Bitcoin Forum
December 03, 2016, 09:58:15 AM *
News: To be able to use the next phase of the beta forum software, please ensure that your email address is correct/functional.
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Poll
Question: Will you support Gavin's new block size limit hard fork of 8MB by January 1, 2016 then doubling every 2 years?
1.  yes
2.  no

Pages: « 1 ... 708 709 710 711 712 713 714 715 716 717 718 719 720 721 722 723 724 725 726 727 728 729 730 731 732 733 734 735 736 737 738 739 740 741 742 743 744 745 746 747 748 749 750 751 752 753 754 755 756 757 [758] 759 760 761 762 763 764 765 766 767 768 769 770 771 772 773 774 775 776 777 778 779 780 781 782 783 784 785 786 787 788 789 790 791 792 793 794 795 796 797 798 799 800 801 802 803 804 805 806 807 808 ... 1560 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.  (Read 1803521 times)
coric
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 94


View Profile
October 31, 2014, 09:54:40 PM
 #15141

Did the SVP (right-wing populist party) endorse the gold initiative yet? Can't imagine another party, and the conservative establishment would certainly oppose it for fear of hurting the export industry (NZZ which I sometimes read does)
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
Adrian-x
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1330



View Profile
October 31, 2014, 09:55:52 PM
 #15142

you have to admit the "blockchain not bitcoin" soundbite has been a very effective message for the braindeads who are never going to expend the energy into figuring out why any form of money has value ... they just needed an easy, even if incorrect, idea to hang it on.

You see it a lot in science and math at the early levels, give them an easy narrative to get past the hard, nuanced concepts and move on to stuff they actually might learn and make use of. Like Father Christmas, tooth fairy, quantum mechanics, etc Wink

I would agree, and laughed it off, but in my understanding that reality can now be distorted to that narrative with SC.

Thank me in Bits 12MwnzxtprG2mHm3rKdgi7NmJKCypsMMQw
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
October 31, 2014, 09:56:21 PM
 #15143

we really haven't focused on the ethics of what gmax and the other core devs are doing.

i know the argument goes like this; they're the brightest minds in Bitcoin who have done so much for us we should be thankful, they have "positions" in BTC so they would NEVER do anything to harm Bitcoin, they deserve it, we should WANT them to be paid, SC's are neutral and are just trying to help Bitcoin, all you skeptics "just don't get it", etc.

well, the fact of the matter is we do get it.  we've flushed out alot right here in this thread.  and all of this technical babble has ignored the fact that what they are doing is unethical.  abusing one's privileged position as a core dev and pushing for a very specific and unique change in the source code, while simultaneously creating a for-profit company that seeks to profit off said change is unethical.  i asked gmax in the AMA whether he thought he should step down as core dev due to what is to any objective person a conflict of interest.  he said he thought that was "unreasonable" followed closely by LukeJr who said the same. LukeJr then launched off on a rant about how we should "want them to get paid".  nice spin Luke.  i don't have a problem with you starting a private company but not while taking advantage of your position. at least in the real world of banksters, there are plenty of examples where ppl step down b/c of conflicts of interest for reasons even more remotely unrelated than this.  these guys don't get it.  Satoshi spent at least 2 yrs of his life developing Bitcoin without being paid, so there. AND he hasn't cashed in any of his BTC that we know of to profit from Bitcoin.  now that's public service for you.  one might argue that should be the standard for Bitcoin.  maybe we need/deserve core devs who don't have gmax or Luke's attitudes?  Bitcoin has the potential to become a global currency so an argument can be made that it should be maintained for the public good. i for one think there are plenty of devs who would love to step up and replace those guys.

alarm bells should be going off in all Bitcoin holders heads right now.  this isn't right even if the SC concept were valid, which i don't think it is.
btcney
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 322


View Profile
October 31, 2014, 10:12:12 PM
 #15144

Satoshi should dump once Bitcoin turns corrupt. Cheesy
lebing
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1274


Bitcoin: The honey badger of currencies


View Profile
October 31, 2014, 10:16:42 PM
 #15145

we really haven't focused on the ethics of what gmax and the other core devs are doing.

i know the argument goes like this; they're the brightest minds in Bitcoin who have done so much for us we should be thankful, they have "positions" in BTC so they would NEVER do anything to harm Bitcoin, they deserve it, we should WANT them to be paid, SC's are neutral and are just trying to help Bitcoin, all you skeptics "just don't get it", etc.

well, the fact of the matter is we do get it.  we've flushed out alot right here in this thread.  and all of this technical babble has ignored the fact that what they are doing is unethical.  abusing one's privileged position as a core dev and pushing for a very specific and unique change in the source code, while simultaneously creating a for-profit company that seeks to profit off said change is unethical.  i asked gmax in the AMA whether he thought he should step down as core dev due to what is to any objective person a conflict of interest.  he said he thought that was "unreasonable" followed closely by LukeJr who said the same. LukeJr then launched off on a rant about how we should "want them to get paid".  nice spin Luke.  i don't have a problem with you starting a private company but not while taking advantage of your position. at least in the real world of banksters, there are plenty of examples where ppl step down b/c of conflicts of interest for reasons even more remotely unrelated than this.  these guys don't get it.  Satoshi spent at least 2 yrs of his life developing Bitcoin without being paid, so there. AND he hasn't cashed in any of his BTC that we know of to profit from Bitcoin.  now that's public service for you.  one might argue that should be the standard for Bitcoin.  maybe we need/deserve core devs who don't have gmax or Luke's attitudes?  Bitcoin has the potential to become a global currency so an argument can be made that it should be maintained for the public good. i for one think there are plenty of devs who would love to step up and replace those guys.

alarm bells should be going off in all Bitcoin holders heads right now.  this isn't right even if the SC concept were valid, which i don't think it is.

Cypher, let it go man. You are entitled to your opinion but the fact is that pretty much noone agrees with you on this one. The horse is dead already. No need to keep hitting it.

Bro, do you even blockchain?
-E Voorhees
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
October 31, 2014, 10:19:49 PM
 #15146

we really haven't focused on the ethics of what gmax and the other core devs are doing.

i know the argument goes like this; they're the brightest minds in Bitcoin who have done so much for us we should be thankful, they have "positions" in BTC so they would NEVER do anything to harm Bitcoin, they deserve it, we should WANT them to be paid, SC's are neutral and are just trying to help Bitcoin, all you skeptics "just don't get it", etc.

well, the fact of the matter is we do get it.  we've flushed out alot right here in this thread.  and all of this technical babble has ignored the fact that what they are doing is unethical.  abusing one's privileged position as a core dev and pushing for a very specific and unique change in the source code, while simultaneously creating a for-profit company that seeks to profit off said change is unethical.  i asked gmax in the AMA whether he thought he should step down as core dev due to what is to any objective person a conflict of interest.  he said he thought that was "unreasonable" followed closely by LukeJr who said the same. LukeJr then launched off on a rant about how we should "want them to get paid".  nice spin Luke.  i don't have a problem with you starting a private company but not while taking advantage of your position. at least in the real world of banksters, there are plenty of examples where ppl step down b/c of conflicts of interest for reasons even more remotely unrelated than this.  these guys don't get it.  Satoshi spent at least 2 yrs of his life developing Bitcoin without being paid, so there. AND he hasn't cashed in any of his BTC that we know of to profit from Bitcoin.  now that's public service for you.  one might argue that should be the standard for Bitcoin.  maybe we need/deserve core devs who don't have gmax or Luke's attitudes?  Bitcoin has the potential to become a global currency so an argument can be made that it should be maintained for the public good. i for one think there are plenty of devs who would love to step up and replace those guys.

alarm bells should be going off in all Bitcoin holders heads right now.  this isn't right even if the SC concept were valid, which i don't think it is.

Cypher, let it go man. You are entitled to your opinion but the fact is that pretty much noone agrees with you on this one. The horse is dead already. No need to keep hitting it.

evidence please?

so you want to ignore the thrust of my post, the ethics of the situation?
justusranvier
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1400



View Profile WWW
October 31, 2014, 10:26:30 PM
 #15147

I'm still waiting

https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/2k3u97/we_are_bitcoin_sidechain_paper_authors_adam_back/clhni79.

wachtwoord
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1484



View Profile WWW
October 31, 2014, 10:28:41 PM
 #15148

followed closely by LukeJr who said the same. LukeJr then launched off on a rant about how we should "want them to get paid".  nice spin Luke.  i don't have a problem with you starting a private company but not while taking advantage of your position.

I don't like nor trust Luke jr. He's the biggest criminal of the lot. Seriously, did non-one follow his actions in the past years?

Luke, I'd pay for you NOT to work on Bitcoin. I don't trust you at all.

railzand
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 462

Lux e tenebris


View Profile
October 31, 2014, 10:48:45 PM
 #15149

followed closely by LukeJr who said the same. LukeJr then launched off on a rant about how we should "want them to get paid".  nice spin Luke.  i don't have a problem with you starting a private company but not while taking advantage of your position.

I don't like nor trust Luke jr. He's the biggest criminal of the lot. Seriously, did non-one follow his actions in the past years?

Luke, I'd pay for you NOT to work on Bitcoin. I don't trust you at all.

Your money might be better spent on the current project ( http://therealbitcoin.org/ ) to write a better bitcoin: http://log.bitcoin-assets.com/?date=28-10-2014#899422
Quote
*: asciilifeform would sign code, if some loony were to pay what the kind of labour that is involved in honestly signing 'will die by this' actually costs...

lebing
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1274


Bitcoin: The honey badger of currencies


View Profile
October 31, 2014, 11:11:03 PM
 #15150

we really haven't focused on the ethics of what gmax and the other core devs are doing.

i know the argument goes like this; they're the brightest minds in Bitcoin who have done so much for us we should be thankful, they have "positions" in BTC so they would NEVER do anything to harm Bitcoin, they deserve it, we should WANT them to be paid, SC's are neutral and are just trying to help Bitcoin, all you skeptics "just don't get it", etc.

well, the fact of the matter is we do get it.  we've flushed out alot right here in this thread.  and all of this technical babble has ignored the fact that what they are doing is unethical.  abusing one's privileged position as a core dev and pushing for a very specific and unique change in the source code, while simultaneously creating a for-profit company that seeks to profit off said change is unethical.  i asked gmax in the AMA whether he thought he should step down as core dev due to what is to any objective person a conflict of interest.  he said he thought that was "unreasonable" followed closely by LukeJr who said the same. LukeJr then launched off on a rant about how we should "want them to get paid".  nice spin Luke.  i don't have a problem with you starting a private company but not while taking advantage of your position. at least in the real world of banksters, there are plenty of examples where ppl step down b/c of conflicts of interest for reasons even more remotely unrelated than this.  these guys don't get it.  Satoshi spent at least 2 yrs of his life developing Bitcoin without being paid, so there. AND he hasn't cashed in any of his BTC that we know of to profit from Bitcoin.  now that's public service for you.  one might argue that should be the standard for Bitcoin.  maybe we need/deserve core devs who don't have gmax or Luke's attitudes?  Bitcoin has the potential to become a global currency so an argument can be made that it should be maintained for the public good. i for one think there are plenty of devs who would love to step up and replace those guys.

alarm bells should be going off in all Bitcoin holders heads right now.  this isn't right even if the SC concept were valid, which i don't think it is.

Cypher, let it go man. You are entitled to your opinion but the fact is that pretty much noone agrees with you on this one. The horse is dead already. No need to keep hitting it.

evidence please?

so you want to ignore the thrust of my post, the ethics of the situation?

I dont actually see it as entirely unethical. If they were the ones that actually made the decision which code was run, then yes I would see it as a problem, but the fact is that the miners make the final call which they want to run and there will be plenty of time to vet the code before that happens. If they were to release something questionable, it simply wouldnt be accepted by the community and the old code would run until a better one would be found.

Bro, do you even blockchain?
-E Voorhees
NewLiberty
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1064


Gresham's Lawyer


View Profile WWW
October 31, 2014, 11:16:38 PM
 #15151

Satoshi should dump once Bitcoin turns corrupt. Cheesy

Dump for what?
Is there something less corrupt, even with this?

On the conflict of interest position...
Is it a conflict of interest if a company sponsors a developer to work on Bitcoin Core?
Is it a conflict of interest if TBF sponsors a developer?
I would say that it is, but the conflict is not necessarily a horrible thing in all cases, just sometimes.

What it does do is encourage me to question the authority of the developer more than otherwise. 
I've been doing a good bit of that over the MAX_BLOCKSIZE issue vs. Gavin's proposal to patch it rather than fix it.

FREE MONEY1 Bitcoin for Silver and Gold NewLibertyDollar.com and now BITCOIN SPECIE (silver 1 ozt) shows value by QR
Bulk premiums as low as .0012 BTC "BETTER, MORE COLLECTIBLE, AND CHEAPER THAN SILVER EAGLES" 1Free of Government
Adrian-x
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1330



View Profile
October 31, 2014, 11:26:51 PM
 #15152

followed closely by LukeJr who said the same. LukeJr then launched off on a rant about how we should "want them to get paid".  nice spin Luke.  i don't have a problem with you starting a private company but not while taking advantage of your position.

I don't like nor trust Luke jr. He's the biggest criminal of the lot. Seriously, did non-one follow his actions in the past years?

Luke, I'd pay for you NOT to work on Bitcoin. I don't trust you at all.

so i know many prominent Bitcoin celebrates have dubious reputations, but i haven't followed Luke jr.

not to raise any accusations in what issues has he been involved that caused you to lose trust?

I'm only aware of some name calling between CGMiner and BFGMiner, to be honest I never got to the bottom of it all, and went with CGMiner dare i say it because i didn't trust Luke's slanted eyed avatar.

Thank me in Bits 12MwnzxtprG2mHm3rKdgi7NmJKCypsMMQw
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
October 31, 2014, 11:43:47 PM
 #15153

followed closely by LukeJr who said the same. LukeJr then launched off on a rant about how we should "want them to get paid".  nice spin Luke.  i don't have a problem with you starting a private company but not while taking advantage of your position.

I don't like nor trust Luke jr. He's the biggest criminal of the lot. Seriously, did non-one follow his actions in the past years?

Luke, I'd pay for you NOT to work on Bitcoin. I don't trust you at all.

so i know many prominent Bitcoin celebrates have dubious reputations, but i haven't followed Luke jr.

not to raise any accusations in what issues has he been involved that caused you to lose trust?

I'm only aware of some name calling between CGMiner and BFGMiner, to be honest I never got to the bottom of it all, and went with CGMiner dare i say it because i didn't trust Luke's slanted eyed avatar.

numerous run ins with Gavin, famously BIP 16:  https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=61705.30;wap2

Luke is actually not a core dev specifically b/c Gavin won't let him b/c of trust issues

Luke-Jr. attacks and kills Coiledcoin alt-currency using the Eligius mining pool:

http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/o6qwx/lukejr_attacks_and_kills_coiledcoin_altcurrency/
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
October 31, 2014, 11:48:51 PM
 #15154

On the conflict of interest position...
Is it a conflict of interest if a company sponsors a developer to work on Bitcoin Core?
Is it a conflict of interest if TBF sponsors a developer?
I would say that it is, but the conflict is not necessarily a horrible thing in all cases, just sometimes.

What it does do is encourage me to question the authority of the developer more than otherwise. 
I've been doing a good bit of that over the MAX_BLOCKSIZE issue vs. Gavin's proposal to patch it rather than fix it.

i don't have a problem with any of those relationships.

i said it earlier, i wouldn't mind the current bunch of guys proposing SC's be employed by individual companies like Garzik.
it's the banding together under one company that can cause a block of competitors and monoculture.

Gavin's in a special category more pristine under TBF as i'm sure he isn't being paid the big bucks, let alone have equity in a for profit. 
NewLiberty
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1064


Gresham's Lawyer


View Profile WWW
October 31, 2014, 11:55:18 PM
 #15155

On the conflict of interest position...
Is it a conflict of interest if a company sponsors a developer to work on Bitcoin Core?
Is it a conflict of interest if TBF sponsors a developer?
I would say that it is, but the conflict is not necessarily a horrible thing in all cases, just sometimes.

What it does do is encourage me to question the authority of the developer more than otherwise. 
I've been doing a good bit of that over the MAX_BLOCKSIZE issue vs. Gavin's proposal to patch it rather than fix it.

i don't have a problem with any of those relationships.

i said it earlier, i wouldn't mind the current bunch of guys proposing SC's be employed by individual companies like Garzik.
it's the banding together under one company that can cause a block of competitors and monoculture.

Gavin's in a special category more pristine under TBF as i'm sure he isn't being paid the big bucks, let alone have equity in a for profit. 

I am less black and white on the issue.  Everyone has conflicts, some are very serious, others are less so.
I'm not sure TBF is as pristine as all that either.  Its shades of grey, and yes, the SC issue is seriously conflicted.

FREE MONEY1 Bitcoin for Silver and Gold NewLibertyDollar.com and now BITCOIN SPECIE (silver 1 ozt) shows value by QR
Bulk premiums as low as .0012 BTC "BETTER, MORE COLLECTIBLE, AND CHEAPER THAN SILVER EAGLES" 1Free of Government
Erdogan
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 714



View Profile
November 01, 2014, 12:17:34 AM
 #15156

Ok, I'm really getting sick of this fundamental misunderstanding making the rounds these days that "its the Blockchain stupid" that makes Bitcoin valuable and not the currency. I put the blame for this misperception squarely at the feet of Andreas as he's the one who's been most public and vocal spreading this view. After all, he is one of the geeks.

See 4:30 with Arthur Levitt :

http://mobile.bloomberg.com/video/arthur-levitt-on-sec-s-edgar-filing-system-and-bitcoin-YVtI25q8Tn~vJ2NWIawrpw.html

Let me flip this argument around and say "no stupid, it's the currency that makes Bitcoin,  not the Blockchain". After all, because it's a fixed supply and can't be inflated,  THAT is what is resonating with freedom minded people worldwide who are tired of having their money devalued. And because these people have thrown their hard earned fiat money at Bitcoin, precisely  for this reason,  this is what has caused the price  to rise and therefore has facilitated the mining industry to thrive and therefore the Blockchain has been allowed to become the immutable ledger it has become. The Blockchain would be nothing without the currency. Stupid.

Now those who know me best realize I'm saying this partly in jest because what I really believe is that the 2 are inextricably linked as Bitcoin is its own self contained financial  system.

Which is why I disagree with the core assumption of the SC concept too, btw, which assumes they can be separated.

Yep, it's bitcoin, the money.

cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
November 01, 2014, 12:17:54 AM
 #15157

well now, i'm glad i didn't buy a ticket:

http://online.wsj.com/articles/virgin-galactic-spaceship-crashes-1414781841
Erdogan
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 714



View Profile
November 01, 2014, 12:24:11 AM
 #15158

we really haven't focused on the ethics of what gmax and the other core devs are doing.

i know the argument goes like this; they're the brightest minds in Bitcoin who have done so much for us we should be thankful, they have "positions" in BTC so they would NEVER do anything to harm Bitcoin, they deserve it, we should WANT them to be paid, SC's are neutral and are just trying to help Bitcoin, all you skeptics "just don't get it", etc.

well, the fact of the matter is we do get it.  we've flushed out alot right here in this thread.  and all of this technical babble has ignored the fact that what they are doing is unethical.  abusing one's privileged position as a core dev and pushing for a very specific and unique change in the source code, while simultaneously creating a for-profit company that seeks to profit off said change is unethical.  i asked gmax in the AMA whether he thought he should step down as core dev due to what is to any objective person a conflict of interest.  he said he thought that was "unreasonable" followed closely by LukeJr who said the same. LukeJr then launched off on a rant about how we should "want them to get paid".  nice spin Luke.  i don't have a problem with you starting a private company but not while taking advantage of your position. at least in the real world of banksters, there are plenty of examples where ppl step down b/c of conflicts of interest for reasons even more remotely unrelated than this.  these guys don't get it.  Satoshi spent at least 2 yrs of his life developing Bitcoin without being paid, so there. AND he hasn't cashed in any of his BTC that we know of to profit from Bitcoin.  now that's public service for you.  one might argue that should be the standard for Bitcoin.  maybe we need/deserve core devs who don't have gmax or Luke's attitudes?  Bitcoin has the potential to become a global currency so an argument can be made that it should be maintained for the public good. i for one think there are plenty of devs who would love to step up and replace those guys.

alarm bells should be going off in all Bitcoin holders heads right now.  this isn't right even if the SC concept were valid, which i don't think it is.

Cypher, let it go man. You are entitled to your opinion but the fact is that pretty much noone agrees with you on this one. The horse is dead already. No need to keep hitting it.

So a majority, thrown out from nowhere, as evidence, trumps an argument based on ethics?

Cortex7
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 196


View Profile WWW
November 01, 2014, 12:54:34 AM
 #15159

Do any of you guys know of a worked out p2p marketplace with a democratic escrow system?

I've read some posts on reddit etc talking of how it might be done and I've seen some altcoin creators have it on their roadmap, but I'm not aware of anything real yet.

tvbcof
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1974


View Profile
November 01, 2014, 01:28:13 AM
 #15160

...
alarm bells should be going off in all Bitcoin holders heads right now.  this isn't right even if the SC concept were valid, which i don't think it is.

Alarm bells went of in my head when Gavin visited the CFR and would not commit to transparency.  Then when he got back he wouldn't even give a debriefing about what went down.

Long before that alarm bells went off in my head about Hearn (who you seem to have  a man crush on for some reason) who has tried every thing he can to get Bitcoin under control of TPTB.  Unlimited growth, 'red'listing, positive ID through mainstream passports, etc, etc.

When Gavin newly proposed exponential blocksize growth that sealed it for me.  He did some good stuff back before he became 'principle scientist' and started the Bitcoin Foundation, but I've seen nothing since then.  Even his dev priorities when he did seem to have his head in more or less the right place have done very little to actually strengthen the solution.  I dunno what his trip is, but I'm convinced that it is not good for Bitcoin or my stash.

As for the Blockstream guys, making a living off an open-source project is very common and most often benefits both the community and the clients who will pay them.  You may be serious in trying to spin this thing as something nefarious, but in that case you are just showing more of you ignorance.


Pages: « 1 ... 708 709 710 711 712 713 714 715 716 717 718 719 720 721 722 723 724 725 726 727 728 729 730 731 732 733 734 735 736 737 738 739 740 741 742 743 744 745 746 747 748 749 750 751 752 753 754 755 756 757 [758] 759 760 761 762 763 764 765 766 767 768 769 770 771 772 773 774 775 776 777 778 779 780 781 782 783 784 785 786 787 788 789 790 791 792 793 794 795 796 797 798 799 800 801 802 803 804 805 806 807 808 ... 1560 »
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!