit: Automatically (is this enforced or optional per wallet?) breaking the transaction outputs into constant units, e.g. 1 coin, 0.5 coin, 0.25 coin etc, will radically bloat the block chain. The ring signatures are going to be huge if you need to obfuscate among say for example 256 payers (1/256 probability of being non-anonymous) each for several inputs, as well as payee addresses for each of those fractional amounts.
For a transaction of 1234.567800000000, the transaction is broken down into parts 1000,200,30,4,.5,.06,.07,.008 . Everyone has to agree on the fractional amounts, so they can't be arbitrarily chosen as you have shown. Rather with a power-of-2 standard (I'm a programmer so I can write the first 20 entries in following list without a calculator): 0.0001 0.0002 0.0004 0.0008 0.0016 0.0032 0.0064 0.0128 0.0256 0.0512 0.1024 0.2048 0.4096 0.8192 1.6384 3.2768 6.5536 13.1072 26.2144 52.4288 104.8576 209.7152 419.4304 838.8608 The break down would be 1234.5678 = 838.8608 + 209.7152 + 104.8576 + 52.4288 + 26.2144 + 1.6384 + 0.8192 + 0.0256 + 0.0064 + 0.0008 + 0.0004 + 0.0002. I have asked about the bloat on the chain before, and the consensus was that with the visible competition enforcing a 10% tax on mining to afford some privacy, then the storage space used to hold the blockchain would be a much less cost. I would like to know much more about this though, because the blockchain is noticeably larger in this protocol by a lot.
The issue is not only the cost of the storage. There is the download speed also. And other complex factors. A tax is probably also going to have Tragedy of the Commons effects, as I explained in my numerous discussions of why transaction fees will never work for Bitcoin in the long-run. There are other articles out now about these by others. Such discussion will take us off on tangents I don't feel like having right now. |
|
|
|
CoinCube
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1946
Merit: 1055
|
|
May 11, 2014, 01:34:44 PM |
|
Interesting breakdown of the pros and cons of the various anonymity technologies out there. Lots of new info on Zerocash which I have not read much on before.
Zerocash is interesting but I really dont like the idea of a single code that must be computed and destroyed
for the system to work. Tremendous temptation there for one of the developers to keep a copy of that on a USB stick somewhere just in case. Who would not want the ability to print money in total secrecy at whim.
Regardless I am happy to see competing technologies in this area as it is good for cryptocurrency.
|
|
|
|
|
AnonyMint (OP)
|
|
May 12, 2014, 09:40:09 AM |
|
Mixcoin ( http://eprint.iacr.org/2014/077.pdf) another rather ineffective anonymity proposal. See the Deanonymization in section 3 and the admission in section 4. There is no way to prove that many (or most of) the mixers aren't honeypots. Just like with Tor or I2P, you don't have reliable anonymity. If every 5th of your transactions is not anonymous and you don't know which ones are and are not, then this is basically useless. Also this does nothing to obfuscate the IP address, so ditto what I wrote in the upthread posts. Also this is based on reputation, i.e. restitution is not cryptographically guaranteed. Thus this can be gamed by constantly creating new mixers that defraud then close down. Thus this will migrate over time to a few highly trusted mixers which of course will be honeypots because they are well known and established, thus easy for the government to track down and serve with national security gag order. |
|
|
|
|
|
Keyboard-Mash
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 56
Merit: 0
|
|
May 13, 2014, 06:38:14 AM |
|
So I would respectfully request that you guys take it over to the Economics subforum or somewhere else a bit more focused. There are MRO-specific topics to discuss here.
Due to the medium to long term focus of our discussion, and the short-term focus of building a positive community in light of an unrelenting torrent of drama since the day the coin was released due to reasons outside anyone's direct control, I must defer to Smooth's logic. Let's the conversation be lightened so as to not stamp out one of the few brighter horizons with such heavy issues simply because we couldn't find better spaces in which to discuss. Thanks for the update, it will again take me some time to take in and digest the information presented. I had just begun to make a few steps on the other issue you presented. A bit of looking has put me on something that I was alluding to as well, because I'm willing to accept that both TOR and I2P are not reliable. TOR specifically for reasons you've presented in the past, I'm still working on understanding I2P. I would imagine it to be aimed at something much more main-stream than a cryptocurrency. Like an email system or some other sort of messaging system would seem a much more valid proof of concept
In trying to explain myself I came across an enlightening article today. As usual I don't yet have the full basis to understand the concepts, but I think this relates pretty well: http://www.defenseone.com/technology/2014/05/what-most-secure-email-universe-would-look/84247/The paper linked in that article is here: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1404.7347v1.pdfIn searching for anonymity on top of privacy, it seems that low probability of detection communication can be better leveraged than the tunneling solutions that I've seen presented. The amount of data that can be transferred is extremely low, but the process seems quite a walk in the right direction if one were to be seeking anonymity on top of privacy. While there is no way to share a secret code in an invisible email, there is a way to share it in an encrypted email that would destroy itself if viewed by an outsider. Using quantum encryption, you could send a message between two parties containing the deciphering key and that message, while detectable, would also be unhackable.
University of Oxford quantum physicist Artur Ekert calls quantum encryption the ultimate physical limits of privacy. Other key distribution schemes such as the Diffie Hellman scheme, rely on the difficulty of mathematical problems to work, whereas quantum encryption does not. According to Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle, objects viewed on the atomically small quantum scale change their behavior when viewed. Quantum encryption offers the possibility of a message so secure that any attempt to read it without authorization will destroy it, not because of some programmer’s whim but because of the way subatomic particles operate.
“For quantum cryptography we need ‘only’ to transit quantum particles over a certain distance, and this is relatively easy. Quantum cryptography has been demonstrated in practice and there are even companies that can sell it to you,” Ekert told Defense One.
Quantum cryptography and Bash’s pulse position modulation technique are two very different animals. Cryptography makes messages difficult to decipher and pulse position modulation cloaks them so that they can’t be detected. But Bash’s method could go hand-in-hand with something like quantum key distribution, which a message sender would use in advance to share the key code. That, in turn, would be used in the future for covert communication.
Here’s what the most secure electronic message exchange in the history of humanity would like: You would first exchange the code key in a quantum encrypted message, and then, when the receiver and the sender both had the code, they could exchange an invisible — thus perfectly secure — message. A third party might be able to detect that two parties had exchanged a single message that had been quantum encrypted, containing the key code, but that third party wouldn’t be able to see any of the exchanges that passed after that or open the key code message.
Can this be applied to a cryptocurrency protocol, or would one have to be re-written around it? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
AnonyMint (OP)
|
|
May 14, 2014, 01:51:31 AM |
|
---------------------------- Original Message ---------------------------- Subject: Real democracy can't exist because it is a power vacuum From: AnonyMint Date: Tue, May 13, 2014 9:43 pm To: "Armstrong Economics" < armstrongeconomics@gmail.com> -------------------------------------------------------------------------- http://armstrongeconomics.com/2014/05/13/the-death-of-representative-government-the-real-conspiracy-crisis-in-democracy/It is a positive step (but unsatisfying) to see that Martin Armstrong has dropped the illogical CIA plot red-herring, strawman argument (for now, we he bring it back again?). Now he reverts to his original reasoning displayed on his blog before the Ukraine situation came into being. Note I have read virtually EVERYTHING Armstrong has written which is available on the internet. Essentially Armstrong believes that the only possible solution for mankind to avoid the repeating corruption of political structure throughout human history, is term limits for politicians. Armstrong's thesis is that politicians' vested interests become ingrained if they are allowed to stay in office too long (Btw, an anti-dynasty law is proposed now in the Philippines where I am). I don't understand why Martin Armstrong can't grasp the point of Mancur Olson's book The Logic Of Collective Action, which explains that voting people into office creates a power vacuum wherein those who win are those who promise the most to everyone. In other words, it hands away the top-down control and power to privatize the gains from profits of banking (and other corruptions) and socialize the costs of defaults from these corrupt activities. I've sent the following link to Armstrong numerous times, I guess he hasn't taken the time to read it carefully. The following was written by Eric Raymond, the progenitor of the open source movement and who is known to have an IQ in the 150 to 170 range. http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=984(Some Iron Laws of Political Economics) Creating some constitution or law to create term terms will not eliminate the power vacuum, because the people who the term limits apply to are the ones who are voting on the laws of the land. Even if they don't create a law to absolve the term limits (one possibility), they can use their influence while in office to gain employment after they leave office with those corporations and entities which are benefiting from "the top-down control and power to privatize the gains from profits of banking (and other corruptions) and socialize the costs of defaults from these corrupt activities.". Thus creating a round-robin revolving door for political office accomplishes nothing against the power vacuum of political top down control. Even if we had the people vote directly on each and every action of the government, the people could still be manipulated by mass media as they are today. And because people are easily divided on petty issues, they are easy to divide-and-conquer politically. I long ago concluded there is no solution to politics. Martin sees that it has been this way throughout human history, yet he thinks he is going to lead some sudden change to the way it has always been? DELUSION! That is a first stage of insanity! The power vacuum of political economics is a natural effect. It can't be changed, because it is nature. Come on Martin, come back to your senses. Get a grip on reality. You are not God. Even the Bible explains this can't be changed in 1 Samuel 8. The solution presented in the Bible is that those who believe are "not one of this world" and should only answer to one King and not be concerned with what happens in this flesh life. Armstrong is correct that a Benevolent Dictator such as Caesar can provide a brief respite from the power vacuum, but as Rome proved this is never sustainable and the ill effects of the power vacuum re-emerge. Armstrong is correct that the problem "is government" (specifically the power vacuum) but he is incorrect to believe this can be changed. There is only one change that has ever worked longer-term in the history of the world. And that is for oppressed people to escape to a new frontier wherein the government is small. This works until those people become numerous and society becomes well-established, then the government grows large again and the ill effects emerge. Unfortunately now on earth, there is no more place for physical frontier, because technology has shrunk the world. Even if you try to go hide in the mountains between Argentina and Chile, there are roaming rangers who will hunt you down. The U.S.A. even has satellites which can read the VIN number plate on the dashboard of your car and identify your face from outer space! In the past at least we had physical cash (or gold/silver) to transact with anonymously (out of view of the government) during oppressive times, but now commerce is mostly electronic so tangible cash would mean a cataclysmic implosion of the velocity-of-money (because it can't be exchanged electronically), which is precisely what has been happening since the blowup of Long-Term Capital Management in 1998. http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article45235.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantity_theory_of_moneyM × V = P × Q ≈ nominal GDP So now we come full circle to the only frontier remaining on earth which has any chance of providing a solution to the current global cataclysm ahead. I described in great detail how the world is moving away from labor to a knowledge age. One must read the following linked threads and understand that labor could be financed and top-down controlled (c.f. the Theory of the Firm), but knowledge is different especially now we have the means to self-publish (internet) and self-produce (3D printers) our knowledge. At the thread below I successfully debated Eric Raymond: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=495527.msg6065144#msg6065144https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=557732.msg6078778#msg6078778The only frontier remaining is for us to move to a knowledge economy where most commerce is hidden from the government (the power vacuum of democracy) with anonymous crypto-currency. The old labor-intensive industrial world is dying. Those bankster elite are consolidating their economies-of-scale now with their geopolitical war games and austerity programs driving revolutions, because IT IS JUST TIME. What time is it? It is the end of their paradigm. Finance will die. Because knowledge production no longer needs stored capital. This is a epochal shift and Armstrong is blinded. He can only see the old world and old world non-solutions and plays right into the hand of the elite's consolidation of power. Whereas, the other side of the new technology is the birth of the Knowledge Age and the death of the Industrial Age. Is Martin too old to have an epiphany? Well I don't have more time to convince him. I have real work to do on doing my role to make this Knowledge Age come to fruition as fast as possible. What is the solution for Ukraine? It is the same as the solution for people all over the world. Learn to do knowledge work in your home. Hide away from the chaos outside. Let the elite consolidate their power. Meanwhile adopt anonymous crypto-currency and profit from your knowledge work. Soon the old world will be bankrupted as we race forward into prosperity. Epochal shift. Can Martin open his eyes to what TIME IT IS? |
|
|
|
|
AnonyMint (OP)
|
|
May 14, 2014, 02:19:51 AM |
|
---------------------------- Original Message ---------------------------- Subject: Private assets will also crash; Armstrong doesn't know what TIME IT IS From: AnonyMint Date: Tue, May 13, 2014 10:16 pm To: "Armstrong Economics" < armstrongeconomics@gmail.com> -------------------------------------------------------------------------- http://armstrongeconomics.com/2014/05/13/understanding-the-new-era-we-face-no-more-general-terms-apply/Armstrong is misreading his own computer model, because (per my prior message) he fails to understand that: 1. Technology has shrunk the world thus all physical assets can be tracked down by OECD+NSA cooperation. It will be extremely difficult to hide tangible assets from the imploding industrial world taxman cometh. 2. Relevance (thus value) of stored capital is dying because individual knowledge self-creation, self-publishing, and self-production is rising which doesn't need much capital nor corporation coordination (Theory of the Firm's relevance is dying). 3. Physical commerce is diminishing relative to electronic and virtual services are rising. Heck people even expend a lot of time and effort on virtual games, and thus this is an economic good now. So while tangible assets will rise in fiat price, the fiat economy is imploding exponentially while the hidden knowledge economy (will soon be even more hidden in anonymous crypto-currency) is rising exponentially. Thus all this stored capital running around like chairs on tossing around on the deck of the Titanic searching for a safe home. There is no safe home. Stored capital will decline in relative value. This is the end of those fuckers. All those money managers can lick my arse, they are going to lose relevance. So now Armstrong's international capital flows model will become increasingly irrelevant and blinded, if he doesn't find some way to incorporate data from the new hidden paradigm shift. Let those money managers buy ancient coins. It won't help them. WE DON'T NEED THEIR STORED CLAIMS ON FUTURE LABOR. They are dinosaurs. Checkmate. |
|
|
|
|
AnonyMint (OP)
|
|
May 14, 2014, 03:25:47 AM |
|
---------------------------- Original Message ---------------------------- Subject: Armstrong's confirmation bias rules his intellect; extreme naivete From: AnonyMint Date: Tue, May 13, 2014 11:22 pm To: "Armstrong Economics" < armstrongeconomics@gmail.com> -------------------------------------------------------------------------- http://armstrongeconomics.com/2014/05/13/the-death-of-representative-government-the-real-conspiracy-crisis-in-democracy/The people behind the curtain are bureaucrats, not
bankers. The bankers may try to manipulate these people, but they have now
lost the game to raw political power. The US is going after Credit Swiss
and expects to fine them $2 billion for assisting Americans to hide money
from taxes. They have destroyed the Swiss banking system and the Swiss
bureaucrats drew the line in the sand at 2008 for any Swiss bank liability
to the USA. That has led to the collapse of banking values. Martin you consistently invent illogical strawmen arguments, which are irrelevant. This is because you refuse to see the big picture. The elite are quite happy to destroy banks since all the proceeds fall into their lap. You don't seem to grasp that the controllers of the DEEP STATE don't just own banks, they own everything. They even own the central banks. Their aims are not profits nor saving any single business they own, rather like any smart asset manager, they selling some assets while obtaining new ones that give them greater power. They used the banks to destroy the nation-states, now they are consolidating their political power which is much more valuable than those disposable banks. They can create new banks and new financial systems from their consolidated political control. You are such a disingenuous debater, because it is like a mature adult with a high IQ who can visualize complex relationships, debating with a 5 year old who can only see simple concepts. It is perplexing to me that you are smart enough to understand A.I., programming, disgest and categorize so much historic data, etc.., yet how can you be so obtuse and naive on big picture analysis of political structure? Is it because you think you were on the inside thus you think you know that politicians are just dumb? But why aren't you smart enough to see that you and they are compartmentalized and not seeing the big picture. It would be entirely unnatural outcome of the power vacuum of democracy if the global elite did not exist. It would violate thermodynamics. Lagarde promised to save Italy with 80 billion Euros to
prevent the economic crash. However, Berlusconi had to go. The EU
dictatorship known as the Troika, wanted to seize Italy and control that
country before it too might break from the Euro under Berlusconi. Lagarde
is a very dangerous woman. She is the one dictating to Ukraine they must
go to war with Russia to hold the East and the proxy for the West. While
the conspiracy buffs only see the CIA, they cannot explain why then has
the West declined to send in troops or admit Ukraine to NATO. The reason –
there is no money on the table to grab as was the case in Iraq and Syria
was a ploy for the pipeline to displace Russia. If there was a CIA plot
that was serious, there would have been an invasion. Lacking money to
attract Obama, Ukraine is just about saving people and that is just an
excuse – never worthy of invasion. Hey Martin, you just can't seem to grasp my email yesterday wherein I explained to you Obama has drawn Putin into a trap to force him to expend $1 trillion on Ukraine occupation, which will make Putin more desperate and lead to great conflict in Europe, which will help to obfuscate the true cause of the coming economic collapse of Europe. We astute observers all predicted this. The elite always operate this way, to create misdirection of public blame and focus. This renewed cold war between great powers (USA vs. Russia) will help drive the youth clamor for "international cooperation" solution by 2032. Thus the elite get their greater economies-of-scale NWO (world or regional governments) control over the financial and political systems of the world. Martin are you really this obtuse to how the power vacuum of democracy works? You act like a naive 5 year old who can only see very small picture of what is going on. It is like if I show a 5 year old my left hand with spider on it, and tell him all spiders originate from my hand, while with my right hand I am covertly dropping a spider in the naive 5 year old's back pocket. According to the FT, Angela Merkel is said to have been
outraged at Obama’s arguments. This may be why he had the NSA tapping her
phones. Merkel is reported to have told Obama that she could not pledge
the German silverware, because ECB chief Jens Weidmann had been vetoed.
According to FT, it was the Obama Administration and French who realized
at this point that they had gone too far. A decision was postponed until
the next morning when nothing else happened. This illustrates what we are
facing. Career politicians are far more dangerous than the CIA, Illuminati
or the Bilderberg Group. Again you construct a strawman argument. Yes of course the politicians can't commit suicide and the global elite have to adjust their plans to manipulate the people into the desired outcome. And yes politicians are not the global elite, are partially compartmentalized, and have to be manipulated into doing the desired actions (e.g. see how Putin has been sucked into the desired action). Nothing you have written has even one shred of disproof of the existence and actions of the global elite. In fact, the more you write, the more it supports the modus operandi of the global elite. Your confirmation bias is very likely due to your desire for a solution. You believe that if the problem is just the dumb politicians, then maybe humanity could get rid of them and have a solution. That is just dumb. Dumber than dumb. It defies logic and nature. Only frontiers have ever been the escape route for those who seek freedom from the collective. And that will NEVER change. Hope you wise up. |
|
|
|
|
AnonyMint (OP)
|
|
May 14, 2014, 03:40:32 AM |
|
---------------------------- Original Message ---------------------------- Subject: Who is coordinating that REAL CONSPIRACY? From: AnonyMint Date: Tue, May 13, 2014 11:39 pm To: "Armstrong Economics" < armstrongeconomics@gmail.com> -------------------------------------------------------------------------- http://armstrongeconomics.com/2014/05/13/the-death-of-representative-government-the-real-conspiracy-crisis-in-democracy/Everyone at the helm of governments today is on board
with this agenda. This is the REAL CONSPIRACY and the public is being
misled into every other direction purposefully to prevent anyone from
stopping this agenda. The G20 is now coordinating as a single cooperative
entity to hunt down money everywhere. Welcome to the new face of Marxism.
Not even the bankers, Bilderbergs, or the Illuminati are invited. Martin Armstrong, it is right there in what you wrote and you can't see it? How blind can you possibly be. How could all those governments be so coordinated towards a globalist agenda and yet no one is pulling strings to coordinate that? Impossible. You seem to misunderstand that the global elite own the politicians and everything. You continue to ignore the research, for example out of all the evidence I sent you previously, don't forget this one: http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21228354.500-revealed--the-capitalist-network-that-runs-the-world.htmlThe global elite own all the multi-national corporations, they own the central banks, they own most of the world's gold, etc.. They control the world. The politicians are just their pawns. You will never wakeup. You are a sheep. |
|
|
|
|
AnonyMint (OP)
|
|
May 14, 2014, 09:02:59 AM
Last edit: May 14, 2014, 09:43:06 AM by AnonyMint |
|
Cross-posting... https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=583449.msg6698221#msg6698221 I have asked about the bloat on the chain before, and the consensus was that with the visible competition enforcing a 10% tax on mining to afford some privacy, then the storage space used to hold the blockchain would be a much less cost. I would like to know much more about this though, because the blockchain is noticeably larger in this protocol by a lot.
The issue is not only the cost of the storage. There is the download speed also. And other complex factors. A tax is probably also going to have Tragedy of the Commons effects, as I explained in my numerous discussions of why transaction fees will never work for Bitcoin in the long-run. There are other articles out now about these by others. Such discussion will take us off on tangents I don't feel like having right now. Someone from your group private messaged me and ask I provide references. Here is the recent article I was referring to: http://radar.oreilly.com/2014/04/bitcoin-what-happens-when-the-miners-pack-up-their-gear.htmlI raised similar issues last year as follows. Transactions Withholding Attack"Spiraling Transaction Fees Destruction" of bitcoin (Transactions fees are a Tragedy of the Commons) Well I see as January 2014, others below started to expound upon what I had explained in November 2013 at the threads given by the quoted links above. On The Longest Chain Rule and Programmed
Self-Destruction of Crypto Currencies5.4 The Increasing Fees Argument
The question of why fees are not enough to support miners has been brilliantly
explained by Robert Scams in [20].
The argument is that basically sooner or later "defationary currencies" and
"growth currencies" will be in competition. Then all the other things being more
or less in equilibrium, in defationary currencies most of the pro t from appre-
ciation will be received by holders of current coins through their appreciation.
Therefore less pro t will be made by miners in these currencies. However min-
ers control the network and they will impose higher fees. In contrast in growth
coins, there will be comparatively more seigniorage pro t and it will be spent on
hashing. Miners will make good pro ts and transaction fees will be lower. Thus
year after year people will prefer growth currencies due to lower transaction fees.
Overall we see that this is crucial question of how the cost of the infrastruc-
ture necessary for the maintain a digital currency is split between new adopters
(which pay for it through appreciation) and users (which pay through transac-
tion fees. It is obvious that there exists an optimal equilibrium between these
two sources of income, and that there is no reason why the creator of bitcoin
would get it right, some adjustments will be necessary in the future Btw, the above linked paper is a siren call for strictly CPU only alt-coins, with constant perpetual debasement and 0 tx fees, and which have some mechanism to limit pool sizes. The rest of the point of the above paper regarding tx timestampes is really a flawed ad hoc way of attempting to achieve the decentralization that the prior sentence would achieve more correctly. http://arxiv.org/pdf/1405.0534.pdf#page=29A big question is whether timestamps are needed at all, see Section 7.3. An
alternative to timestamps could be various pure consensus mechanisms without
timestamps by which numerous network nodes would certify that that they have
seen one transaction earlier than another transaction. In this paper we take the
view that they should be present by default and further con rmed by (the same)
sorts of additional mechanisms. |
|
|
|
|
Asrael999
|
|
May 14, 2014, 09:05:28 AM |
|
I would be interested to know what you make of Peter Mair's book "Ruling the Void", in it he discusses the disenfranchising of the masses from politics, and as a consequence the movement of decision making from popularly elected politicians to unelected specialists, which by implication erodes the power of the voting populace to influence those decisions.
Thus term limits on politicians or not, you end up with decisions being made by those who are not elected and are unaccountable to voters, large parts of the European Commission being by way of an example.
|
|
|
|
|
|
AnonyMint (OP)
|
|
May 14, 2014, 10:09:53 AM |
|
---------------------------- Original Message ---------------------------- Subject: Not confiscation, rather illiquidity and declining relative value From: AnonyMint Date: Wed, May 14, 2014 6:06 am To: "Armstrong Economics" < armstrongeconomics@gmail.com> -------------------------------------------------------------------------- http://armstrongeconomics.com/2014/05/13/will-government-confiscate-assets/There is no real precedent for confiscating everything
other than communism and the crazy antics of Maximinus, who they killed in
rather short-order. Nevertheless, the movement of assets like gold that
use to flow between nations may not be possible given the metal detectors
and the laws that presume money laundering if you try to take more than
$10,000 without telling the government. Agreed. To clarify my prior message quoted below, my point is that tangible assets will become immovable and illiquid, whilst they also decline in relative value to Knowledge Age capital because although the fiat value may rise, the relative value of the fiat economy will be declining (imploding). Stored value will be in the form of knowledge, i.e. knowledge capital which is claim on the future production you can do with it. Competing crypto-currencies will force stored capital to be devalued relative to the transaction value. See this research paper: On The Longest Chain Rule and Programmed Self-Destruction of Crypto Currencies ---------------------------- Original Message ---------------------------- Subject: Private assets will also crash; Armstrong doesn't know what TIME IT IS From: AnonyMint Date: Tue, May 13, 2014 10:16 pm To: "Armstrong Economics" < armstrongeconomics@gmail.com> -------------------------------------------------------------------------- http://armstrongeconomics.com/2014/05/13/understanding-the-new-era-we-face-no-more-general-terms-apply/Armstrong is misreading his own computer model, because (per my prior message) he fails to understand that: 1. Technology has shrunk the world thus all physical assets can be tracked down by OECD+NSA cooperation. It will be extremely difficult to hide tangible assets from the imploding industrial world taxman cometh. 2. Relevance (thus value) of stored capital is dying because individual knowledge self-creation, self-publishing, and self-production is rising which doesn't need much capital nor corporation coordination (Theory of the Firm's relevance is dying). 3. Physical commerce is diminishing relative to electronic and virtual services are rising. Heck people even expend a lot of time and effort on virtual games, and thus this is an economic good now. So while tangible assets will rise in fiat price, the fiat economy is imploding exponentially while the hidden knowledge economy (will soon be even more hidden in anonymous crypto-currency) is rising exponentially. Thus all this stored capital running around like chairs on tossing around on the deck of the Titanic searching for a safe home. There is no safe home. Stored capital will decline in relative value. This is the end of those fuckers. All those money managers can lick my arse, they are going to lose relevance. So now Armstrong's international capital flows model will become increasingly irrelevant and blinded, if he doesn't find some way to incorporate data from the new hidden paradigm shift. Let those money managers buy ancient coins. It won't help them. WE DON'T NEED THEIR STORED CLAIMS ON FUTURE LABOR. They are dinosaurs. Checkmate. |
|
|
|
CoinCube
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1946
Merit: 1055
|
|
May 15, 2014, 01:47:07 AM |
|
Well I see as January 2014, others below started to expound upon what I had explained in November 2013 at the threads given by the quoted links above. On The Longest Chain Rule and Programmed
Self-Destruction of Crypto Currencies... Btw, the above linked paper is a siren call for strictly CPU only alt-coins, with constant perpetual debasement and 0 tx fees, and which have some mechanism to limit pool sizes. Very interesting link thanks for sharing. Gave it a quick skim will have to read it in more depth this weekend. |
|
|
|
|
AnonyMint (OP)
|
|
May 15, 2014, 03:28:39 AM |
|
---------------------------- Original Message ---------------------------- Subject: Sheeople rising into revolutions; expect herd outcomes From: AnonyMint Date: Wed, May 14, 2014 11:22 pm To: "Armstrong Economics" < armstrongeconomics@gmail.com> -------------------------------------------------------------------------- https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=564097.msg6736214#msg6736214Totalitarians always think there are not enough reality checks for "the rejects" and "low-life". In their view, all problems are always caused by the scum and not by the collective growing to be 75% of the GDP. Remember the propaganda from Hitler about the how the weak and impure were the drag on the great Aryan society. No one paid attention to the fact that he was printing money and the government was the economy. Totalitarians always end up with the megadeath they foment and deserve. I will say one more time, make sure you find the opt-out frontiers. See my latest posts in the Dark Enlightenment and Mad Max threads. Adios numbnuts. Numbnuts (nuhm-nuhts) Noun 1. The stupidest of the stupid. A complete dumbass, one whose intelligence quotient does not surpass that of the average rock. 2. An utter disgrace of humanity. 3. One whose purpose in life is meaningless; a complete and total waste of life. 4. An ignorant, arrogant asshole. |
|
|
|
|
AnonyMint (OP)
|
|
May 16, 2014, 02:21:53 PM |
|
I hope everyone realizes that Windows 8 phones home to Microsoft and Microsoft built backdoors into it. If you are running Windows 8 or Skype on any version of Windows (and maybe on any operating system), you may have no secrets as everything on your hard disk could have already been recorded. And any communications you are doing, even with something like Bitmessage, Tor, or other anonymizing client, could be revealed to the powers-that-be.
|
|
|
|
|
|
tspacepilot
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1456
Merit: 1078
I may write code in exchange for bitcoins.
|
|
May 19, 2014, 07:38:56 AM |
|
I think that Coinbase + Bitpay provide certain services to certain types of folks who can use bitcoins in a certain way. It's hard to understand how services to a subset of bitcoin users is equivalent to setting up a governmental fiat.
|
|
|
|
|
|
AnonyMint (OP)
|
|
May 20, 2014, 12:11:19 PM |
|
I think that Coinbase + Bitpay provide certain services to certain types of folks who can use bitcoins in a certain way. It's hard to understand how services to a subset of bitcoin users is equivalent to setting up a governmental fiat.
This was explained in detail upthread. And now Richard Branson jumps in. The globalists are taking over Bitcoin. |
|
|
|
|
AnonyMint (OP)
|
|
May 22, 2014, 12:31:33 AM |
|
---------------------------- Original Message ---------------------------- Subject: Eliminating career politicians doesn't eliminate the power vacuum of democracy From: AnonyMint Date: Wed, May 21, 2014 8:24 pm To: "Armstrong Economics" < armstrongeconomics@gmail.com> -------------------------------------------------------------------------- http://armstrongeconomics.com/2014/05/21/return-of-corruption-sorry-lobbying/it seems remarkable that companies would do anything but
lobby. A particularly vivid example was in 2004, when an aggressive
corporate campaign prompted Congress to grant a one-off tax holiday for
American companies to repatriate foreign earnings. The outright return on
lobbying costs, according to one of the various studies that served as
inspiration for the Strategas index, was $220 for each $1 spent. (see also
CNBC).
An you wonder WHY I say we FIRST need to get rid of career politicians –
one term only. Do that, and most else will start to fall into
place. Martin, setting term limits won't resolve the perils of socialism and collectivism. You are naively expecting that if the people who are elected have no incentive to remain in office then they will try to do what is best for the citizens rather than appeasing lobbyists. Again you fail to understand the deeper implications of the reference I have sent you numerous times as follows. http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=984Some Iron Laws of Political Economics
Mancur Olson, in his book The Logic Of Collective Action,
highlighted the central problem of politics in a democracy. The benefits
of political market-rigging can be concentrated to benefit particular
special interest groups, while the costs (in higher taxes, slower economic
growth, and many other second-order effects) are diffused through the
entire population.
The result is a scramble in which individual interest groups perpetually
seek to corner more and more rent from the system, while the incremental
costs of this behavior rise slowly enough that it is difficult to sustain
broad political opposition to the overall system of political privilege
and rent-seeking. Let me spell it out for you. The "special interest groups" are the citizens. The citizens form groups that demand the government give them benefits. For example, you documented this recently "Germany is promising a Woman’s Mother’s Pension for those mothers whose children were born before 1992. They will be entitled to early retirement at 63": http://armstrongeconomics.com/2014/05/18/german-politicians-promise-unfunded-pensions-just-to-win/Politicians get elected when they promise everyone everything. Term limits won't change the fact that citizens view government as a collective trough from which each citizen should vote to get their fair share. Problem is that to appease this it requires politicians to promise more and more share, i.e. government becomes a larger and larger share of the GDP crowding out the private sector and ultimately reaching Totalitarianism as we are entering now with the NSA and the hunt for all wealth to fund the for example $200 trillion of actuarial obligations promised by the U.S. government. Martin you are just masturbating with the term limits idea. In fact, you play right into the plans of the globalists, because reform of the nation-states is part of the globalist agenda taking us towards "international cooperation and oversight for transparency" which is a code phrase for global hegemony and enslavement of the global citizen in the power vacuum of global collectivism. The only solution to rising to periodic end game of collectivism (when it reaches Totalitarianism) has always been for the intellectuals and forthright to seek out frontiers. In fact, your masturbation delusion about term limits as a nirvana is in direct defiance of the your own model which tells you there must always be a cycle. The cycle has always been and will always be an oscillation between rising socialism and rising frontiers. So now the frontier of geography and cash are gone. So what is the next frontier? It is of course technological.Sooner or later you will realize I am correct. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nicolas Dorier
|
|
May 29, 2014, 10:16:13 AM |
|
This OP is completely ignoring the entrepreneurial effect on Bitcoin.
Bitcoin is not adopted by the mass, as is.
But there is a huge entrepreneurial traction, these are the one that will catch the mass.
Your post is like saying : "Quantum mechanic" does not fill a well defined need for the mass.
This is certainly true, but thinking Quantum Mechanic will not take significant part of our life through invention later ? this is naive.
|
Bitcoin address 15sYbVpRh6dyWycZMwPdxJWD4xbfxReeHe
|
|
|
AlexGR
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1708
Merit: 1049
|
|
May 29, 2014, 11:46:54 AM |
|
I hope everyone realizes that Windows 8 phones home to Microsoft and Microsoft built backdoors into it. If you are running Windows 8 or Skype on any version of Windows (and maybe on any operating system), you may have no secrets as everything on your hard disk could have already been recorded. And any communications you are doing, even with something like Bitmessage, Tor, or other anonymizing client, could be revealed to the powers-that-be.
Would it be a stretch to assume hardware (cpus, mobos/bios'es, phones etc) created post-2013 will be rooted specifically for reporting / tracking / spying cryptocurrency use, and that a safer way to use cryptos would be to use older hardware (prior to crypto-boom)? |
|
|
|
|
tspacepilot
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1456
Merit: 1078
I may write code in exchange for bitcoins.
|
|
May 29, 2014, 05:08:45 PM |
|
I hope everyone realizes that Windows 8 phones home to Microsoft and Microsoft built backdoors into it. If you are running Windows 8 or Skype on any version of Windows (and maybe on any operating system), you may have no secrets as everything on your hard disk could have already been recorded. And any communications you are doing, even with something like Bitmessage, Tor, or other anonymizing client, could be revealed to the powers-that-be.
Would it be a stretch to assume hardware (cpus, mobos/bios'es, phones etc) created post-2013 will be rooted specifically for reporting / tracking / spying cryptocurrency use, and that a safer way to use cryptos would be to use older hardware (prior to crypto-boom)? Or you can just remove the rooted software (ie windoze) and install debian or some other GNU/Linux flavor where you own the computer. |
|
|
|
|
|
AnonyMint (OP)
|
|
May 29, 2014, 06:56:24 PM |
|
Or you can just remove the rooted software (ie windoze) and install debian or some other GNU/Linux flavor where you own the computer.
... I'm almost ready to say "Adios forum". My health hasn't been this great in years. Almost time to move on to the next big thing (NBT). And what did I warn you about TrueCrypt just a couple of weeks ago |
|
|
|
AlexGR
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1708
Merit: 1049
|
|
May 29, 2014, 07:15:04 PM |
|
I hope everyone realizes that Windows 8 phones home to Microsoft and Microsoft built backdoors into it. If you are running Windows 8 or Skype on any version of Windows (and maybe on any operating system), you may have no secrets as everything on your hard disk could have already been recorded. And any communications you are doing, even with something like Bitmessage, Tor, or other anonymizing client, could be revealed to the powers-that-be.
Would it be a stretch to assume hardware (cpus, mobos/bios'es, phones etc) created post-2013 will be rooted specifically for reporting / tracking / spying cryptocurrency use, and that a safer way to use cryptos would be to use older hardware (prior to crypto-boom)? Or you can just remove the rooted software (ie windoze) and install debian or some other GNU/Linux flavor where you own the computer. I do run linux for personal use for ~10 years but I fear new hardware is bypassing the software at a firmware level - perhaps even forming some kind of cooperative grid (cards, disks, mobos / bioses, cpus etc). |
|
|
|
|
|
AnonyMint (OP)
|
|
June 04, 2014, 08:05:36 AM |
|
Adios forum. Thanks.
|
|
|
|
AlexGR
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1708
Merit: 1049
|
|
June 04, 2014, 10:14:30 AM |
|
Thank you too.
|
|
|
|
|
|
pungopete468
|
|
June 05, 2014, 12:08:13 AM |
|
I wish you the best in all of your endeavors.
|
|
|
|
|
|
.
..1xBit.com Super Six.. | ▄█████████████▄
████████████▀▀▀
█████████████▄
█████████▌▀████
██████████ ▀██
██████████▌ ▀
████████████▄▄
███████████████
███████████████
███████████████
███████████████
███████████████
▀██████████████ | ███████████████
█████████████▀
█████▀▀
███▀ ▄███ ▄
██▄▄████▌ ▄█
████████
████████▌
█████████ ▐█
██████████ ▐█
███████▀▀ ▄██
███▀ ▄▄▄█████
███ ▄██████████
███████████████ | ███████████████
███████████████
███████████████
███████████████
███████████████
███████████▀▀▀█
██████████
███████████▄▄▄█
███████████████
███████████████
███████████████
███████████████
███████████████ | ▄█████
▄██████
▄███████
▄████████
▄█████████
▄██████████
▄███████████
▄████████████
▄█████████████
▄██████████████
▀▀███████████
▀▀███████
▀▀██▀ | ▄▄██▌
▄▄███████
█████████▀
▄██▄▄▀▀██▀▀
▄██████ ▄▄▄
███████ ▄█▄ ▄
▀██████ █ ▀█
▀▀▀ ▄ ▀▄▄█▀
▄▄█████▄ ▀▀▀
▀████████
▀█████▀ ████
▀▀▀ █████
█████ | ▄ █▄▄ █ ▄
▀▄██▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
▀ ▄▄█████▄█▄▄
▄ ▄███▀ ▀▀ ▀▀▄
▄██▄███▄ ▀▀▀▀▄ ▄▄
▄████████▄▄▄▄▄█▄▄▄██
████████████▀▀ █ ▐█
██████████████▄ ▄▄▀██▄██
▐██████████████ ▄███
████▀████████████▄███▀
▀█▀ ▐█████████████▀
▐████████████▀
▀█████▀▀▀ █▀ | .
Premier League
LaLiga
Serie A | .
Bundesliga
Ligue 1
Primeira Liga | | .
..TAKE PART.. |
|
|
|
|
AnonyMint (OP)
|
|
June 19, 2014, 05:43:52 PM |
|
---------------------------- Original Message ---------------------------- Subject: Google wallet vs. crypto-currencies From: AnonyMint Date: Thu, June 19, 2014 1:41 pm To: "Armstrong Economics" < armstrongeconomics@gmail.com> -------------------------------------------------------------------------- http://armstrongeconomics.com/2014/06/19/google-the-new-bank-rollover-bitcoin-banks-its-the-internet-revolution/Armstrong is entirely correct that banking, checking accounts, and payments will move nearly entirely digital within the next decade. He is also correct that the masses will choose to stay with big government and their home fiat, thus Google wallet. He fails to note that Bitcoin is also being taken over by Bitpay and Coinbase, the former of which is controlled by Peter Thiel the founder of Paypal. So Bitcoin will be brought into the fold of the government controlled and sanctioned digital currency system. I had been one of the first to write about this at the following linked post. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=557732.msg6076321#msg6076321What Armstrong fails to consider is the uses of alternative crypto-currencies for which Google Wallet and Peter Thiel controlled Bitcoin will not be competitive with. 1. Anonymous store-of-wealth. The anonymous altcoins will be able to hide wealth from the coming confiscation. 2. Anonymous transfer of wealth across borders. So you want to move some gold. First you sell it for some anonymous crypto-currency, then you sell that altcoin for gold in the new location. 3. Sell download software and online services anonymously such that your income can not be tracked nor taxed. This will also require anonymous internet sites such a Tor services, and we really need an improved anonymity model for the internet that is better than Tor. While the youth are unemployed, you think they won't like to sell their services and apps without being tracked for taxes? The youth are going to see how corrupt government is and not want to fund it. 4. Earn some crypto-currency for free just by turning on your computer. This creates a demand for merchants. Don't tell me the youth in the coming global crisis won't like to get some free money while they sit at home bored and unemployed. 5. Due to the $227 trillion global debt bubble with $1000+ trillion of unfunded government liabilities with another $1000+ trillion of credit swap derivatives to keep the bond bubble propped up, this has provided a massive level of funding for an oversupply of everything in the global economy. Thus the global economy will shrink by at least 50%, perhaps as much as 80%. Whereas the knowledge age economy where individuals work out of their homes producing online services, software, 3D printer designs, etc and sell them online will grow very fast. If this grows to 10% of what the global economy is now, and the global economy shrinks by 80%, then the knowledge age economy will the majority of the global economy. There is going to be a huge competition underway between Google and the altcoin developers to see who can provide the infrastructure and future of this knowledge age economy. Currently Google et al appear to have a massive lead. However, if certain highly capable developer(s) can get entirely healthy and focused, you could be very surprised what one person with a $billion premine to spend on open source bounties could do. Large companies move too slowly. Let's watch this space closely to see if an credible alternative to Google wallet appears in the crypto-currency scene. |
|
|
|
|
AnonyMint (OP)
|
|
June 22, 2014, 01:16:16 AM |
|
---------------------------- Original Message ---------------------------- Subject: official digital currencies vs. gold and crypto-currencies From: AnonyMint Date: Sat, June 21, 2014 9:13 pm To: "Armstrong Economics" < armstrongeconomics@gmail.com> -------------------------------------------------------------------------- http://armstrongeconomics.com/2014/06/21/electronic-money-starting-in-london/In London, buses will start in July accepting cards only – no more cash. Currency Exchanges are now offering cards instead of cash that they market as being safer in travel. In Manchester, all the shops on Chorlton Street will no longer accept cash – only cards. This is a test to see if society is ready for the change. This is a major effort to move in preparation for the cashless society. While the goldbugs have been touting that gold will rise and the dollar will collapse because of fiat money, technology has passed them by making their arguements barbaric relics of the past. The future role of gold may be as a medium of exchange not as an alternative to paper money, but in the elimination of paper money gold may become the currency of the underground economy – not Bitcoin. Gold can be an underground store-of-value, but as I alluded to Martin in my prior communication, and even Martin has written that gold can't transport across check points and borders any more without being registered with the authorities. Thus gold can not by itself function as a medium-of-exchange for the underground economy, because then exchange could only occur on a local scope. And Bitcoin has no anonymity features built in, and Tor is likely a honeypot as well most users don't employ it with Bitcoin. Thus alternative crypto-currency(ies) with anonymity features will rise up to serve the underground economy, and as a means to sell and re-purchase gold across distance as I explained in my prior communication. And the other point I made in my prior communication is that the official system being offered by the globalists via their capture of the multi-national corporations and government, is an imploding economy post-2016. Thus those sheep who stay with the official digital instruments are going to be declining with the Titanic. This is what will provide the demand for the underground crypto-currencies and will be rapidly growing market. Of course the underground crypto-currency will not rise enough or fast enough to offset all the official digital money usage. The majority will rather choose to die on the Titanic and the official system will collapse into a big mess. Massive chaos ahead and the majority will ride the official system down into the abyss of rising taxes and Orwellian socialism. I see the possibility of a ray of hope in the tunnel coming from alternative crypto-currency and their adoption by the technologically astute thus providing a frontier to escape the Orwellian socialism. And this could spin off into an entirely new internet and global KNOWLEDGE AGE economy that is untouchable by the corruption. If successful, then those who don't adopt it will fall into their own Dark Age, akin to how Eastern Rome broke away from Western as the Western Rome fell into a 600 year Dark Age. Again the only hope has always been frontiers that compete against the dying Orwellian socialism. This time the frontiers are technological, not geographical. The geographical frontiers this time are the developing world, especially Asia, but realize the Asians (and even the Latin Americans) are fully on board with the Orwellian socialism, e.g. China has a CTV camera on every lamppost. The developing world will rise after 2020 because they aren't saddled with aging boomers and constituent government liabilities, but developing world will rise within the official system controlled by the globalists, thus it won't be a complete frontier. We would need to look towards high tech solutions for that this time. |
|
|
|
|
AnonyMint (OP)
|
|
June 22, 2014, 11:40:03 AM
Last edit: June 22, 2014, 04:38:35 PM by AnonyMint |
|
---------------------------- Original Message ---------------------------- Subject: there are no geographical frontiers, because world is complicit with globalist plans From: AnonyMint Date: Sun, June 22, 2014 7:39 am To: "Armstrong Economics" < armstrongeconomics@gmail.com> -------------------------------------------------------------------------- http://armstrongeconomics.com/2014/06/22/hunt-for-money-tisa-negotiations-leaked-by-wikileaks/Leaked WikiLeaks documents reveal the Abbott government in Australia is moving with the EU and the USA in a secret trade negotiation that is aimed at bringing about radical deregulation of international banking and finance sector. While this Trade in Services Agreement (TiSA) negotiations, reported by The Age, show Australian trade negotiators are working on a financial services agenda that could end the Australian government’s ”four pillars” banking policy and allow foreign banks much greater freedom to operate in Australia, there is also a secret agenda according to our sources that go hand in hand with global reporting of anyone who has accounts outside their home country. This is under the cloud of deregulating financial institutions when in fact it is also ensuring transparency for government tax authorities to hunt money internationally.
All financial data will be freely transferred overseas. This is the main objective. I was in Brussels for meetings. The most interesting aspect of this trip was they stopped me at customs because I was dressed in a suit and tie. It was clearly a money hunt inspection. I produced my passport and they wanted to see where I bought the ticket. I clearly would not have owed taxes on some imported trinkets and there were no questions regarding that. It was simply a stop and check to see if I was moving money between countries and where was I domiciled. This is the FIRST time I have ever been stopped ever. Let’s see what happens when I return to the States. I want to refer readers and Martin Armstrong to what I communicated to him previously as quoted below... Again the only hope has always been frontiers that compete against the dying Orwellian socialism. This time the frontiers are technological, not geographical.
The geographical frontiers this time are the developing world, especially Asia, but realize the Asians (and even the Latin Americans) are fully on board with the Orwellian socialism, e.g. China has a CTV camera on every lamppost. The developing world will rise after 2020 because they aren't saddled with aging boomers and constituent government liabilities, but developing world will rise within the official system controlled by the globalists, thus it won't be a complete frontier. We would need to look towards high tech solutions for that this time. Emphasize my statement, "realize the Asians (and even the Latin Americans) are fully on board with the Orwellian socialism". The globalists have been pulling the strings even in the Philippines where they recently were able to get similar liberalization of foreign ownership of banking passed through the Senate. http://www.rappler.com/business/industries/209-banking-and-financial-services/60160-senate-approves-bill-full-foreign-ownership-philippine-bankshttp://www.sunstar.com.ph/breaking-news/2014/05/16/house-passes-bill-allow-foreign-ownership-banks-343179See how the globalists push this through with their funding and capture of influence think tanks and organizations (operating at many diverse levels which can only be detailed fully with forensic research): http://business.inquirer.net/166364/business-group-seeks-more-leeway-for-foreign-banks-in-phEven this media circus in the Philippines now about abuse of the pork barrel funds, is all about getting the Philippine public to agree to end the bank secrecy law and also so the public will support the usurpation of the Constitution to change to a Parlimentary system so the control is further shifted away from local government to globalists. The plan of course is to track down all money and also to enable foreign ownership of land so when the SOBs crash the global economy, the multi-nationals can come in and buy up the prime land cheap. |
|
|
|
|
Nicolas Dorier
|
|
June 22, 2014, 01:36:32 PM |
|
AnonyMint, can you create a blog or something ?
Would be good if the interesting response you gave were not buried deep into several forums post, but and centralized on a blog.
You can always duplicate the content in the forum (or comments to armstrong), but it is a shame than the post you take so much time and quality to write become buried like that.
|
Bitcoin address 15sYbVpRh6dyWycZMwPdxJWD4xbfxReeHe
|
|
|
|
AnonyMint (OP)
|
|
June 22, 2014, 04:54:13 PM |
|
---------------------------- Original Message ---------------------------- Subject: James Turk echos my point about gold & crypto-currency; Armstrong continues his hysterical nonsense From: AnonyMint Date: Sun, June 22, 2014 12:50 pm To: "Armstrong Economics" < armstrongeconomics@gmail.com> -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Gold can be an underground store-of-value, but as I alluded to Martin in my prior communication, and even Martin has written that gold can't transport across check points and borders any more without being registered with the authorities. Thus gold can not by itself function as a medium-of-exchange for the underground economy, because then exchange could only occur on a local scope. And Bitcoin has no anonymity features built in, and Tor is likely a honeypot as well most users don't employ it with Bitcoin. Thus alternative crypto-currency(ies) with anonymity features will rise up to serve the underground economy, and as a means to sell and re-purchase gold across distance as I explained in my prior communication.
James Turk echos what I wrote recently as quoted above. Here is the link to James Turk interview: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YbtmM9ELWdQ#t=1122------------------------- http://armstrongeconomics.com/2014/06/22/welcome-the-federalization-of-one-europe-to-save-the-euro/The new push in Europe is to rush Federalization to “save” the euro, which is doomed anyway because of its fractured design. The real self-interest here is to save the jobs in Brussels. The birth of the Euro was accompanied with an oath that this would never be the federalization of Europe. Politicians simply see only their own power and we are rapidly going down the drain on the entire global economy that these people are destroying to retain their own personal power. There is no one-world government agenda here for that would require surrendering Brussels to some other entity. That is the way conspiracies really function by having people exaggerate a trend to something absurd and then just the federalization of Europe seems better that the world. They are all pursuing just their own self-interest and this is the global agenda of sharing info to hunt down loose change everywhere and the elimination of all cash to then force capital into banks that they can grab when they desire. Fortunately for them, 90% of the people are blind, and 3% are the real conspiracy crowd so that leave only about 7% that see the train coming down the track for what it is – a train.
Welcome the Federalization of Europe – one state – one union. Brussels can only see their failure is the lack of power, not because they do not know how to manage anything. Amazing isn't how all these self interested politicians and bureaucrats can't seem to plan anything correctly nor accomplish anything correctly, yet somehow we have this global coordination to track down wealth and open the exclusive doors for the multinational corporations which are owned by an oligarchy as proven by New Scientist magazine: http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21228354.500-revealed--the-capitalist-network-that-runs-the-world.htmlAmazing how we have all the global coordination on global warming carbon credits taxation and even corporations in the Philippines (such as Henry Sy's SM malls chain) force us to use brown bags on Wednesdays because of the global warming hoax, and this seed was planted at the 1978 U.N. Convention on Human Environment and the U.N. was funded by Rockefeller after his League of Nations floundered. So all this multiple decades of coordinated planning was just random self-interest according to Armstrong. My Lord, you can lead a donkey to water in the desert, but you can make the damn thing drink before it collapses into the dust. Sheesh. At least we 3% understand where the global hegemony derives and what is necessary to create a frontier to escape from. Donkeys will lead their brethen into skeletons in the desert of no frontiers bitching the entire time about corrupt peon bureacrats and never gaining an ounce of insight into the real power structure and what technology is required to disrupt it. |
|
|
|
|
AnonyMint (OP)
|
|
June 23, 2014, 06:17:09 AM |
|
---------------------------- Original Message ---------------------------- Subject: Why do Singapore and Ethiopia cooperate? From: AnonyMint Date: Mon, June 23, 2014 1:08 am To: "Armstrong Economics" < armstrongeconomics@gmail.com> -------------------------------------------------------------------------- http://armstrongeconomics.com/2014/06/22/nsa-gathers-all-communications-everywhere/At the link above, Armstrong documents the global cooperation on intercepting all communications. We look on the list of 3rd parties cooperating countries, as we see the likes of Singapore and Ethiopia. So pray tell me why in the hell would these countries cooperate if this was just self-interested, clueless bureaucrats protecting their own political power and vested interest? Singapore and Ethiopia (for example, and there are many others on the list) don't need to hunt down the wealth of their own citizens, as their economies are not suffering from the bloated socialism and sovereign debt crisis. There is this level of global coordination, because there is a very powerful oligarchy of globalists who control these nation-states and coordinate their plans. Armstrong thinks they are doing this completely ignorant of the implications of how it will crash the global economy. Rather these globalists know damn well that they will crash the global economy and since they will be in control, their multi-national corporations will have special access to credit and to buy up everything cheaply at fire-sale prices. This all about a global hegemony for this oligarchy that runs the world. The bureaucrats are just the pawns on the chessboard playing their respective bought off (vested) roles. The real winners are always the international oligarchy, a.k.a. "banksters". These are not the banks with names such as JP Morgan and Goldman. Rather these banks are just tools of the oligarchy and any tool can be sacrificed at any time if it maximized the overall objective of global hegemony for this oligarchy. Until Armstrong learns this fact, he will remain a naive nincompoop. |
|
|
|
Zarathustra
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1162
Merit: 1004
|
|
June 23, 2014, 07:20:53 AM |
|
---------------------------- Original Message ---------------------------- Subject: official digital currencies vs. gold and crypto-currencies From: AnonyMint Date: Sat, June 21, 2014 9:13 pm To: "Armstrong Economics" < armstrongeconomics@gmail.com> -------------------------------------------------------------------------- http://armstrongeconomics.com/2014/06/21/electronic-money-starting-in-london/[quote ] I see the possibility of a ray of hope in the tunnel coming from alternative crypto-currency and their adoption by the technologically astute thus providing a frontier to escape the Orwellian socialism. And this could spin off into an entirely new internet and global KNOWLEDGE AGE economy that is untouchable by the corruption. If successful, then those who don't adopt it will fall into their own Dark Age, akin to how Eastern Rome broke away from Western as the Western Rome fell into a 600 year Dark Age. This is religious science fiction. Members of christian sects who believe to prosper in a mad max environment with nuclear reactors without maintenance and cooling. So funny. |
|
|
|
|
|
AnonyMint (OP)
|
|
June 25, 2014, 06:09:00 PM
Last edit: June 25, 2014, 07:44:21 PM by AnonyMint |
|
Cross-posting... https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=362468.msg7513111#msg7513111hi friends, i dont really get this, please can anyone answer for once:
What is the diference between Zerocoin and Zerocash
What is more anonymous, Darkcoin, Zerocoin, or Zerocash, or Bytenote and its forks? what about Darkwallet?
If you were like I dont know... Julian Assange or someone like that and you had to send some money and your life depended on it, and the only way was via a cryptocurrency... what crypto would you use? thats the question. Whatever brings more anonimity wins big time in long run!
Here is the short answer (to the best of my knowledge): Zerocoin (original paper): User 1 "buys" zerocoins, and this transaction can be seen by everyone, including the amount. When user 1 spends the zerocoins to user 2, the amount can be seen by everyone, but it is cryptographically impossible to link user 1 and 2. Zerocash (new paper): In addition to breaking the link between user 1 and 2, as in the original zerocoin paper, this also hides the amount of money being transferred. This protocol also allows to transfer a zerocash coin directly to the second user without having to redeem it in the base currency, as well as split and merge zerocash coins. What is bound to cause confusion is that the authors are calling the coins in zerocash "zerocoins", just like in the original paper, even though they are not the same thing. Darkcoin: They use a modification of CoinJoin, which they call "darksend". This is a simple coin mixing service. However, given the limited number of coins that are mixed, as well as other problems, such as with change and trust, it is possible to de-anonymize at least some transactions if you really tried to. CryptoNote coins: User 1 sends user 2 money, but the transaction is signed by X users in a ring signature. User 2 receives money, which is visible on the blockchain with the amount, but all that can be said is that it came from one of the X members that participated in the "ring signature". The amount of anonymity increases as the number of members in the ring signature increases. For low values of X, it is possible to de-anonymize some types of transactions by a block chain analysis. Darkwallets: Not sure. I think that this is just CoinJoin for Bitcoin. These exist only because Bitcoin refuses to implement suitable privacy measures. So, if you had to rank them: Zerocash is the most anonymous, Zerocoin (original) is next, Cryptonote is close behind, and Darkcoin and Darkwallets are poor-man alternatives. All are better than nothing. Nevertheless, you need to put this is perspective and consider some practical aspects: Darkcoin is working, CryptoNote coins are working but with no graphical interface, Zerocoin (original) does not exist now and will likely be implemented in Anoncoin in about 1 month, and the authors of Zerocash claim that it will be released in 3-6 months. It is possible that another existing coin will implement zerocash first (such as Anoncoin, after they release their implementation of Zerocoin). In terms of practicalities, Darkcoin is easy to use, whereas for the others, you either need to set up some parameters (such as the number of signatures in a ring signature), or make an intermediate step by buying zerocoins. I should note that another aspect of anonymity is hiding the physical location (i.e., IP number) of where the transactions took place. Anoncoin allows users to send their transactions via i2p, which effectively hides your IP number, and it is the only coin that supports i2p to my knowledge. I think that most coins allow you to send transactions via TOR (which would achieve the same thing), but this is not set up by default, and I couldn't get this to work on my computer after 30 minutes, so I gave up. There are potential problems with zerocash (the paper was just published): you need to trust someone to set up the initial, one-time, secret parameters and then forget them (there is a trick to fix this in zerocoin); you also can not count the number of zerocash coins as the amount is hidden. There is thus a scary possibility that someone could break the code (or learn the secret parameters), that would allow them to mint coins without anyone ever finding out. This would have the effect of inflation. Finally, people tend to forget that it is extremely difficult to achieve anonymity when you convert any cryptocurrency for fiat: Banks and exchanges will always be the weakest link as long as fiat is the "default" currency. If I made any mistakes, please correct me. I have written some detailed information at the following linked thread, some of which is missing from your above summary: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=557732.msg6662978#msg6662978Let is attempt the simplest summary, and readers who want to dig deeper can click the link above. The resource requirements of the full client for Zerocoin are impractical, unless you want to centralize mining. Also all transaction amounts have to be the same, so you would run into the same issue as CryptoNote has (see below). Zerocash hides the money supply (i.e. it is unknown), it is unvetted extremely complex new crypto (vetting takes years or a decade), and the setup parameters can not EVER be proven to not be backdoored, thus there will be no way to know if some entity (has cracked the crypto or intercepted the setup parameters and) is creating coins for free. Sorry but aren't we trying to get away from fiat central banking money where a centralized entity can print money at-will? Many ways the NSA can get those setup parameters: http://www.infowars.com/intel-ceo-refuses-to-answer-questions-on-whether-nsa-can-access-processors/http://www.forbes.com/sites/steveblank/2013/07/15/your-computer-may-already-be-hacked-nsa-inside/http://www.eweek.com/security/nsa-can-hack-you-even-if-you-arent-connected-to-the-internet.htmlhttp://www.gizmag.com/malware-jump-air-gap/30056/Include also if the people doing the setup have been served a national security letter gag order which compels them to do the setup and give the parameters to the NSA and not tell anyone. The anonymity of CryptoNote (i.e. ByteCoin, Monero, and clones) requires that all transaction amounts be broken into separate transactions for standardized fragments which causes massive blockchain bloat (for any reasonable level of anonymity) and the blockchain can never be pruned. There is already a problem with Bitcoin's blockchain being too large and it doesn't have this massive bloat. In short, CryptoNote (and Zerocoin) can't scale. Neither of the two do anything to obscure your IP address, and Tor/I2P are thought to be honey pots for national security agencies (Wikipedia says "who has the incentive to provide all this server bandwidth for free"). The need to obscure your IP address is less of an issue for Zerocash since it hides even the amount of the transaction, but this causes the money supply to be hidden as well which seems like an unacceptable tradeoff. Nevertheless, the authorities can see you are transacting to the Zerocash network even if they can't see the details, in theory the bezerk hunt for money during the coming sovereign debt collapse post-2016 will use the law to compel you to reveal secrets or face jail: http://www.nestmann.com/could-the-government-force-you-to-tell-your-deepest-darkest-secretsCryptoNote doesn't hide the amount and the payer is mixed with a limited number of numerous other potential payers, so the IP correlation can be used to narrow the possibilities statistically and home in on identity, by observing patterns across all users. Thus the lack of IP address obfuscation in CryptoNote (assuming Tor is really a honey pots, and or most users fail to employ Tor) reduces the anonymity. CoinJoin’s algorithm suffers from not being atomic and thus it can be repeatedly jammed by an adversary, i.e. denial-of-service. This is because first the inputs have to be collected, then the outputs have to blind signed with a group signature, and then finally all inputs have to signed. If any one of the participant senders fails to complete all the steps, the transaction is jammed and the process must start again. All proposals for throttling or blacklisting adversaries was argued to be ineffective and intractable. Darkcoin innovated CoinJoin by adding a collateral payment which is forfeited by participants who fail to complete all steps. This requires a random master node to break the unlinkability as it knows the matching output of each input. It is assumed that not all master nodes will be adversaries and thus sending multiple times through different master nodes will provide a probablistic level of unlinkability. The master nodes are purchased and it isn’t clear that a sufficiently powerful adversary couldn't sufficiently Sybil attack by acquiring a larger percentage of the master nodes. There is also concern this might also enable the adversary to steal collateral payments. Also the master nodes aren’t untraceable and thus could perhaps be held liable by governments for breaking AML and KYC laws. CoinJoin and Darkcoin suffer from the simultaneity timing problem that other spenders need to send spends of the same amount simultaneously. None of these coins do anything to solve the centralization of mining, wherein one or two pools now control more than 50% of the Bitcoin mining hash rate. Also many of these coins run into chaotic problems with their organization, e.g. apparently someone created a private GPU miner for Monero and is mining 50% of the coins for himself. Apparently there is no funding means or organization to rectify this. "We're building a system that will not have a back door"... Well there's no way of knowing that the security parameters do not contain a back door, so we have to trust the people who generate them. Hopefully someone will figure out a way to generate them in a provably trustworthy fashion. I don't know if that's possible.
In fact, it is possible to generate the security parameters in a completely trustless manner for the original Zerocoin protocol of Miers et al. (Zerocoin: Anonymous Distributed E-Cash from Bitcoin). All you need to do is generate a number that contains two large prime numbers, and whose factorization is unknown. Amazingly, you can generate such numbers using RSA UFOs, and this is the approach that Anoncoin has chosen for their implementation of Zerocoin. I read the research paper for UFOs. It is based on number theoretic assumptions and I am unaware if these assumptions have been sufficiently vetted. Realize the NSA may have as much as the $3 trillion missing black budget at their disposal (the money former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld announced was missing the day before 9/11 and then all the records were destroyed at the Pentagon by the attack the next day). http://www.wired.com/2013/09/black-budget-what-exactly-are-the-nsas-cryptanalytic-capabilities/Unfortunately, you can not do the same thing with the newer Zerocash protocol of Ben-Sasson (Zerocash: Decentralized Anonymous Payments from Bitcoin).
Correct. Lastly remember all the coins are currently based on asymmetric public key cryptography, which can be cracked with a quantum computer if the NSA ever is able to create one. As well the NSA might have cracked some of the number theoretic factoring assumptions or backdoored the constants. http://beta.slashdot.org/story/191445https://www.schneier.com/crypto-gram-9911.html#EllipticCurvePublic-KeyCryptographyhttp://crypto.stackexchange.com/questions/10263/should-we-trust-the-nist-recommended-ecc-parametersIf you really want to be sure, you need to move to Lamport signatures which are not based on number theoretic assumptions.move to Lamport signatures which are not based on number theoretic assumptions. Tor is a very secure system...
I don't think so... http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Onion_routing&oldid=592703635#Weaknesseshttps://tails.boum.org/doc/about/warning/index.en.html#index4h1https://tails.boum.org/doc/about/warning/index.en.html#index7h1http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tor_%28anonymity_network%29#Exit_node_eavesdroppingIf you actually look in to where these Tor nodes are hosted and how big they are, some of these nodes cost thousands of dollars each month just to host because they're using lots of bandwidth, they're heavy-duty servers and so on. Who would pay for this and be anonymous?" https://www.schneier.com/essays/archives/2013/10/attacking_tor_how_th.htmlhttp://armstrongeconomics.com/2014/06/22/nsa-gathers-all-communications-everywhere/ |
|
|
|
|
AnonyMint (OP)
|
|
June 25, 2014, 07:09:41 PM |
|
Add an analysis of XC... PoS can never remain decentralized: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=557732.msg6501833#msg6501833The supernode (analogous to the masternode in DarkCoin) concept is fundamentally flawed (Sybil attacks etc). See my comments about problems with reputation at the link above and about DarkCoin at the following link: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=362468.msg7513111#msg7513111The dev just posted this update, which has this plan to prevent "xnodes" from stealing the coins: "Just to clarify somethings as well - REV2 will have a solution to the bad actor problem. Using a dynamic learning trust system, the wallet will choose the trusted nodes over the bad actor nodes. This also will be tied into the fee system so it will also be incentive based."https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=630547.msg7071808#msg7071808Hello, as I've seen your posts regarding how to (and how not to) implement anonymity/privacy into a coin, I have learned to respect your knowledge on the subject. Thus, I'd like to ask (if you have the time or interest) your opinion on a newish coin called XC which claims anonymity with buzzwords like "fully decentralized", "secure", "xnodes", "Xprotocol", "encryption", "XC Alpha", "multi-path paradigm", "Blockchain2.0". It has market cap fluctuating between $5MM and $10MM, so it has become quite a big deal. XC coin's homepage: http://www.x11coin.org/XC coin's source (The source for the xnode/mixer part of the code that supposedly does the anonymizing is not currently released): https://github.com/atcsecure/X11COINXC coin's developer: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=88818XC coin's own thread (now closed as a new moderated thread was started): https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=600706.0XC coin's new moderated thread: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=630547.0XC coin's uncensored thread (in case the thread mod doesn't like your posts): https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=631052.0Technical details: http://www.x11coin.org/images/xnode_topology.pnghttp://www.x11coin.org/images/network1.pnghttps://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=630547.msg7027979#msg7027979https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=630547.msg7028240#msg7028240https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=630547.msg7060321#msg7060321There is a youtube video of testnet experiment that according to them proves that XC is anonymous and it is working (the video narrator is not the dev but someone who got to try it out I guess): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_uTgnZAFuNUBlock explorer is also available for the testnet: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=631052.msg7063060#msg7063060The concerns raised from that video and general vague descriptions XC dev has given, are that it is not trustless, so any wallet that is chosen as an "xnode" could just decide not to send your coins forward, i.e. steal them. When that question was asked, the dev said that the "Xprotocol" prevents that: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=630547.msg7042930#msg7042930Other concerns that people have is that the developer paid user "loljosh" (known for his coin creation business) 0.7 BTC for his services at the time of XC coin release. User "loljosh" offers X11+PoS coins for 0.8 BTC (XC is X11+PoS) btw: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=631052.msg7033010#msg7033010https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=466908.msg6625004#msg6625004So this raises the question: if the XC dev has to pay loljosh to create a coin for him, how could he not be way over his head when it comes to implementing secure anonymous transactions? Thanks for your time! |
|
|
|
|
AnonyMint (OP)
|
|
June 25, 2014, 07:40:03 PM |
|
How do you trust Zerocash, when the NSA could serve the creators of the setup parameters with a national security gag order on the eve of the public ceremony?
There are other advanced technical means that might be used to intercept the setup parameters even at such a ceremony, e.g. the NSA can reprogram the microcode of CPUs using built in backdoors and there is technology for jumping the air gap and intercepting the computations inside the computer.
And we will never know if the money supply is being inflated away since the money supply is invisible.
|
|
|
|
|
AnonyMint (OP)
|
|
June 26, 2014, 08:15:30 AM |
|
Searching for anonymous coins that don't have serious flaws. http://www.neutrinocoin.org/neutrino_white_paperProblem is as I wrote upthread that Tor is compromised by national security agencies, which are reporting to tax authorities and the G20 are going to be cooperating to track down and confiscate all wealth as the global liquidity crisis collapses in a contagion stampede circa 2016 to 2024. The use of hidden services does not ameliorate the issue, because the adversary can see all (encrypted) traffic and correlate patterns with timing analysis because the traffic is low-latency. As well, Tor relay servers are likely honey pots. Sybil attacks can be used to flood Neutrino nodes with adversaries which can then can full access to decrypted transaction and mining information and correlate it with the sending node via this global analysis. Tor and I2P employ low-latency Chaum mix-nets, which are fundamentally flawed concept that can't defend against such a global adversary. |
|
|
|
|
madken7777
|
|
June 26, 2014, 08:58:09 AM |
|
Searching for anonymous coins that don't have serious flaws. http://www.neutrinocoin.org/neutrino_white_paperProblem is as I wrote upthread that Tor is compromised by national security agencies, which are reporting to tax authorities and the G20 are going to be cooperating to track down and confiscate all wealth as the global liquidity crisis collapses in a contagion stampede circa 2016 to 2024. The use of hidden services does not ameliorate the issue, because the adversary can see all (encrypted) traffic and correlate patterns with timing analysis because the traffic is low-latency. As well, Tor relay servers are likely honey pots. Sybil attacks can be used to flood Neutrino nodes with adversaries which can then can full access to decrypted transaction and mining information and correlate it with the sending node via this global analysis. Tor and I2P employ low-latency Chaum mix-nets, which are fundamentally flawed concept that can't defend against such a global adversary. So, which browser can guard against eavesdropping ? |
|
|
|
|
|
AnonyMint (OP)
|
|
June 26, 2014, 11:19:51 AM |
|
So, which browser can guard against eavesdropping ?
If the national security agencies are determined to eavesdrop on you, as far as I know there is currently no browser setup that can with very high confidence prevent it. Let's for example posit that Tor is successful in obscuring your IP address from the destination activity 80% of the time. Then if you send 10 transactions and or mining shares (over time perhaps not in the same Tor session), then your chance of being non-anonymous has declined to 0.8^10 = 11%. Not good odds, especially if the cost of being non-anonymous is very great, e.g. you break some Orwellian capital controls in 2017 and end up in a SuperMax prison. Some argue that hiding in plain sight is best, i.e. not drawing attention to yourself by using Tor. However, if you are accessing the nodes of a crypto-currency network, I assume the national security agencies are (will be in 2017!) tracking you if you agree with the theory that the G20 is going to be hunting down (to confiscate) all wealth as the bankrupt global economy forces them to. This is couched in propaganda themes such as "go after tax avoiders" and "prevent money laundering and funding for terrorism". Others might argue this is a paranoid view. I believe there exist algorithms to attain higher levels of confidence, that can be described and analyzed mathematically, but as far I know such algorithms are not implemented for any browser setup nor anonymous coin. |
|
|
|
|
fdiini
|
|
June 26, 2014, 11:38:46 AM |
|
So, which browser can guard against eavesdropping ?
If the national security agencies are determined to eavesdrop on you, as far as I know there is currently no browser setup that can with very high confidence prevent it. Let's for example posit that Tor is successful in obscuring your IP address from the destination activity 80% of the time. Then if you send 10 transactions and or mining shares (over time perhaps not in the same Tor session), then your chance of being non-anonymous has declined to 0.8^10 = 11%. Not good odds, especially if the cost of being non-anonymous is very great, e.g. you break some Orwellian capital controls in 2017 and end up in a SuperMax prison. Some argue that hiding in plain sight is best, i.e. not drawing attention to yourself by using Tor. However, if you are accessing the nodes of a crypto-currency network, I assume the national security agencies are (will be in 2017!) tracking you if you agree with the theory that the G20 is going to be hunting down (to confiscate) all wealth as the bankrupt global economy forces them to. This is couched in propaganda themes such as "go after tax avoiders" and "prevent money laundering and funding for terrorism". Others might argue this is a paranoid view. I believe there exist algorithms to attain higher levels of confidence, that can be described and analyzed mathematically, but as far I know such algorithms are not implemented for any browser setup nor anonymous coin. Very pessimistic view of the future. I am a little bit more optimistic. To enforce the rules globally, they will need to have the resources and consensus of all nations and their own population. I do not believe people will give up their right of privacy so easily. If the economic of the existing power really going down the sink, they will no longer have the influence and infrastructure in place to enforce the rules. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
JorgeStolfi
|
|
June 26, 2014, 04:37:48 PM |
|
The frogs boil in the pot because they never realize they are boiling until they are already dead. The sheeople are the same.
Hello? The resources and consensus has already accomplished and is already under way.
True, but fortunately we now have the means to fight that. We only need to design a good anonymous cryptocoin, and convince the US government to let us market it on NASDAQ. Then we can live the rest of our lives, freely and anonymously, in the basements of our cabins in the woods -- laughing while we watch the governments crumble and banks go bankrupt, for them not being able to find and steal our fabulous all-digital wealth. |
Academic interest in bitcoin only. Not owner, not trader, very skeptical of its longterm success.
|
|
|
|
AnonyMint (OP)
|
|
June 27, 2014, 04:41:56 AM |
|
The frogs boil in the pot because they never realize they are boiling until they are already dead. The sheeople are the same.
Hello? The resources and consensus has already accomplished and is already under way.
True, but fortunately we now have the means to fight that. We only need to design a good anonymous cryptocoin, and convince the US government to let us market it on NASDAQ. Then we can live the rest of our lives, freely and anonymously, in the basements of our cabins in the woods -- laughing while we watch the governments crumble and banks go bankrupt, for them not being able to find and steal our fabulous all-digital wealth. It is good you are aware the fantasy doesn't work out so eloquently. The Mad Max outcome you fear is coming regardless of whether the anonymous currency exists. It will be worse without it, because no capital would survive the power of socialism to destroy itself (and now with global coordination). I don't see what staying one place (basement) has to do with anonymity. You are conflating. |
|
|
|
|
AnonyMint (OP)
|
|
June 28, 2014, 05:03:21 PM |
|
How do you trust Zerocash, when the NSA could serve the creators of the setup parameters with a national security gag order on the eve of the public ceremony?
There are other advanced technical means that might be used to intercept the setup parameters even at such a ceremony, e.g. the NSA can reprogram the microcode of CPUs using built in backdoors and there is technology for jumping the air gap and intercepting the computations inside the computer.
And we will never know if the money supply is being inflated away since the money supply is invisible.
Potentially there is an alternative means of employing Zerocash in an altcoin which could ameliorate the above problem. If a new Zerocash instance was created periodically, users were allowed to mint instance coins and then unmint (cash out) within a fixed period of time for each instance, then it would clear if the output cash out money supply was greater than the input minted money supply. Since the creator of the setup parameters is unable to break the anonymity, anyone could create the setup parameters and if the money supply doesn't match after the instance is terminated, then that entity would no longer be trusted. However there are still several things I don't like about this: 1. The complex unvetted new crypto could still potentially be broken by cryptanalysis over time. (and all the public history of anonymity would then suddenly be revealed to the adversary) 2. What to do if an instance's output money supply doesn't match the input? Ban all those coins? Yuk! 3. The entire thing rests on building reputations and reputation is a slippery slope to centralized hell: |
|
|
|
|
AnonyMint (OP)
|
|
July 12, 2014, 12:02:28 AM
Last edit: July 12, 2014, 12:14:59 AM by AnonyMint |
|
Saw that Monero is partnering with I2P: https://geti2p.net/en/blog/post/2014/05/25/Monero-partnershipEither the Monero developers don't intend to provide anonymity against the NSA or don't understand that (especially low-latency) Chaum mix-nets are not immune to timing analysis by a global adversary such as the NSA, GCHQ, and other national security agencies: https://geti2p.net/en/comparison/torThe I2P/Tor outproxy functionality does have a few substantial weaknesses against certain attackers - once the communication leaves the mixnet, global passive adversaries can more easily mount traffic analysis. In addition, the outproxies have access to the cleartext of the data transferred in both directions, and outproxies are prone to abuse, Here are more citations: https://tails.boum.org/doc/about/warning/index.en.html#index4h1Confirmation attacks The Tor design doesn't try to protect against an attacker who can see or measure both traffic going into the Tor network and also traffic coming out of the Tor network. That's because if you can see both flows, some simple statistics let you decide whether they match up. That could also be the case if your ISP (or your local network administrator) and the ISP of the destination server (or the destination server itself) cooperate to attack you. Tor tries to protect against traffic analysis, where an attacker tries to learn whom to investigate, but Tor can't protect against traffic confirmation (also known as end-to-end correlation), where an attacker tries to confirm an hypothesis by monitoring the right locations in the network and then doing the math. Quoted from Tor Project: "One cell is enough to break Tor's anonymity". Note the NSA is sharing data with relevant authorities in each country in the G20 to help them hunt down the wealth: Good to see the I2P developers updated their website about timing analysis after I gave them the heads up (about such vulnerability of low-latency mix-nets) nearly a year ago quoted as follows. |
|
|
|
|
darkota
|
|
July 12, 2014, 12:11:51 AM |
|
Saw that Monero is partnering with I2P: https://geti2p.net/en/blog/post/2014/05/25/Monero-partnershipEither the Monero developers don't intend to provide anonymity against the NSA or don't understand that Chaum mix-nets are not immune to timing analysis by a global adversary such as the NSA, GCHQ, and other national security agencies: https://geti2p.net/en/comparison/torThe I2P/Tor outproxy functionality does have a few substantial weaknesses against certain attackers - once the communication leaves the mixnet, global passive adversaries can more easily mount traffic analysis. In addition, the outproxies have access to the cleartext of the data transferred in both directions, and outproxies are prone to abuse, Here are more citations: https://tails.boum.org/doc/about/warning/index.en.html#index4h1Confirmation attacks The Tor design doesn't try to protect against an attacker who can see or measure both traffic going into the Tor network and also traffic coming out of the Tor network. That's because if you can see both flows, some simple statistics let you decide whether they match up. That could also be the case if your ISP (or your local network administrator) and the ISP of the destination server (or the destination server itself) cooperate to attack you. Tor tries to protect against traffic analysis, where an attacker tries to learn whom to investigate, but Tor can't protect against traffic confirmation (also known as end-to-end correlation), where an attacker tries to confirm an hypothesis by monitoring the right locations in the network and then doing the math. Quoted from Tor Project: "One cell is enough to break Tor's anonymity". Note the NSA is sharing data with relevant authorities in each country in the G20 to help them hunt down the wealth: Good to see the I2P developers updated their website about timing analysis after I gave them the heads up (about such vulnerability of low-latency mix-nets) nearly a year ago quoted as follows. Dude..Even bitcoin is not immune to the NSA. thats too far fetched now imo....NSA and Quantam Compute immunity that so many people want, comes with time, implementing I2P is still a great start for any coin, NSA immunity and such can come after..... |
|
|
|
|
rpietila
Donator
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1722
Merit: 1036
|
|
July 12, 2014, 12:54:56 AM |
|
Either the Monero developers don't intend to provide anonymity against the NSA
As I understood by having (proxy) discussions with them, this is the case. By not intending to provide such anonymity, they aim to hit the sweet spot of being the "corporate coin", because corporations are hesitant to enter into Bitcoin due to all their transactions being open for competitors. There will still be market for NSA-proof coins, when/if such can be developed. |
HIM TVA Dragon, AOK-GM, Emperor of the Earth, Creator of the World, King of Crypto Kingdom, Lord of Malla, AOD-GEN, SA-GEN5, Ministry of Plenty (Join NOW!), Professor of Economics and Theology, Ph.D, AM, Chairman, Treasurer, Founder, CEO, 3*MG-2, 82*OHK, NKP, WTF, FFF, etc(x3)
|
|
|
kbm
Member
Offline
Activity: 84
Merit: 10
|
|
July 12, 2014, 01:23:44 AM
Last edit: July 15, 2014, 10:19:41 PM by kbm |
|
There will still be market for NSA-proof coins, when/if such can be developed.
Hm, this seems like a good spot to start a summarized bucket list for myself of things that can/can't be in such a coin. I would have to consider such a coin to be ideal, and the list will be comprised of ideal needs. My thoughts on much of this are more toward a global adversary surpassing the capability of the combined efforts of the NSA/any other intelligence agencies, in order to not distract from the list. In such a scenario, global adversary is some variable that has all known or understood (and most likely many unknown) capabilities, yet may not be any particular entity that anyone's familiar with .. an ideal adversary. Such a scenario would be so overwhelming that the combination of all intelligence agencies as well as the rest of the world would be required to cooperate in global unity against this malignant adversary .. yet is not so powerful as to escape all logic so as to have a chance to thwart it, IE: not omnipotent. -It can't have a publicly observable blockchain (with linkable transactions), but proof of payment must be able to be obtained (from the blockchain), and capable of being shared with a third party by at least both of the parties involved (with consent of at least one of the two). Corporations are hesitant to enter into Bitcoin due to all their transactions being open for competitors (ty rpietila). Proof of payment is required, because despite the next twenty years .. I'd like to assume we'd find stability in any future after that where people consent to being judged by a court of law. Courts can only demand remuneration if proof can be obtained. -It needs to hide the functionality of the program through an ISP or whatever communication method is used. As the internet is the most widely available and practical, it would probably have to mask its functionality over the internet. This would require both encryption of traffic and the prevention of timing attacks to prevent feasible data-mining. It cannot be a low-latency Chaum mix-net, due specifically to timing attacks. Perhaps it should be usable over multiple communication methods? Maybe the low-latency should be addressed, as suggested by Anonymint -- Is this addressable? Regardless, an ideal adversary will have the capability to single you out amongst any amount of logically localized people and both capture and then decipher your internet traffic (or store it for such on a later date -- perhaps one where full decryption is possible). From this data, a private 'un-obscured blockchain' could be constructed and put up for sale. This would ultimately prove to be very lucrative and would eliminate the benefit established by an obscured blockchain in the first place (see above paragraph). -It cannot be susceptible to quantum computing in any way. I believe Anonymint and gmaxwell have mentioned that the usage of Winternitz/Lamport signatures as a valid means of subverting double spends. Using quantum computing, double spends can be executed with ease on existing elliptic curve technologies .. so post-quantum cryptography will need to be in order. This needs to be extended to the encryption of the internet traffic between nodes, and the PoW (if used). The usage of Lamport signatures has been described as "inefficient in size to be implemented anywhere at all (CN Site)", which will need to be explained. -It would need to be based on well-vetted cryptography, for no other reason than to have a chance at gaining trust. See book titled Post Quantum Cryptography? It needs to have been around long enough to say that there's no way around it; however, this is enigmatic because if such methodologies were already implemented there would be less/more refined/different requirements overall for this ideal coin. -It would need to be scalable, to the demographic that it serves. Should failed larger demographic support be alleviated by having multiple active forks? Compare to visa/mastercard (whose presence indicates forks will be favored over one world digital currency) in thousands of tx/minute .. or bank accounts that store value for years. This is scale. Can it hold value representative of those that want to store value (perfection is not required, but a reasonable level of storage must be provided over a given comfortable time frame - losses can be offset with other investments) and can it process transactions representative of those that want to transact. Scalability can be confirmed so long as both of the answers to those questions remains yes at the current time in which they are asked. -It should operate using a PoW method, in order to prevent spam -- should it also be able to broadcast communications (the alternative implication here is that a suitable ideal communications system would logically present itself before an ideal coin -- in which case the question here would be: should the ideal communication system be able to support the ideal coin)? Some form of sybil attack prevention is necessary to prevent the network from being needlessly clogged up for a very little cost. PoW has the most sensible distribution method -- I don't have to cross my fingers and hope a currency merchant comes along for me to buy currencies from, I don't need to sign up for anything .. I just have to download a program and let my computer solve hashes. A pervasive, unhindered and trustless distribution model will and has provably served for deeper penetration into a larger demographic .. and goes a long way toward preventing extreme relative value centralization (relative to the current value stored in the market). -The PoW method involved must provide some form of equality (egalitarian) of all parties involved. One cpu, one vote. If the world was reduced to only cryptocurrencies now, we would be in a feudal system as there is hardware that is not common and is targeted to be owned by only a few people (GPU -> FPGA -> ASIC -> embedded ASIC(ex: CPU instruction sets) -> ?). This was one of the the same reasons Wal-Mart did not pay its employees with Wal-Mart dollars. The idea is that, if people were completely reliant on CC's, then they would most likely feel a compulsion to vote for protocol changes and would be given the means of doing so by moving their hashpower to different forks to achieve valid and shared consensus .. rather than looking at it from a solely profit-seeking perspective. Mining is being downplayed right now .. I think this is one perspective that has been lost (or perhaps outdated .. ?). AES fails random oracle - citation needed. PoW that is memory hard in latency/bandwidth seems to slow down computationally aggressive algorithms - the excessive complication is really only to serve the purpose of preserving a one cpu/one vote paradigm .. else there's no reason to be memory intensive (complicated) at all. Without that distinction, why not just have processors calculate the sum of one in a loop for any given time period? -It would need to act as both a store of value, and instrument of transaction. See scalable. -It cannot rely solely on one or a few individual points of technical support outside the protocol itself (but also commanded to operate by the protocol) that can lead to catastrophic systemic failure at any point in its existence, or for any extended length of time in such existence (one-time setup parameters etc ..); it must be able to provably function without these targetable physical anchors to events outside of the core software itself having ever existed. The only anchors it can be tethered by must be ubiquitous relative to the element of physical reality it is deployed in. -It cannot process excess transactions at any particular localized point (no one point can be favored), be it logical on a network or concentrated in one geographic location. Concentrated points of potential malfunction are the easiest targets for any aggressor, and would undoubtedly be the first vector for an attack. Total distribution of transaction processing is required. A cross comparison here is that we already have logical locations where transactions are processed in 2014. Any bank is an extreme example of a centralized transaction processor; only, it concentrates funds as well as transactions (sound familiar?). During a bank run, the doors will be closed in the event of an attack. Specifically the point is that -- if there were an attack, not only will the localized transaction points be an attack surface for the aggressor .. they will also be an attack surface for the unwitting defender. Surely anything being attacked by two ideal forces will succumb to the assault. Would you feel comfortable with your funds in a different geographical location when they could be in your pocket during said attack? -Blockchain needs to be pruned? - need sources about this, for science. Also mini-blockchain implementation? -It would need to operate on as many types of processing hardware available. To the extent where mining with my toaster isn't out of the picture. The vote for consensus needs to be as representative as possible. I need to ask for more for myself than to be considered less than 3/5 of a person, no matter how right or wrong it makes me look. ASIC will need to be universally available upon creation -- the ability to make it ubiquitous will offset any gains it provides toward other hardware. This will most likely need to include low-level integration into pre-existing commodity hardware (far future), and short-term inexpensive deployment of suitable mining hardware (ant miner). On low level integration: Goods that can produce value will be able to offest any type of inflation/deflation based on the fact that they 'produce' value in addition to their intrinsic value. Example: cost of a keyboard that serves as a dual purpose ant miner will have a value that might be able to match future inflation/deflation - more thought needed on subject. -All software involved will need to reach a level of refinement competitive with that which is offered by banks, paypal, windows, macintosh etc .. to the point where (you guessed it) grandma can do it and grandpa can do more than saying he can do it. To aim to replace that which you claim to replace, you must be able to compete on every level. One of the most important of which, after public release, is that of the end-user experience; however, the extent to which 'friendliness' is required is dictated heavily by the need and demand for the software in the first place. -It would absolutely require well-funded developer(s). Rockets to Mars aren't fueled by hopes and dreams alone. Platforms like lighthouse/kickstarter need to be in place asap. Possible last resort reasonable premine/controlled emission (though this really does kill the whole idea of everyone paying the market price .. therefore possibly fungibility)? Keep in mind, people have dealt with Satoshi's (though arguably not a premine, just a solid example of a major developer funding) for years now, so it's strange that this is an issue. Perhaps because he's/they're not spending it? -The wallet needs to exist in multiple forms, not just data on your computer (deterministic, physical etc ..). Keeping it in one form invites constant losses. To have many forms like water. -It will also require support of a demographic that needs/wants anonymity. Specifically third parties going out of their way to be in line with the currency and the demographics views. Third parties offering private/anonymous solutions to things like marketplaces, exchanges and possibly even many mining pools will simply be out of reach for a core team. It requires participation .. and this is something that can be provided and possibly even coerced by both ideal parties. Perhaps some physiological catalyst could spur a drive for this. -The mining, if PoW based, cannot be centralized, or at very least the ability to perform a 51% attack needs to be eliminated in total. This again falls back on if the world was reduced to using only CC's to transact, we'd have one global power dictating protocol changes through an inevitable miner takeover (assuming a 51% attack does not occur). Those on the winning team .. tend to stay on the winning team. Not to mention the whole possibility of infinite money issue. -The value of one unit cannot be allowed to escalate toward infinity nor zero relative to the actual sum of value attributed by/to the demographic using it. It cannot be based solely on transaction fees. Bank income is 40% of its income (citation needed). Either way, the cross comparison here is that the p2p network is now your decentralized world bank .. it most likely would not be able to function on a small sum of value. Coins are lost through lost wallets, forgotten passwords/seeds, sending to wrong address. Fixed % inflation vs. fixed supply. A high debasement furthers adoption by keeping a distributed adoption model, see PoW argument. Debasement cannot outpace purchasing power. The countdown timer for these requirements is most likely 1.25 years judging from sources provided by Anonymint. I'll be adding things to this list as I come across them. Further reading: Good List of ArticlesIs there any _true_ anonymous cryptocurrencies? |
Thanks |
|
|
|
AnonyMint (OP)
|
|
July 12, 2014, 01:42:03 AM |
|
Dude..Even bitcoin is not immune to the NSA. thats too far fetched now imo....NSA and Quantam Compute immunity that so many people want, comes with time, implementing I2P is still a great start for any coin, NSA immunity and such can come after..... Note this fork of the discussion is going on in the Monero thread. Let's continue it there. Either the Monero developers don't intend to provide anonymity against the NSA
As I understood by having (proxy) discussions with them, this is the case. By not intending to provide such anonymity, they aim to hit the sweet spot of being the "corporate coin", because corporations are hesitant to enter into Bitcoin due to all their transactions being open for competitors. That is a good point, except that as far as I calculate Monero can't scale. There will still be market for NSA-proof coins, when/if such can be developed.
Especially if they can also scale. However there would also potentially be a market for a NSA-friendly coin which can also scale, since mainstream corporations may not want to use the NSA-blinded coin. I'll be adding things to this list as I come across them.
Astute list. I assume it will arrive sooner than 1.25 years. |
|
|
|
|
AnonyMint (OP)
|
|
July 13, 2014, 01:23:23 AM
Last edit: July 13, 2014, 01:35:18 AM by AnonyMint |
|
Cross-posting... https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=583449.msg7813210#msg7813210The Global Police StateGlobal sovereign debt collapse (which means global wealth confiscation, war, chaos, and descending into the economic abyss).\
So ...are you really saying this will ruin every corner of the globe? if not then what portions are you talking about? It's just that you keep mentioning Europe and America...but that's all you mention but you keep calling it "global". So...is it global or is it just Europe and the USA? The nations of the world are today mostly divided into five categories: 1. Developed country western Marxist socialism, government has 75% share of GDP (ditto Europe but worse as the official data excludes cost of regulation and probably local governments, etc!). 2. Developed country eastern Chaebol & Zaibatsu fascism, government has a moderate ( but rising rapidly) ( Korea also) % share of GDP. 3. Undeveloped world, "government spending" is very low thus a very low % share of GDP because there is no social welfare system. 4. Oil producing countries in the Middle East that will fall into complete chaos. 5. Exceptions. For #1, include North America, Europe, New Zealand, but perhaps not Australia. For #2, we have Japan with the world's highest debt-to-GDP levels as the prime example. Asians (but not Cherokee who descend from European not Asian) are more submissive (my hypothesis is perhaps due to lack of Ice Age impact thus larger populations). Japan has an existential fertility crisis. South Korea is on model peaking.  For #3, we have most of the rest of world. For #4, include all those recently failed Middle East states and Libya and include all those whose economy is nearly entirely dependent on oil and who have burgeoning populations. For #5, the exceptions to the above list include small transhipment and financial centers such as Hong Kong and Singapore, also Australia and Switzerland have relatively low government share of GDP for developed countries. PrognosisThe #1 nations will hunt down all wealth to feed their social welfare obligations. The majority will support this. These nations will cooperate, and the NSA + GCHQ will feed the authorities the data they need. The #2 nations have massive levels of debt in all sectors and will be induced into a war with China to appease the discontent among their people as their economies collapse into 2016 - 2020. The large corporation model of their economies is attuned to war making as a means of increasing industrial production. The #3 nations have extremely high levels of corporate debt (China the world's highest) because the 30 year bond bubble in the #1 nations drove investment capital out of the west an into developing world corporate bonds to chase yield. They don't have this social welfare system to feed, thus they don't need to hunt down money for revenue (they can let their corporations go bust and survival of the fittest) so they can collapse quickly and bottom by say 2020. But they will hunt down wealth of those cronies in their governments who have pilfered the coffers. You can see this going on now for example as China fired 900 bureaucrats, Thailand in martial law, and also the pork barrel scandal ongoing in the Philippines. So these nations need the cooperation of the #1 nations to track down and return the ill gotten wealth their cronies have been offshoring to there. Thus they will in exchange will offer to turn over all #1 nation citizens, i.e. see their cooperation with the FATCA. The #4 nations are imploding into chaos as they are too dependent on oil, their populations are burgeoning, the corrupt top-down control of wealth has been egregious, etc.. They will implode into complete chaos. They thus may be the best place to hide with your wealth, except that you would be at enormous physical risk of harm. The #5 nations will see their economies implode when the global economy does since they are so highly leveraged to trade and commodity demand. They are fully on board the global police state. Here are few links to convince you: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-03-26/hong-kong-goes-swiss-will-disclose-american-worker-financial-data-irshttp://armstrongeconomics.com/2014/06/22/hunt-for-money-tisa-negotiations-leaked-by-wikileaks/Thus you can see this hunt for wealth will be global. Only the peons in the undeveloping (developing) world are exempt. Edit: I didn't cover some exceptions that may not fit (not sure as I don't have time to research every one) the above stereotypes, such as Iceland, Bolivia, and Ecuador. Two of those were countries Snowden was interested in for asylum. |
|
|
|
|
AnonyMint (OP)
|
|
July 15, 2014, 02:52:42 PM |
|
This is very preliminary, but it appears to me that all anonymous coins based on unlinkability will not be able to solve the very serious double-spend threat. If am correct, this is both a major and fundamental solution for longest chain rule of proof-of-work, but it also eliminates unlinkability as a anonymity solution. Sorry to say. Again this is preliminary, and needs more peer review. |
|
|
|
|
AnonyMint (OP)
|
|
July 19, 2014, 02:34:46 AM |
|
First a math point about relating adoption rate to price. Peter R confirmed upthread with a chart that proxies for adoption, N, are tracking price = N x N. And if adoption is growing by rate R per year, then it grows R x R rate in two years. Thus we can say that the annual rate of price increases is proportional to the biannual rate of adoption. You see when our Y axis is logarithmic (e.g. log 10 on chart Risto shows) then exponentiation becomes additive and thus linearly proportional. So I've been FA thinking about why Bitcoin adoption is likely declining, i.e. as I showed a log-logistic curve fit... Discussion on this continues in the Monero Economy thread. |
|
|
|
keithers
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1456
Merit: 1001
This is the land of wolves now & you're not a wolf
|
|
July 19, 2014, 04:21:02 AM |
|
With all the competitors now in the same space that coinbase used to sit alone, it's easy to see why their expansion of users has slowed down. The more options the better IMO. I don't think overall adoption is slowing though.
|
|
|
|
|
bigtimespaghetti
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1652
Merit: 1057
bigtimespaghetti.com
|
|
July 19, 2014, 10:10:36 PM |
|
With all the competitors now in the same space that coinbase used to sit alone, it's easy to see why their expansion of users has slowed down. The more options the better IMO. I don't think overall adoption is slowing though.
I think anonymints posts show that adoption is stalling. But you'll have to dig through his prolific writings. While awareness among above average individuals is now higher, there is still virtually no interest in either investing or using it as bitcoin is not frictionless enough to acquire. It's a hassle to understand, secure and use. In its current form it offers nothing to the public unless you are a particularly devious (or clever) divorcee. I see great things for crytpos in the future, but I think a lot of people are expecting unreasonable rates of adoption at this stage. And while I'd love to see more adoption, I still think that we are at best flat lining right now. Bitcoin needs to stabilise and focus on services, which of the latter I know is happening. But due to flaws in the structure of bitcoin we are going towards a more centralised (see pool sizes) and controlled market. How much longer before the IMF has its own sanctified block chain or something to a similar effect? Interesting times. |
|
|
|
|
AnonyMint (OP)
|
|
July 22, 2014, 06:41:58 PM
Last edit: July 23, 2014, 11:08:10 AM by AnonyMint |
|
More detailed discussion on Monero's (CryptoNite's) proof-of-work hash design. |
|
|
|
|
giveBTCpls
|
|
July 22, 2014, 07:08:57 PM |
|
Haven't read the entire thread but, as far as I can remember Zerocoin needed that you thrust a 3rd party to destroy the master key file which allows access to the entire blockchain thus allowing whoever has this to double spend indefinitely *without anyone ever finding out*, or something along the lines. This is why i've been big upping Monero and not any other of the anonymous alternatives i've seen thus far.
|
|
|
|
|
AnonyMint (OP)
|
|
July 23, 2014, 10:55:36 AM
Last edit: July 23, 2014, 11:06:00 AM by AnonyMint |
|
Haven't read the entire thread but, as far as I can remember Zerocoin needed that you thrust a 3rd party to destroy the master key file which allows access to the entire blockchain thus allowing whoever has this to double spend indefinitely *without anyone ever finding out*, or something along the lines. This is why i've been big upping Monero and not any other of the anonymous alternatives i've seen thus far.
I have detailed post about that several pages upthread. Click "All" to show all thread pages, then Ctrl+F to search for "Zerocash" (not Zerocoin).
I am reading the Ethereum whitepaper, and I can begin with one observation— a (n infinite) loop can be implemented with (tail) recursion but recursion can't be implemented with a loop. So they demonstrate a lack of high-level semantic understanding of Turing-completeness, since yours truly defined Turing-completeness as the most concise statement, " unbounded recursion". https://www.ethereum.org/pdfs/EthereumWhitePaper.pdf#page=12Lack of Turing-completeness - that is to say, while there is a large subset of computation that the Bitcoin scripting language supports, it does not nearly support every thing. The main category that is missing is loops... I do believe putting a Turing-complete language on the blockchain will allow viruses into the blockchain. I think it is impossible to avoid. I am interested to read further how they are planning to deal with this unavoidable ramification of Turing-completeness. Ultimately the only solution can be centralized authority (e.g. issuing certification to apps)— the antithesis of decentralized crypto-currency. Thus no wonder that Peter Thiel has already got his finger in the pie (another way he can centralize crypto-currency). |
|
|
|
Rum152
Full Member
Offline
Activity: 147
Merit: 100
www.secondstrade.com - 190% return Binary option
|
|
July 23, 2014, 11:16:22 AM |
|
With all the competitors now in the same space that coinbase used to sit alone, it's easy to see why their expansion of users has slowed down. The more options the better IMO. I don't think overall adoption is slowing though.
Generally speaking more competition means that there are more incentives for users to adopt bitcoin |
|
|
|
|
|
|
AnonyMint (OP)
|
|
July 23, 2014, 11:53:12 AM |
|
I am reading the Ethereum whitepaper, and I can begin with one observation— a (n infinite) loop can be implemented with (tail) recursion but recursion can't be implemented with a loop. So they demonstrate a lack of high-level semantic understanding of Turing-completeness, since yours truly defined Turing-completeness as the most concise statement, " unbounded recursion". https://www.ethereum.org/pdfs/EthereumWhitePaper.pdf#page=12Lack of Turing-completeness - that is to say, while there is a large subset of computation that the Bitcoin scripting language supports, it does not nearly support every thing. The main category that is missing is loops... I do believe putting a Turing-complete language on the blockchain will allow viruses into the blockchain. I think it is impossible to avoid. I am interested to read further how they are planning to deal with this unavoidable ramification of Turing-completeness. Ultimately the only solution can be centralized authority (e.g. issuing certification to apps)— the antithesis of decentralized crypto-currency. Thus no wonder that Peter Thiel has already got his finger in the pie (another way he can centralize crypto-currency). The Ethereum white paper explains how they will avoid infinite loops, but says nothing about how they propose to prevent viruses. I also see that in addition to ongoing IPO set to raise $3+ million, the angel investors of Ethereum will receive 10% (9.9%) of that presumably taken as an extra premine. |
|
|
|
|
AnonyMint (OP)
|
|
July 24, 2014, 12:18:38 AM
Last edit: July 24, 2014, 12:36:15 AM by AnonyMint |
|
Ethereum has already sold 11.5 million ETH (was 7 million yesterday) sold at roughly $0.30 per ETH. So they've already raised $3.3 million, plus the whitepaper says they will additionally premine 9.9% of whatever that final amount is to be given to the founders and early angel investors. And there are 40 more days to go that this IPO premine will be open to investors. (I wonder if they've done their legal requirements to comply with SEC regulations for non-qualified USA investors, could end up in legal trouble as what happened to some in the Bitcoin community who sold shares to non-qualified USA investors) Plus the annual debasement will be 26% of what ever the premine from the IPO ends up being. As I wrote upthread, it is appears Ethereum is getting the interest of Peter Thiel. And the only way to have Turing-complete apps on the blockchain without viruses is to have certification of each app by a centralized authority. Thus looks like this is the direction it will morph to over time. It won't be truly decentralized, because the apps will need to be vetted by an authority, although the apps will run decentralized after vetting. We can clearly see the powers-that-be are taking control over Bitcoin (one pool has 50% of the mining hashrate) and now on Bitcoin 2.0 concepts. Note Charles Hoskinson originally tried to recruit me to work on Bitcoin 2.0 altcoin, and when I declined he hooked up with Vitalik Buterin. Someone told me Charles 'left' Ethereum. Look what happened to the last company he was forced out of bytemaster's Protoshares/Bitshares. https://coinmarketcap.com/So BitSharesX is in 7th place with a $20 million market cap after nearly a year of release. Even the #3 coin (other than Bitcoin or Litecoin) is only at $50 million market cap. Thus even if Ethereum makes it to #3 within a year and if the IPO ends up being say $5 - $10 million (already at $3.3 million 1 day into the 42 day IPO), then the upside is only less than a 10 bagger in a year, unless somehow Ethereum surpasses Litecoin in that short time frame (not likely!). Also the actual release won't come until late 2014 or early 2015, so it will be 1.5 years before seeing that level. Realistically it is looking that gains on Ethereum will be in the realm of less than 100% per annum. And there is a lot of technical risk of snafus and failure. This doesn't appear to be a good risk versus reward investment. Some other faster moving altcoin will come along in the interim time and take away the momentum of Ethereum. But I could be wrong and it surpasses Litecoin quickly (but I still think that is not likely). |
|
|
|
|
celestio
|
|
July 24, 2014, 12:37:42 AM |
|
Ethereum has already sold 11.5 million ETH (was 7 million yesterday) sold at roughly $0.30 per ETH. So they've already raised $3.3 million, plus the whitepaper says they will additionally premine 9.9% of whatever that final amount is to be given to the founders and early angel investors. And there are 40 more days to go that this IPO premine will be open to investors. (I wonder if they've done their legal requirements to comply with SEC regulations for non-qualified USA investors, could end up in legal trouble as what happened to some in the Bitcoin community who sold shares to non-qualified USA investors) Plus the annual debasement will be 26% of what ever the premine from the IPO ends up being. As I wrote upthread, it is appears Ethereum is getting the interest of Peter Thiel. And the only way to have Turing-complete apps on the blockchain without viruses is to have certification of each app by a centralized authority. Thus looks like this is the direction it will morph to over time. It won't be truly decentralized, because the apps will need to be vetted by an authority, although the apps will run decentralized after vetting. We can clearly see the powers-that-be are taking control over Bitcoin (one pool has 50% of the mining hashrate) and now on Bitcoin 2.0 concepts. Note Charles Hoskinson originally tried to recruit me to work on Bitcoin 2.0 altcoin, and when I declined he hooked up with Vitalik Buterin. Someone told me Charles 'left' Ethereum. Look what happened to the last company he was forced out of bytemaster's Protoshares/Bitshares. https://coinmarketcap.com/So BitSharesX is in 7th place with a $20 million market cap after nearly a year of release. Even the #3 coin (other than Bitcoin or Litecoin) is only at $50 million market cap. Thus even if Ethereum makes it to #3 within a year and if the IPO ends up being say $5 - $10 million (already at $3.3 million 1 day into the 42 day IPO), then the upside is only less than a 10 bagger in a year, unless somehow Ethereum surpasses Litecoin in that short time frame (not likely!). Also the actual release won't come until late 2014 or early 2015, so it will be 1.5 years before seeing that level. Realistically it is looking that gains on Ethereum will be in the realm of less than 100% per annum. And there is a lot of technical risk of snafus and failure. This doesn't appear to be a good risk versus reward investment. Some other faster moving altcoin will come along in the interim time and take away the momentum of Ethereum. I agree, Ethereum doesn't seen that smart an investment. The returns(even if it does go smoothly without much incicdents, which is very unlikely) will probably get less than 50% IMO, which just isn't worth it since after the IPO is finished, you'll still have to wait months and months before Ethereum is released(and you could of spent that btc to make more in the meantime). Plus, Ethereum is doing the IPO before any beta or public testing of their product, which makes me think that the developers just want to make as much money as possible, because they know the project won't succeed.... |
"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" - Satoshi Nakamoto, June 17, 2010
|
|
|
|
AnonyMint (OP)
|
|
July 24, 2014, 12:47:15 AM |
|
I agree, Ethereum doesn't seen that smart an investment. The returns(even if it does go smoothly without much incicdents, which is very unlikely) will probably get less than 50% IMO, which just isn't worth it since after the IPO is finished, you'll still have to wait months and months before Ethereum is released(and you could of spent that btc to make more in the meantime). Plus, Ethereum is doing the IPO before any beta or public testing of their product, which makes me think that the developers just want to make as much money as possible, because they know the project won't succeed....
Your IPO Ethereum shares will be illiquid until the coin is released. You can't sell or determine a market price in the interim. However, I am starting to form another view on whether it fail or not, see below... As I wrote upthread, it is appears Ethereum is getting the interest of Peter Thiel. And the only way to have Turing-complete apps on the blockchain without viruses is to have certification of each app by a centralized authority. Thus looks like this is the direction it will morph to over time. It won't be truly decentralized, because the apps will need to be vetted by an authority, although the apps will run decentralized after vetting. We can clearly see the powers-that-be are taking control over Bitcoin (one pool has 50% of the mining hashrate) and now on Bitcoin 2.0 concepts.
The only potential choices we currently know of for getting tunable apps on to the blockchain are: a) The coin developer approves new scripts. b) You release a Turing-complete scripting API, wait for viruses to appear, then the community will demand that a central authority vets each script. So really no one has proposed a better solution than what Ethereum is launching. The Ethereum whitepaper on page 28 discusses how lack of Turing-completeness is not a good solution either. #b is the facebook model for apps, and we see Peter Thiel (angel investor of facebook, paypal, bitpay, etc) has already awarded $100,000 to Ethereum's founder. |
|
|
|
dnaleor
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1470
Merit: 1000
Want privacy? Use Monero!
|
|
July 24, 2014, 12:56:54 AM |
|
Ethereum has already sold 11.5 million ETH (was 7 million yesterday) sold at roughly $0.30 per ETH. So they've already raised $3.3 million, plus the whitepaper says they will additionally premine 9.9% of whatever that final amount is to be given to the founders and early angel investors. And there are 40 more days to go that this IPO premine will be open to investors. (I wonder if they've done their legal requirements to comply with SEC regulations for non-qualified USA investors, could end up in legal trouble as what happened to some in the Bitcoin community who sold shares to non-qualified USA investors) Plus the annual debasement will be 26% of what ever the premine from the IPO ends up being. As I wrote upthread, it is appears Ethereum is getting the interest of Peter Thiel. And the only way to have Turing-complete apps on the blockchain without viruses is to have certification of each app by a centralized authority. Thus looks like this is the direction it will morph to over time. It won't be truly decentralized, because the apps will need to be vetted by an authority, although the apps will run decentralized after vetting. We can clearly see the powers-that-be are taking control over Bitcoin (one pool has 50% of the mining hashrate) and now on Bitcoin 2.0 concepts. Note Charles Hoskinson originally tried to recruit me to work on Bitcoin 2.0 altcoin, and when I declined he hooked up with Vitalik Buterin. Someone told me Charles 'left' Ethereum. Look what happened to the last company he was forced out of bytemaster's Protoshares/Bitshares. https://coinmarketcap.com/So BitSharesX is in 7th place with a $20 million market cap after nearly a year of release. Even the #3 coin (other than Bitcoin or Litecoin) is only at $50 million market cap. Thus even if Ethereum makes it to #3 within a year and if the IPO ends up being say $5 - $10 million (already at $3.3 million 1 day into the 42 day IPO), then the upside is only less than a 10 bagger in a year, unless somehow Ethereum surpasses Litecoin in that short time frame (not likely!). Also the actual release won't come until late 2014 or early 2015, so it will be 1.5 years before seeing that level. Realistically it is looking that gains on Ethereum will be in the realm of less than 100% per annum. And there is a lot of technical risk of snafus and failure. This doesn't appear to be a good risk versus reward investment. Some other faster moving altcoin will come along in the interim time and take away the momentum of Ethereum. But I could be wrong and it surpasses Litecoin quickly (but I still think that is not likely). I agree and I guess the price will drop initially. Look, what it all comes down to is this: What is the best Coin Emission SchemeI put the following CES in a list, ranked from "fair" to "scam" FAIR: PoW: announce the new coin at least a few weeks in advance and generate the genesis block. delete the keys of that genesis block and PoW can start. Don't make it a "fastmine". <10% of the coins should be mined in the first month æthereum approach: fix a certain bitcoin block (a few weeks in advance) and distribute the coins according to the bazlances at that block. This is an ideal scenario if you want your coin to be distributed in a way a lot of people will be able to use it from the start. This can have a very good effect on "adoption" of the coin PoW + PoS: even with a small balance, it should be possible to mine for PoS. With peercoin, it's almost impossible. NXT solved that problem with "leased forging". If you want PoS, make it accesable to anyone! PoB: Proof of Burn: nobody benefits from the bitcoins. They are gone. So if the new coin doesn't gain value, money is lost. Even with limited supply, it's not a ponzi, because there is noone benefitting (you need to announce it at least a month before launch off course) *** "shady": Fast PoW (+ PoS): if you announce your coin and let people mine it, even for a short period, it's a good thing. I can understand that if you want to have a 100% PoS coin. But the faster the PoW phase is, the more shady the coin is premine (+ Pow or PoS): I can understand that the devs want some money to develop. That money is denominated in the new currency, so no garantee that their premine fund will someday be worth something. If the premine fund is managed transparently, it is justifiable IPO with limited coin supply: you need to know in advance how much coins will be created. You can pay the devs BTC, but know that they will not have a risk, you risk loosing the BTC *** SCAM: IPO without knowing how much coins will be created: Ethereum Centralized emission points, debt based: ripple hyperfastmine / ninjamine: pump the altcoin when most of the coins are already generated (BCN, QUARK) ***** I think a lot of issues just come down to FAIR EMISSION. |
|
|
|
|
|
AnonyMint (OP)
|
|
July 24, 2014, 01:25:00 AM |
|
FAIR:
... Don't make it a "fastmine". <10% of the coins should be mined in the first month
A rapidly declining debasement curve implies a fastmine in that early adopters get too large a % of all future coins. I made this argument about Monero in the Monero thread recently, although Monero is far from the worst case and in that grey area between your "fair" and "shady". |
|
|
|
|
AnonyMint (OP)
|
|
July 24, 2014, 01:31:30 AM |
|
Near the end of that video currently on the Ethereum home page, Tual claims Ralph Merkle is on their team. In what capacity? This blog post by the Ethereum founder got me thinking about something. The fundamental threat from viruses on the blockchain is data ("state") corruption or disruption. Therefore you can perhaps surmise what I've just thought of as a solution, which would allow Turing-completeness on the blockchain without requiring a centralized authority I don't know if they've thought of my idea. So I will not reveal it now. But now I am really thinking about the importance of what they are doing and will need to beat them before they release. |
|
|
|
|
AnonyMint (OP)
|
|
July 24, 2014, 03:57:28 AM |
|
Some discussion about Ethereum over in the Monero thread, and this post is lucid in my opinion: Maybe that's about the right time to look into another direction: Etherium (ETH)
The Ether guys just started the pre-sale, and I'm wondering how you all think about this new coin and its presale. Some quick questions/points from me side:
- Will ETH be a threat to Monero?
- Is the presale (2000ETH per BTC right now) a reasonable investment chance? (I couldn't find an upper bound on the coin supply for the presale.)
- Is there a chance that ETH will make it against Mastercoin and Counterparty?
- Would Bitshares-X (similarly Bitshares-PTS) be a better investment? (ETH and Bitshares seem to share some goals, e.g., decentralized organisations/companies, etc.)
Regards.
Whats a better investment, a bowling ball or a ham sandwich? They are all fundamentally different things. I don't think etherium is attempting to build a tax haven in the cloud and I don't think monero is trying to build a consensus based turing complete distributed virtual machine. Be careful with etheirum though. Huge amounts of hype and many wild promises, little evidence that they will be able to deliver on those promises, and with the sorts of valuation they are obtaining i think its questionable whether it would be a good value even if they do deliver on those promises. The thing about open source code is that it can be copied. Of course there are network effects to make the largest network more valuable. But with something like a virtual machine thats being run in parallel on a huge number of computers, its very questionable to what extent that can be scaled. If it cant be scaled well than their first mover advantage may offer little benefit beyond a certain threshold. |
|
|
|
|
AnonyMint (OP)
|
|
July 24, 2014, 04:54:34 AM |
|
Cross-posting on Ethereum... For that reason alone, they are likely to get a lot of attention, and attention equals dollars, and dollars equals hiring more devs. Pretty virtous cycle that XMR should have but doesn't seem able to make happen. They have already sold over 1 million USD worth.
Meaning more Mythical Man-Months to muck up the progress on identifying the sweet spot. |
|
|
|
|
AnonyMint (OP)
|
|
July 24, 2014, 07:00:51 AM |
|
Clarifications to what I posted earlier. Apparently Charles didn't leave but was moved "to other activities in the space": https://blog.ethereum.org/2014/06/05/ethereum-project-update/The most recent phase of business activity involved strong attention to the legalities of the sale and Charles Hoskinson was ideal to lead that effort. But that effort is now substantially complete and Charles will be moving on to other activities in the space. And apparently they did deal with the legalities on their IPO: Other core activities include attention to legalities in different jurisdictions regarding the pre-sale... |
|
|
|
|
AnonyMint (OP)
|
|
July 24, 2014, 07:11:25 AM |
|
Regarding Ethereum, Vitalik Buterin's intelligence is quite high as displayed on his blog posts. And they have other smart people in their group, with Tual even claiming Ralph Merkel is on their team. Expect great things from them. But it doesn't mean they will necessarily hit the sweet spot. They might though.
|
|
|
|
drawingthesun
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1176
Merit: 1015
|
|
July 24, 2014, 08:06:53 AM |
|
Regarding Ethereum, Vitalik Buterin's intelligence is quite high as displayed on his blog posts. And they have other smart people in their group, with Tual even claiming Ralph Merkel is on their team. Expect great things from them. But it doesn't mean they will necessarily hit the sweet spot. They might though.
But Ethereum has the same problems regarding anonymity and scalability as all the other coins you criticize. |
|
|
|
|
|
AnonyMint (OP)
|
|
July 24, 2014, 03:34:27 PM |
|
Regarding Ethereum, Vitalik Buterin's intelligence is quite high as displayed on his blog posts. And they have other smart people in their group, with Tual even claiming Ralph Merkel is on their team. Expect great things from them. But it doesn't mean they will necessarily hit the sweet spot. They might though.
But Ethereum has the same problems regarding anonymity and scalability as all the other coins you criticize. Indeed. |
|
|
|
|
AnonyMint (OP)
|
|
July 26, 2014, 04:46:45 AM |
|
I think it's a better option to reaveal the things you know but don't want to share but that is your decision.I do appreciate the thought and effort you put into explaining your views.
A post which summarizes some of my views. |
|
|
|
|
JorgeStolfi
|
|
July 26, 2014, 04:51:29 AM |
|
I agree with alot [ ... ]
This user seems to be copy-pasting old posts of other people in several threads |
Academic interest in bitcoin only. Not owner, not trader, very skeptical of its longterm success.
|
|
|
|
AnonyMint (OP)
|
|
July 30, 2014, 03:30:46 PM
Last edit: July 30, 2014, 05:12:36 PM by AnonyMint |
|
Tonight I learned from my 20-something neighbor in the Philippines that he estimates 25% of his former classmates are doing call center or virtual work online. He is doing administrative work for a foreclosure company based in Florida. His job is to compile photos, submit online listing, and monitor to make sure all listings are in sync. His wife is a customer service rep for a USA company that sells bikinis. They both work at night on the computer. He earns about $750 a month, which slightly more than the $650 a tenured teacher earns, in a country where the official minimum wage is about $240 monthly and many non-professionals earn less than that.
They find jobs and get paid through oDesk.com, which takes a 10% fee.
His brother created a social media app Lifebit, and is in the process of seeking venture funding.
The Philippines is moving towards taxing their incomes.
He has heard of Bitcoin and was thinking about doing mining in his home but didn't seem so practical to him. He agrees Bitcoin hasn't spread as much in 5 years as the smartphone did.
Implications:
1. The market for a decentralized payment system that could scale to such social media and virtual economy is growing.
2. The world is changing radically and the western high salaries are being hollowed out, at least for work that doesn't require extremely high skills that filipinos can't do. The west MUST collapse down to the level of these salaries paid abroad.
3. When the west collapses 2016 - 2020+, some of these virtual workers in the developing countries are going to lose their jobs (e.g. customer service rep for bikini company). One might envision the foreclosure work increasing, but the company demanding to pay less or increase the work load for the same pay.
4. This confluence of economic challenges is going to create a huge demand for investment in the high tech virtual economy where the growth will occur.
5. Bitcoin's adoption is past 20% already. It will not scale sufficiently.
Clearly we are moving to electronic money. The remaining question is who will control it. Will it be a fiat or a decentralized crypto-currency. Bitcoin couldn't scale any way without being centralized (another Visa).
We live in interesting and exciting times.
|
|
|
|
|
counter
|
|
July 30, 2014, 04:42:34 PM |
|
Tonight I learned from my 20-something neighbor in the Philippines that he estimates 25% of his former classmates are doing call center or virtual work online. He is doing administrative work for a foreclosure company based in Florida. His job is to compile photos, submit online listing, and monitor to make sure all listings are in sync. His wife is a customer service rep for a USA company that sells bikinis. They both work at night on the computer. He earns about $750 a month, which slightly more than the $650 a tenured teacher earns, in a country where the official minimum wage is about $240 monthly and many non-professionals earn less than that.
They find jobs and get paid through oDesk.com, which takes a 10% fee.
His brother created a social media app Lifebit, and is in the process of seeking venture funding.
The Philippines is moving towards taxing their incomes.
He has heard of Bitcoin and was thinking about doing mining in his home. He agrees Bitcoin hasn't spread as much in 5 years as the smartphone did.
Implications:
1. The market for a decentralized payment system that could scale to such social media and virtual economy is growing.
2. The world is changing radically and the western high salaries are being hollowed out, at least for work that doesn't require extremely high skills that filipinos can't do. The west MUST collapse down to the level of these salaries paid abroad.
3. When the west collapses 2016 - 2020+, some of these virtual workers in the developing countries are going to lose their jobs (e.g. customer service rep for bikini company). One might envision the foreclosure work increasing, but the company demanding to pay less or increase the work load for the same pay.
4. This confluence of economic challenges is going to create a huge demand for investment in the high tech virtual economy where the growth will occur.
5. Bitcoin's adoption is past 20% already. It will not scale sufficiently.
Clearly we are moving to electronic money. The remaining question is who will control it. Will it be a fiat or a decentralized crypto-currency. Bitcoin couldn't scale any way without being centralized (another Visa).
We live in interesting and exciting times.
An interesting but I'm not so sure it is fair to compare Bitcoins growth over the last five years to the growth of the smartphone. The smartphone is being backed/produced by major companies with extremely deep pockets for one. Bitcoin is grass roots and mainly depends on word to mouth forms of advertisements. Expecting the same results as far as growth doesn't seem fair. |
|
|
|
|
|
AnonyMint (OP)
|
|
July 30, 2014, 04:52:14 PM
Last edit: July 30, 2014, 06:19:06 PM by AnonyMint |
|
An interesting but I'm not so sure it is fair to compare Bitcoins growth over the last five years to the growth of the smartphone. The smartphone is being backed/produced by major companies with extremely deep pockets for one. Bitcoin is grass roots and mainly depends on word to mouth forms of advertisements. Expecting the same results as far as growth doesn't seem fair.
You can compare it to the growth of the internet or the radio, which were decentralized early on and attained the smartphone's fast rate of growth. My CoolPage.com was released Oct. 1998. By 2000-1, I (as a 1 man company) had well in excess of 1 million downloads (just on download.com it shows 2/3 of a million and that didn't include Tucows and other download sites, as well as downloads from our site since I was spending up to $10,000 a month on Goto.com/Overture and then Google Ads) and I confirmed using a special AltaVista search feature 335,000 active websites created with the CoolPage editor (because I embedded coolpage.com in a meta tag). At that time, if I remember correctly, CoolPage.com peaked as a top 10-50,000 site as reported by Alexa (note we didn't have a sticky site, users just dropped in to download and then not come back unless they needed to download again or upgrade or get customer support, so the site ranking doesn't reflect user share). So in less than 3 years, it had grown to 0.1 - 0.25% share of the internet users. Bitcoin was estimated to have in the realm of 1 million users when it hit 5 years, which was only 0.03% of the internet. In 2012 when Bitcoin was 3 years old, it had probably less than 100,000 users[1] and thus 0.003% of the internet. Bitcoin.org is a top 10,000 site and peaked in the top 1000. This is understandable due to the extent that Bitcoin was hyped in the media. Bitcointalk.org is a top 3000 site and hasn't peaked but was top 2000. Why it is more popular? Probably because creating new discussions on bitcointalk.org is DECENTRALIZED thus more N x N network effects and sustaining value, i.e. there is always new information unlike at bitcoin.org. I wasn't backed by any big companies. My company was never plastered all over the (top down controlled!) internet news sites. I was a 1 man company, and I slaughtered Bitcoin's (top down investment pump!) rate of growth. Bitcoin is failing to grow fast because it is becoming increasingly centralized. I believe you've got the concept backwards. Decentralized viral growth, grows geometrically faster than top-down managed growth due to Reed's or Metcalf's laws. Bitcoin is weighed down by dead weight of myopic investment whales who work hard to top down herd the flock (see the centralization of mining for example, and it also applies to Winkervoss twins, Peter Thiel, and even our resident forum whale). This must change if we are to grow crypto-currency for the world. It won't change with words. It will change with programming. [1] In the OP, I cited where Peter R showed that price (or was it marketcap?) is correlated very closely to N x N, where N is a proxy for the number of users. Bitcoin was < $10 in 2012, thus 1/100 of recent prices, so we can expect users were 1/10 since 10 x 10 = 100. If it was marketcap, it was even less users. |
|
|
|
|
|
blumangroup
Sr. Member
Offline
Activity: 350
Merit: 250
'Slow and steady wins the race'
|
|
August 01, 2014, 01:42:56 AM |
|
Tonight I learned from my 20-something neighbor in the Philippines that he estimates 25% of his former classmates are doing call center or virtual work online. He is doing administrative work for a foreclosure company based in Florida. His job is to compile photos, submit online listing, and monitor to make sure all listings are in sync. His wife is a customer service rep for a USA company that sells bikinis. They both work at night on the computer. He earns about $750 a month, which slightly more than the $650 a tenured teacher earns, in a country where the official minimum wage is about $240 monthly and many non-professionals earn less than that.
They find jobs and get paid through oDesk.com, which takes a 10% fee.
His brother created a social media app Lifebit, and is in the process of seeking venture funding.
The Philippines is moving towards taxing their incomes.
He has heard of Bitcoin and was thinking about doing mining in his home. He agrees Bitcoin hasn't spread as much in 5 years as the smartphone did.
Implications:
1. The market for a decentralized payment system that could scale to such social media and virtual economy is growing.
2. The world is changing radically and the western high salaries are being hollowed out, at least for work that doesn't require extremely high skills that filipinos can't do. The west MUST collapse down to the level of these salaries paid abroad.
3. When the west collapses 2016 - 2020+, some of these virtual workers in the developing countries are going to lose their jobs (e.g. customer service rep for bikini company). One might envision the foreclosure work increasing, but the company demanding to pay less or increase the work load for the same pay.
4. This confluence of economic challenges is going to create a huge demand for investment in the high tech virtual economy where the growth will occur.
5. Bitcoin's adoption is past 20% already. It will not scale sufficiently.
Clearly we are moving to electronic money. The remaining question is who will control it. Will it be a fiat or a decentralized crypto-currency. Bitcoin couldn't scale any way without being centralized (another Visa).
We live in interesting and exciting times.
An interesting but I'm not so sure it is fair to compare Bitcoins growth over the last five years to the growth of the smartphone. The smartphone is being backed/produced by major companies with extremely deep pockets for one. Bitcoin is grass roots and mainly depends on word to mouth forms of advertisements. Expecting the same results as far as growth doesn't seem fair. This is a good point, however the growth of smart phones could potentially make it easier for the masses to start using bitcoin as apps are developed for bitcoin wallets, making it easier to use bitcoin |
|
|
|
|
AnonyMint (OP)
|
|
August 03, 2014, 03:08:43 PM |
|
Proof-of-stake is “fundamentally flawed”.https://download.wpsoftware.net/bitcoin/pos.pdfProof-of-stake is frequently proposed as a mechanism for distributed consensus in non-Bitcoin cryp-
tocurrencies (“altcoins”). However, this idea appears to be fundamentally flawed. We explore the
history and motivation leading to Bitcoin’s distributed consensus mechanism, which evades a im-
possibility result, and demonstrate that proof of stake does not work as a replacement.
...
Now, we have a consensus history and an attacker who is able to fork it at some early time.
To actually replace the entire consensus history, he needs to produce an alternate history,
starting from his fork, which is longer than the existing history. But every block needs a
new random selection of signers, so is this possible? The answer is absolutely yes: we have
been using this word “random”, but in fact we have required consensus on the set of signers
(otherwise forks would trivially happen), so even a random selection must be seeded from
past consensus history
...
Further, this ability to control the future selection of stakeholders (and even the
set of stake-holders, by controlling which transactions appear in blocks) has serious consequences. This
is because even without a deliberate attacker, the signers who extend the history at every point
have an incentive to direct the history toward one in which they have more stake (and there-
fore more reward), which causes the system to trend toward centralization. They may do this
by skewing the stake selection of future blocks, or more insidiously by censoring transactions
which (may eventually) increase the set of stakeholders. Isn't that what I wrote in 2013...Cross-posting from the following linked post: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=558316.msg6501774#msg6501774
It is time to squash Proof-of-Stake once and for all. It can NEVER remain decentralized... The other attacks you describe all derive from the fundamental reason I declared all non-proof-of-work systems to be insecure back in April.
My logic was mathematically fundamental. The input entropy set is quite deterministic and well known and thus can be preimaged. For example, accumulating a lot of coin-days-destroyed and then targeting them in clever ways to subvert the security.
... (In any non-Proof-of-Work design, ) It is mathematically impossible for there to be external consensus trust of the honest chain if the dishonest chain is controlled by more than 51% of the peers. We've covered some of the scenarios upthread, and it always boils down to that the external viewers can not know who to trust except by trusting the majority of peers.
The only mathematical way around this is to centralize the network, by placing more trust in some peers than others over time.
Indeed long-term reputation is a mathematically viable alternative to Proof-of-Work. This is centralization...
Notwithstanding the above, any non-Proof-of-Work system can be attacked with much less than 51% of the peers, due to the fact that the input entropy is preimageable, as I explained upthread. Again the only way to work around this is to trust some established peers to guard against this.
... The fundamental math problem with using any metric from the block chain (or any consensus voting such as proof-of-stake) is that it can be gamed deterministically unlike proof-of-work which is a randomized process, i.e. the input entropy is not orthogonally unbounded as it is in the randomization of proof-of-work.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
rograz
|
|
August 04, 2014, 05:27:36 AM |
|
He has heard of Bitcoin and was thinking about doing mining in his home. He agrees Bitcoin hasn't spread as much in 5 years as the smartphone did.
An interesting but I'm not so sure it is fair to compare Bitcoins growth over the last five years to the growth of the smartphone. The smartphone is being backed/produced by major companies with extremely deep pockets for one. Bitcoin is grass roots and mainly depends on word to mouth forms of advertisements. Expecting the same results as far as growth doesn't seem fair. The "smartphone" era is far away in the future for crypto, we have barely evolved away from this  |
|
|
|
|
bigtimespaghetti
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1652
Merit: 1057
bigtimespaghetti.com
|
|
August 04, 2014, 07:29:37 AM |
|
I believe this was true initially, not much money. But we are beginning to see the market open to solutions that make it slightly easier to use. Perhaps this will change in the next few years and we will see wider adoption. But those who are ignorant or not ethically opposed to the system that we all live in still shy away.
I'm not convinced that massive adoption is round the corner, because for the average fellow it is still hard to understand and therefore they do not see much utility in it. For the labourer you have cash in hand (for now), for the consumer you have contactless credit cards. As long as people think that everything is A-Okay (at least in the west) people will not rush in to protect themselves either. For example, I hear that Argentina has a fairly healthy small market for bitcoin... But I have no links to back this up so my statement could be over inflated.
|
|
|
|
aminorex
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1596
Merit: 1029
Sine secretum non libertas
|
|
August 06, 2014, 09:55:40 AM |
|
Bitcoin will never see adoption as a way to pay for coffee and gas. That is not a bad thing for investors. The upside for bitcoin is massive, but it won't come from quotidian consumer transactions. It will come from transactions which need the blockchain, where bitcoin adds substantive value, or where its disruptive power displaces rentiers, and increases efficiency.
Other crypto will fill the gap, and become the donut-buyers crypto. It will be scalable to global cash transaction levels. It will work with cheap devices, transparently, and instantly. XCN is a big step in that direction.
|
Give a man a fish and he eats for a day. Give a man a Poisson distribution and he eats at random times independent of one another, at a constant known rate.
|
|
|
bigtimespaghetti
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1652
Merit: 1057
bigtimespaghetti.com
|
|
August 06, 2014, 09:58:53 AM |
|
Bitcoin will never see adoption as a way to pay for coffee and gas. That is not a bad thing for investors. The upside for bitcoin is massive, but it won't come from quotidian consumer transactions. It will come from transactions which need the blockchain, where bitcoin adds substantive value, or where its disruptive power displaces rentiers, and increases efficiency.
Other crypto will fill the gap, and become the donut-buyers crypto. It will be scalable to global cash transaction levels. It will work with cheap devices, transparently, and instantly. XCN is a big step in that direction.
You're probably right about other cryptos filling the gap. And I agree about other potential uses adding value. |
|
|
|
|
AnonyMint (OP)
|
|
September 05, 2014, 11:12:33 AM |
|
Cross-posting... I also see much confirmation that Bitcoin is not being adopted by most of those who hear about it
I am much more experienced than you in analyzing market demographics. I knew the following intuitively before I even Googled to verify it. Bitcoin is nearing 6 years old. The World Wide Web was launched to the public-at-large in 1993. By the 6-7th year, the dot.com bubble had a capitalization that was 183% of the USA GDP!!! Bitcoin is 1000x smaller phenomenon and yet the WWW is 10x bigger by now, so relatively speaking Bitcoin is 10,000x smaller. http://www.forbes.com/sites/robertlenzner/2014/02/22/the-stock-markets-valuation-is-at-a-dangerous-115-2-of-the-gdp/The ratio today is 115.1% of the $16 trillion GDP. In the year 2000, just before the market cracked in the dot-com bubble, the market capitalization was 183% times the GDP, according to a chart published recently.
And in 2007, just as the housing credit bubble was bursting, the ratio was 135% times the GDP. These are all times when the stock market looks overvalued. This is basic research on relative size that anyone of your position with a thread like this should have done already. http://www.coindesk.com/americans-think-bitcoin-is-xbox-game/42% of Americans Know What Bitcoin is
According to a new Bloomberg poll, 42% of Americans know that bitcoin is a digital currency.
However, the majority of the US residents quizzed still don’t know what bitcoin actually is.
Those who were familiar with the cryptocurrency said they were still unsure what to make of it. In fact, many who were asked had questions for the pollsters too.
Those that do know, don’t know much
Of the people who had heard of bitcoin, some were hesitant to use it themselves, either in a business or personal capacity.
Olga Ruff, a 62-year-old businesswoman, said she was unlikely to start accepting bitcoin in her small jewellery shop. “What use would it be for me?” she said, adding: “I’m not sure what the value of it is, and what I’d be able to exchange it for.”
Jeremy Labadie, an internet security specialist, said he would have to consider his options further before making a purchase: “I don’t necessarily know if it’s something I would think about using.”
However Labadie also admitted that he had considered buying some bitcoins as a long-term investment.
Other respondents said they heard about bitcoin through mainstream news coverage. In turn, this had given them an idea of the currency’s drawbacks as well as bitcoin-related scams and crimes.
...
Bitcoin: Xbox game or iPhone app?
More than 1,000 people took part in the poll and some answers were rather amusing.
A total of 46% said they do not know what bitcoin is. Suprisingly, 6% of participants thought bitcoin was an Xbox game, while another 6% were convinced it was an iOS app on the iPhone.
Unsurprisingly, the poll found that people under the age of 35 were more likely to know a thing or two about bitcoin. How much more clear can it be that most people have no use for Bitcoin? See below... http://cointelegraph.com/news/112135/the-ethnic-group-that-knows-the-most-about-bitcoin-is-not-who-you-think-it-isThe average Bitcoin user used to be a non-religious male with libertarian/anarcho-capitalist leanings, 31.2 years of age, with a job and a full-time relationship, according to a self-selecting community survey done last year by tech/economics blog Simulacrum.
...
Hispanic-Americans were by far the ethnic group most likely to say they would consider using Bitcoin themselves: 23% answered they were “very likely,” compared to 9% from African-Americans and “others” and just 5% from whites.
Though it may be presumptuous to draw definitive conclusions from the survey, a clear inference about the results may be that Hispanic-Americans have begun to pick up on Bitcoin’s exciting implication for the remittance market: a low-cost method for diaspora members to send money back home.
Bitcoin-based remittance companies have been exploding especially in Africa, where it’s been estimated that people are losing US$1.8 billion annually to remittance fees. http://www.cnbc.com/id/101523567More we know bitcoin, the less we trust it: Poll
Nearly half of all Americans know what bitcoin is but most don't trust the virtual currency, according to a new survey.
Just 13 percent of all respondents to a Harris Interactive poll said they prefer bitcoin over gold. Bitcoin has been embroiled in a series of controversies over the past few months, including inappropriate use and the shuttering of its highest-profile exchange.
Those negative headlines have taken their toll: The survey, conducted on behalf of financial innovation platform Yodlee, found that the more people know about bitcoin the less they trust it. People in the more tech-savvy regions in the West were better acquainted with bitcoin than those in other regions, but only 7 percent said they would invest in it over gold.
The cryptocurrency's biggest fan base: Men in the 18-to-34 age group, 22 percent of whom said they would choose bitcoin over gold. |
|
|
|
thezerg
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1246
Merit: 1010
|
|
September 05, 2014, 05:03:28 PM |
|
Cross-posting... I also see much confirmation that Bitcoin is not being adopted by most of those who hear about it
I am much more experienced than you in analyzing market demographics. I knew the following intuitively before I even Googled to verify it. Bitcoin is nearing 6 years old. The World Wide Web was launched to the public-at-large in 1993. By the 6-7th year, the dot.com bubble had a capitalization that was 183% of the USA GDP!!! You are picking arbitrary dates. You are picking your www date as "launched to the public-at-large" but picking your Bitcoin date from the genesis block. A equally valid start date for www would be: "In 1989, while working at CERN, Tim Berners-Lee invented a network-based implementation of the hypertext concept. By releasing his invention to public use, he ensured the technology would become widespread.", or even Gopher or the creation of arpa-net itself. But it would be more reasonable to say that such comparisons are useless. You can compare such things broadly but to expect equivalent adoption trajectories is just silly. Your supposed experience caused you to completely miss the Bitcoin bull market of 2012/2013 IIRC so your crystal-ball has exactly zero credibility, even though some of your arguments -- that past exponential does not indicate future performance and your revised adoption graph is a reasonable fit -- have merit standing on their own. And even more tellingly you seem to be unable to internalize your mistake because you persist in imagining that your reputation based arguments ("I am much more experienced in statistics and market demographics, I contributed to CSS, etc") have any value whatsoever in this forum. |
|
|
|
|
AnonyWince
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 5
Merit: 0
|
|
September 09, 2014, 05:40:37 AM
Last edit: September 09, 2014, 05:52:55 AM by AnonyWince |
|
You are picking arbitrary dates. You are picking your www date as "launched to the public-at-large" but picking your Bitcoin date from the genesis block. A equally valid start date for www would be: "In 1989, while working at CERN, Tim Berners-Lee invented a network-based implementation of the hypertext concept. By releasing his invention to public use, he ensured the technology would become widespread.", or even Gopher or the creation of arpa-net itself.
Mosaic was when the WWW client was available to the public-at-large. The Bitcoin client was available to the public-at-large in 2010. I read an article about it in 2010. News spreads much faster now than it did before the internet. Your supposed experience caused you to completely miss the Bitcoin bull market of 2012/2013 IIRC so your crystal-ball has exactly zero credibility
This is well explained by nearly dying in May 2012. But it is irrelevant because I am not claiming authority to support my point. You can ignore the facts at your own peril; what you think doesn't impact on me. |
|
|
|
|
|
arieq
|
|
September 30, 2014, 11:04:09 PM |
|
I think the only way bitcoin adoption can really grow at this point is only if BTC become useful for something. Nobody wants to invest on something such risky now.
|
|
|
|
|
zorke
|
|
October 01, 2014, 12:52:13 AM |
|
I think the only way bitcoin adoption can really grow at this point is only if BTC become useful for something. Nobody wants to invest on something such risky now.
Bitcoin is very useful. It serves the same kind of uses that paypal serves except that bitcoin does not rely on any central authority to keep track of users' balances (when you use paypal, the operators of paypal will keep track of your balance for you - and manipulate it if they choose to do so). |
|
|
|
|
panju1
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1246
Merit: 1000
|
|
October 01, 2014, 03:10:42 PM |
|
I think the only way bitcoin adoption can really grow at this point is only if BTC become useful for something. Nobody wants to invest on something such risky now.
The increasing adoption of bitcoin is because of its usefulness. Bitcoin 101. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
contagion
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 28
Merit: 0
|
|
December 14, 2014, 02:13:24 AM |
|
By those terms, a big precentage of bitcoin users are average joes and could be robbed easily...
Who's gonna educate dem average joes? Besides that I don't think real average joes even know what bitcoin is right now.
If the economy-of-scale is sufficient (i.e. 100s of millions of users, not the paltry 1 - 2 million Bitcoin has after 6 years) the necessary hardware will be integrated into the smart phones. Then it will simply work plug-and-play for n00bs. This is why I (formerly AnonyMint, TheFascistMind, UnunoctiumTesticles, etc) wrote about the adoption rate of Bitcoin slowing and of Monero. Note I clarified why adoption rate slows as large entities aggregate users and capital. Readers would be wise to click every link above and learn. Sorry this is not boasting. It is fact. |
|
|
|
|
panju1
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1246
Merit: 1000
|
|
December 15, 2014, 04:40:59 PM |
|
If the economy-of-scale is sufficient (i.e. 100s of millions of users, not the paltry 1 - 2 million Bitcoin has after 6 years) the necessary hardware will be integrated into the smart phones. Then it will simply work plug-and-play for n00bs. It will still be some time before we reach that scale. Apple was even pulling out bitcoin apps from its store last year. Iphone users were unable to send bitcoin from their phones. |
|
|
|
|
IceFire
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 19
Merit: 0
|
|
December 17, 2014, 04:02:57 AM |
|
I think that this slow-down is, in a way, a calm-down before the storm. Many new services are actually emerging and seem promising - Bitcoin ATM's, marketplaces, even this strange new form of an unbreakable contracts where the two parties can securely trust one another - something you actually can't do with a real FIAT (It's BitHalo http://davtonia.com/halowiki/index.php?title=BitHalo_-_The_world%27s_first_smart_contracting_client ). Whatever happens, Bitcoin is on it's way to becoming not REALLY a FIAT (if it was, noone would have even noticed it); but a currency used by more and more individuals; for more and more things. |
|
|
|
|
contagion
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 28
Merit: 0
|
|
December 17, 2014, 04:20:06 AM |
|
I am AnonyMint who wrote the OP. ...Bitcoin is on it's way to becoming not REALLY a FIAT...
Some education for you. |
|
|
|
|
|
TPTB_need_war
|
|
June 05, 2015, 11:06:24 AM |
|
The Blockstream white paper mentions interoperability, but afaics gives no details other than to say the chains share the same BTC unit.
I assume this means each side chain's money supply will fluctuate according to spending from one chain to the other and presumably not passing back through the Bitcoin blockchain as I had assumed. I suppose this is viable and what remains of my criticism is there is no investment model possible for the side chains unless there is some fee service that can be sold. So I guess the devs of a side chain would need seek their ROI by charging transaction fees but ongoing payment is a form of centralization.
I guess one could view moving BTC from the Bitcoin blockchain to a side chain as an investment in an ecosystem driving the value of BTC higher. Appreciation of the particular side chain will not be possible to capture.
The investment model concerns I think strongly disfavor side chains for any ubiquitous features. Thus side chains don't appear to do anything for the scaling problem of Bitcoin.
Side chains would be useful for isolating blockchain scripting where user programmability is the priority and not investment ROI.
Also I think my interoperability concern remains valid in at least one way. For example Monero as a side chain would presumably have different anonymity properties when spending to another chain than spending within the Monero side chain. Thus the interoperability doesn't scale the same as a single chain with ubiquitous features.
I potentially like side chains as a way of achieving hard forks democratically, i.e. anyone can stay with the old chain or spend off to the new chain (and come back anytime), but this could encourage fragmentation which could retard value appreciation.
I just don't think side chains address scaling and Gregory should either justify how they do or accept that isn't the market he needs to defend with this block size debate.
Edit: there is one way side chains enable scaling. That is the side chain is a centralized ledger. So if the masses can be enticed to spend their BTC into the Coinbase+Paypal+Circle cartel side chain, then it can scale easily. And then the hashrate of the Bitcoin blockchain will wane and can be attacked by the cartel.
Yeah a cartel side chain is great sell out to TPTB. Go! Good job!
Blockstream is (unwittingly?) enabling an easy path for the cartel to fork Bitcoin.
|
|
|
|
|
jamesclark
|
|
May 17, 2018, 07:26:58 AM |
|
The fact is that those websites that accept bitcoin as apayment are not so well known to people which is the reason they ask for the best websites to start accepting crypto currencies.
|
|
|
|
|
droptableguy2
Member
Offline
Activity: 434
Merit: 10
|
|
July 20, 2018, 08:11:03 PM |
|
If the economy-of-scale is sufficient (i.e. 100s of millions of users, not the paltry 1 - 2 million Bitcoin has after 6 years) the necessary hardware will be integrated into the smart phones. Then it will simply work plug-and-play for n00bs. It will still be some time before we reach that scale. Apple was even pulling out bitcoin apps from its store last year. Iphone users were unable to send bitcoin from their phones. Then it is very disadvantage for those who use the Apple brand. Since most of the current users are still Apple products. However, in my opinion, this market will have its own technology product to serve this field, I believe there will be. For quite practical reasons. |
|
|
|
|
Poll
