Bitcoin Forum
October 21, 2017, 09:16:29 PM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.15.0.1  [Torrent]. (New!)
 
   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 ... 823 824 825 826 827 828 829 830 831 832 833 834 835 836 837 838 839 840 841 842 843 844 845 846 847 848 849 850 851 852 853 854 855 856 857 858 859 860 861 862 863 864 865 866 867 868 869 870 871 872 [873] 874 875 876 877 878 879 880 881 882 883 884 885 886 887 888 889 890 891 892 893 894 895 896 897 898 899 900 901 902 903 904 905 906 907 908 909 910 911 912 913 914 915 916 917 918 919 920 921 922 923 ... 1558 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.  (Read 1996669 times)
Adrian-x
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1372



View Profile
November 18, 2014, 09:26:41 PM
 #17441

Quote
but would you buy in if you had Bitcoin? just to make it more interesting, it will be like a war bond, you buy in an instantly get a 5% above market teh government will deflate after the war, you will get back more BTC at a higher rate, but you will lose if you withdraw while its inflating, so just hold.

lol

BTW you cannot withdraw to the mainchain more BTC than you had invested so you are essentially stuck in that inflated chain if ever you decide to preserve this illusional inflated value.

You also fail to ignore the fact that this scheme is very much possible today using existing technology : altcoins and/or federated sidechains
in you lack of understanding you overlooked interest being paid on the bond in inflation coin, as the source for withdrawing more than you put in, there is also the irony you missed and that is the fact that throughout history the war time inflation is never paid back, only this time its different, it is guaranteed by the SideChain not governments Roll Eyes.  

I didn't ignore it, I asked you if you would consider it if you had Bitcoin? (you just make it more complicated by saying alts aren't the only option, you could do it with Bitcoin and federated sidechains.)

the question is now more complicated thanks to your input, would you consider inflation coin in war time if it was made the law, using either alts or federated sidechains, or would you prefer to hold your Bitcoin?

Thank me in Bits 12MwnzxtprG2mHm3rKdgi7NmJKCypsMMQw
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1508620589
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1508620589

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1508620589
Reply with quote  #2

1508620589
Report to moderator
1508620589
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1508620589

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1508620589
Reply with quote  #2

1508620589
Report to moderator
Adrian-x
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1372



View Profile
November 18, 2014, 09:29:37 PM
 #17442

why do ppl, including myself, always say that Bitcoin is going to have a binary outcome?

it's b/c they understand that Bitcoin is about Money.  Sound fixed supply Money.  you know, the Money that has the chance to consume the Forex and gold markets.  in that sense, it has the chance to consume the entire fiat world; yes including stocks, bonds, insurance, just by being used as money alone.  it doesn't have to incorporate all those speculative assets directly within its protocol using SC's.  

As much as a despise of what Gates said (in my words: "the blockchain tech is great, but as a money it's not so good"), you have to admit that the features 'decentralized', 'trustless', 'possibly anonymous' and 'uncensorable' are ones that would also be damn good features for stock exchange / dividend payments / all kinds of derivative gambling, ownership management, etc.

If you want Bitcoin (the money) to conquer these areas and serve them as a liquid interchange money, wouldn't it be brilliant to have a technical solution that would allow some asset ledger (say the land ownership ledger) to interchange value with the money ledger (Bitcoin) and make atomic swaps across the chains possible?


Doesn't colored coins already let you do this? I feel like like people are overcomplicating the problem of using the Bitcoin blockchain for asset transfer.

I couldn't agree more its not like the whole of civilization is corrupted to the core, lets just change the money first and see it that works.

Thank me in Bits 12MwnzxtprG2mHm3rKdgi7NmJKCypsMMQw
chriswilmer
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1008


View Profile WWW
November 18, 2014, 09:33:01 PM
 #17443

why do ppl, including myself, always say that Bitcoin is going to have a binary outcome?

it's b/c they understand that Bitcoin is about Money.  Sound fixed supply Money.  you know, the Money that has the chance to consume the Forex and gold markets.  in that sense, it has the chance to consume the entire fiat world; yes including stocks, bonds, insurance, just by being used as money alone.  it doesn't have to incorporate all those speculative assets directly within its protocol using SC's.  

As much as a despise of what Gates said (in my words: "the blockchain tech is great, but as a money it's not so good"), you have to admit that the features 'decentralized', 'trustless', 'possibly anonymous' and 'uncensorable' are ones that would also be damn good features for stock exchange / dividend payments / all kinds of derivative gambling, ownership management, etc.

If you want Bitcoin (the money) to conquer these areas and serve them as a liquid interchange money, wouldn't it be brilliant to have a technical solution that would allow some asset ledger (say the land ownership ledger) to interchange value with the money ledger (Bitcoin) and make atomic swaps across the chains possible?


Doesn't colored coins already let you do this? I feel like like people are overcomplicating the problem of using the Bitcoin blockchain for asset transfer.

They do, but they introduce another layer of trust that is considerably less decentralized.



What are you talking about? What's centralized about the colored coin protocol?
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 644

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
November 18, 2014, 09:35:06 PM
 #17444

Quote
but would you buy in if you had Bitcoin? just to make it more interesting, it will be like a war bond, you buy in an instantly get a 5% above market teh government will deflate after the war, you will get back more BTC at a higher rate, but you will lose if you withdraw while its inflating, so just hold.

lol

BTW you cannot withdraw to the mainchain more BTC than you had invested so you are essentially stuck in that inflated chain if ever you decide to preserve this illusional inflated value.

You also fail to ignore the fact that this scheme is very much possible today using existing technology : altcoins and/or federated sidechains
in you lack of understanding you overlooked interest being paid on the bond in inflation coin, as the source for withdrawing more than you put in, there is also the irony you missed and that is the fact that throughout history the war time inflation is never paid back, only this time its different, it is guaranteed by the SideChain not governments Roll Eyes.  

I didn't ignore it, I asked you if you would consider it if you had Bitcoin? (you just make it more complicated by saying alts aren't the only option, you could do it with Bitcoin and federated sidechains.)

the question is now more complicated thanks to your input, would you consider inflation coin in war time if it was made the law, using either alts or federated sidechains, or would you prefer to hold your Bitcoin?

What exactly do you mean by "if it was made the law".

Also, are we not assuming this sidechain is controlled by the government or else who exactly do this war time money go to? If so why should I trust government sidechain more than traditional government. They could just as easily change the rules after the fact.

And of course I would prefer to hold Bitcoin. I'm not the type of person who willingly fund war and consciously inflate the value of my holdings

"I believe this will be the ultimate fate of Bitcoin, to be the "high-powered money" that serves as a reserve currency for banks that issue their own digital cash." Hal Finney, Dec. 2010
Adrian-x
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1372



View Profile
November 18, 2014, 09:41:25 PM
 #17445

why do ppl, including myself, always say that Bitcoin is going to have a binary outcome?

it's b/c they understand that Bitcoin is about Money.  Sound fixed supply Money.  you know, the Money that has the chance to consume the Forex and gold markets.  in that sense, it has the chance to consume the entire fiat world; yes including stocks, bonds, insurance, just by being used as money alone.  it doesn't have to incorporate all those speculative assets directly within its protocol using SC's.  

As much as a despise of what Gates said (in my words: "the blockchain tech is great, but as a money it's not so good"), you have to admit that the features 'decentralized', 'trustless', 'possibly anonymous' and 'uncensorable' are ones that would also be damn good features for stock exchange / dividend payments / all kinds of derivative gambling, ownership management, etc.

If you want Bitcoin (the money) to conquer these areas and serve them as a liquid interchange money, wouldn't it be brilliant to have a technical solution that would allow some asset ledger (say the land ownership ledger) to interchange value with the money ledger (Bitcoin) and make atomic swaps across the chains possible?


Doesn't colored coins already let you do this? I feel like like people are overcomplicating the problem of using the Bitcoin blockchain for asset transfer.

They do, but they introduce another layer of trust that is considerably less decentralized.



What are you talking about? What's centralized about the colored coin protocol?

the colored coin protocol is too centralized Roll Eyes with Sidechaines it can be less centralized.

see that white gap in the image below, (thats where Colourd coins would fit) Tongue this proves Sidechanes are better as they are less centralized.


its all good if you dont know where the economic incentives for the added decentralization comes from. all you need to understand it it can be done with the same or very similar security to that of bitcoin, and miners will do it because they earn more.  Wink  

its not all good Mr brg444 cant see the large picture.

Thank me in Bits 12MwnzxtprG2mHm3rKdgi7NmJKCypsMMQw
Adrian-x
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1372



View Profile
November 18, 2014, 09:45:45 PM
 #17446


What exactly do you mean by "if it was made the law".


Legal tender like in 1934

Thank me in Bits 12MwnzxtprG2mHm3rKdgi7NmJKCypsMMQw
Erdogan
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 812


View Profile
November 18, 2014, 09:51:36 PM
 #17447

it's becoming clearer to me everyday that what we are dealing with is Keynesian vs Austrian philosophy with this SC's debate.

that might follow from the big paragraph below about how sidechains dilute bitcoins sound money function, which I cannot for the love of my life understand the reasoning of at this point (I'm trying).

heretofore, what has brought Bitcoin to where it is today is its Sound Money function.  and its been brilliant at that.  instant liquidity and transportation worldwide and p2p.  continuous growth in the economy and stellar, but volatile, increasing SOV.  gvts everywhere scrambling to figure out what this is and what role it has for their futures.  investment groups everywhere diving into a variety of Bitcoin investing schemes.  Bitcoin is the "Technology Singularity", as Daniel put it in the video above, that is the culmination of 4 decades of work by the cypherpunks.  we have achieved acceptance as a global, digital, cash money system that, imo, is in the process of replacing gold's function for the last 5000 yrs.  to me, an Austrian leaning Bitcoin proponent, that's all we should strive to be.  that's all we need to be.  my goal is to have Bitcoin have its own ticker symbol on the Forex exchange.  from there, as the only true Sound Money in the world, it can consume all fiat currency AND gold, which will take us To The Moon and way beyond as the sole globally accepted currency.  there only needs to be one money and Bitcoin can be "it".  the problem is, if it is even a problem, it will take time and some long hard fought battles.  the Keynesians don't want to help us.  they don't want to "buy in" to the system which would take the price up logarithmically.  they think a price of $376 is "too expensive".  well, to me the other view is that they just weren't paying attention back in 2009 and tough luck, that's how technology disrupts financial systems, as it has with many other industries.  i say "buy in" now and you can still join us on the way to the Moon.  we haven't even really taken off yet.

I totally agree with the goal (moon) and the view (replace gold) and also to an extent with a possible strategy (forex). I'm absolutely convinced the world needs to go back to sound money... it will solve so many hard problems many people suffer greatly from with a single stroke. We need to try this at all cost and bitcoin is our best chance.

the Keynesian view is that Bitcoin needs to do more to gain acceptance and grow itself.  the protocol needs to be changed to incorporate all other forms of asset options; stocks, bonds, assurance contracts, smart contracts, insurance, etc.  by allowing BTC to be transformed into speculative assets via the spvp, that is by definition inflationary.  nevermind that if Bitcoin succeeds at the Austrian Sound Money function, it will force all those assets to trade in terms of Bitcoin eventually as well.  but that would be the hard battle and there are too many fiat vested interests that don't want to see that happen.  and there are too many Bitcoiner's who are impatient and can't stand price volatility.  and there are too many devs that gotta dev and get paid (in USD's).  and there are too many of all of those who missed out.  so what do they do?  they try to change Bitcoin.  change it by changing the source code which breaks the Sound Money function.  to me, that is what the spvp does, it creates an offramp into all manner of these assets.  after all, that is exactly what the Blockstream (Keynesian's) say as well; that being that the blockchain is too restrictive, it's prevents innovation, it's too risky, it's too slow, it's not big enough, yada yada yada.  so what is wrong with using SC's to incorporate all those assets?  it breaks the Sound Money function.  Bitcoin will no longer be viewed as solely a new form of money.  it will be viewed as a "trading platform" with which you can use to move back and forth btwn assets and BTC.  it would be like a Fidelity brokerage house, you deposit your money in a cash acct and then trade all manner of assets in and out. it also destroys the time preference of what money should be.  you see, stocks, bonds, contracts, insurance, etc are long term investments.  they are to be held.  and they are not used to provide seamless, instant, liquidity type functions like Bitcoin would be if it stays in its current form as sound money.  thus, we may NEVER see those assets be converted back to BTC in the future.  or at least if we do, it won't be for a long time, and then what does that do for Bitcoins money function?  answer:  it slows it down if not outright destroys it.  if that's true, where do Bitcoin miners get the tx fees they desperately need in the future to secure the mainchain?  what do we, as current Bitcoin holders, do if we see that many ppl are using this offramp to move into all these different SC's?  how do we interpret an especially popular SC?  Zerg and others say that we should trust Blockstream devs to incorporate any popular function back into the MC. but that would be to violate one of Bitcoins core principles; trust no man.  and incorporating other assets back into MC doesn't even make any sense when you are talking about SC's that offer completely different assets as defined above.  they would have to stay as SC's and i dare say there mere existence destroys Bitcoins liquidity and money function.  

The bolded parts is the reasoning I have problems with.

Let me rip out those bolded parts and ask specific question or utter some hypothesis regarding them.

(cypherdoc, please don't take this as an attack on your opinion. I don't hold any opinion myself, I'm just asking question because I want to understand your reasoning)

  • allowing BTC to be transformed into speculative assets via the spvp, that is by definition inflationary.
    How is that inflationary? What is being inflated? Surely there are still at most 21 million bitcoins. Ok, 1 million got locked on the bitcoin blockchain and the 'access rights' to them are now managed by a sidechain. Are you saying the sidechain devs could inflate the amound of scBTC (say they double it) and then we'd have 22 million bitcoins?


We have to assume that it is not possible to convert 1 BTC to 1 scBTC, do magic to create another scBTC, convert back and then have 2 BTC. That is absurd. If the sidechain tries to do this, which is fractional reserve banking, there will be an immediate run, and someone will hold a bag of worthless scBTC. Conclusion: Such sidechain can not get off the ground.


Quote
  • they try to change Bitcoin.  change it by changing the source code which breaks the Sound Money function. [...] that is what the spvp does, it creates an offramp into all manner of these assets.
    So you're saying that a part of the real BTC is being chopped off and managed by a different source code base? The rules for the 1 million scBTC are different than for the original BTC? If so, I agree so far. What I don't understand: people will know this. scInflateBTCx2 has a public ledger and is run by miners using open source code. Why would anybody 'convert' 10 BTC to 10 scInflateBTCx2 knowing full well that scInflateBTCx2 runs a fractional reserve system and the guy with the other 10 scInflateBTCx2 will have his exchanged for 10 BTC half a microsecond later. There would be a continual run on the real BTC... it just wouldn't work, hence no BTC inflation.


The rules for the spvp can not be like this, it is bitcoin suicide and everybody will know. Even technically, how would it come about? Every coin fraction can be traced back to some coinbase transaction, and this would break that connection.


Quote
  • so what is wrong with using SC's to incorporate all those assets?  it breaks the Sound Money function.
    Again: how? If the sidechain fucks up, not all of the inflated coins there will magically be convertible back to BTC, only the amount that was 'moved over from the MC' in the first place, right? So again: no harm to BTC monetary base.


The only external function the bitcoin blockchain can serve, is to have pointers in the blockchain to other resources, in that way someone can prove that the object pointed to existed at the time of the inclusion in a block. This kind of usage (you migh call it misuse), can not be prevented, and zero bitcoin outputs were allowed to minimize the impact on the blockchain. Otherwise you can either burn coins, or move them to some address and temporarily hide the key necessary to transact. So there is no danger of desoundifying bitcoins.


Quote

  • thus, we may NEVER see those assets be converted back to BTC in the future.
    So? It's the same with hoarding or burning BTC, no? If they never come back to the MC, if anything BTC monetary supply is deflated.


Bitcoins disappearing from the scene sounds, on the surface, like a bad thing, in fact it does not matter. There is absolutely no limit to the amount of bitcoins that can disappear, and we still have a working system. (Lost coins appreciate the remaining coins, balanced against the risk of loss on the holder). At some point, we might need to change the protocol and invent micro-satoshis, but that change is trivial.


Quote
  • they would have to stay as SC's and i dare say there mere existence destroys Bitcoins liquidity and money function.
    Are you saying because all those BTC are being locked in the main chain, Bitcoins liquidity is reduced and therefore its money function hampered? Isn't that like saying Satoshi is reducing Bitcoins liquidity and money function by sitting on 1.5 million BTC?


No liquidity is lost with holding and hiding and locking and whatever. Liquidity is the ease with which you can get rid of your coins, it is up to the receiver. Many potential receivers, more liquidity. Hoarded coins can still be moved by the owner, as long as there is a willing taker. An approximation of the liquidity is the value of the coins, you could also use the wallet count, merchant count and other parameters.


Quote
[/list]

Maybe someone can be so kind to help me understand by answering some of above questions or disputing my assertions?

Thanks!
[...]

brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 644

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
November 18, 2014, 09:52:16 PM
 #17448

why do ppl, including myself, always say that Bitcoin is going to have a binary outcome?

it's b/c they understand that Bitcoin is about Money.  Sound fixed supply Money.  you know, the Money that has the chance to consume the Forex and gold markets.  in that sense, it has the chance to consume the entire fiat world; yes including stocks, bonds, insurance, just by being used as money alone.  it doesn't have to incorporate all those speculative assets directly within its protocol using SC's.  

As much as a despise of what Gates said (in my words: "the blockchain tech is great, but as a money it's not so good"), you have to admit that the features 'decentralized', 'trustless', 'possibly anonymous' and 'uncensorable' are ones that would also be damn good features for stock exchange / dividend payments / all kinds of derivative gambling, ownership management, etc.

If you want Bitcoin (the money) to conquer these areas and serve them as a liquid interchange money, wouldn't it be brilliant to have a technical solution that would allow some asset ledger (say the land ownership ledger) to interchange value with the money ledger (Bitcoin) and make atomic swaps across the chains possible?


Doesn't colored coins already let you do this? I feel like like people are overcomplicating the problem of using the Bitcoin blockchain for asset transfer.

They do, but they introduce another layer of trust that is considerably less decentralized.



What are you talking about? What's centralized about the colored coin protocol?

the colored coin protocol is too centralized Roll Eyes with Sidechaines it can be less centralized.

see that white gap in the image below, (thats where Colourd coins would fit) Tongue this proves Sidechanes are better as they are less centralized.


its all good if you dont know where the economic incentives for the added decentralization comes from. all you need to understand it it can be done with the same or very similar security to that of bitcoin, and miners will do it because they earn more.  Wink  

its not all good Mr brg444 cant see the large picture.

Colored Coins could be good enough for certain applications, just like Open Transactions could be.

Others certainly command a more important level of decentralization.

"I believe this will be the ultimate fate of Bitcoin, to be the "high-powered money" that serves as a reserve currency for banks that issue their own digital cash." Hal Finney, Dec. 2010
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 644

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
November 18, 2014, 09:53:38 PM
 #17449


What exactly do you mean by "if it was made the law".


Legal tender like in 1934

Well fortunately Bitcoin is not physical and is valuable in part exactly because it allows one to avoid such criminal legislations.

"I believe this will be the ultimate fate of Bitcoin, to be the "high-powered money" that serves as a reserve currency for banks that issue their own digital cash." Hal Finney, Dec. 2010
justusranvier
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1400



View Profile WWW
November 18, 2014, 09:56:01 PM
 #17450

Colored Coins could be good enough for certain applications, just like Open Transactions could be.

Others certainly command a more important level of decentralization.
This is the second time you've referred to the concept of decentralizing with reference to colored coins without explaining exactly what you're talking about, in spite of the fact that what you're saying makes no sense at all.
justusranvier
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1400



View Profile WWW
November 18, 2014, 10:00:43 PM
 #17451

Unlike most detractors in here, Adam Back and Austin Hill's track record speak for themselves.
You're definitely new here, or else you'd recognize that exact same argument has been run by each and every single long-con scammer and ponzi operator going back to Pirate@40 until the present day.

Are you getting paid to discredit Blockstream?
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
November 18, 2014, 10:11:55 PM
 #17452

Unlike most detractors in here, Adam Back and Austin Hill's track record speak for themselves.
You're definitely new here, or else you'd recognize that exact same argument has been run by each and every single long-con scammer and ponzi operator going back to Pirate@40 until the present day.

Are you getting paid to discredit Blockstream?

well, another way to look at them is that they both admittedly missed the Bitcoin train in the beginning and only came around in 2013.  how visionary is that?
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 644

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
November 18, 2014, 10:17:53 PM
 #17453

Unlike most detractors in here, Adam Back and Austin Hill's track record speak for themselves.
You're definitely new here, or else you'd recognize that exact same argument has been run by each and every single long-con scammer and ponzi operator going back to Pirate@40 until the present day.

Are you getting paid to discredit Blockstream?

The same argument were made in reference to whom? Pirate@40? What is Pirate@40's name? How does his track record compare to two very public cypherpunks who have been in the scene for longer than most everybody here


"I believe this will be the ultimate fate of Bitcoin, to be the "high-powered money" that serves as a reserve currency for banks that issue their own digital cash." Hal Finney, Dec. 2010
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 644

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
November 18, 2014, 10:20:22 PM
 #17454

Unlike most detractors in here, Adam Back and Austin Hill's track record speak for themselves.
You're definitely new here, or else you'd recognize that exact same argument has been run by each and every single long-con scammer and ponzi operator going back to Pirate@40 until the present day.

Are you getting paid to discredit Blockstream?

well, another way to look at them is that they both admittedly missed the Bitcoin train in the beginning and only came around in 2013.  how visionary is that?

 Roll Eyes

A technology that Adam Back developed is being leveraged in Bitcoin. Austin Hill has been working on zero-knowledge system since before you probably know they existed.

You really want to debate who is the visionary here?

I'd also like to know if you plan to respond to everyone who has thoroughly debunked your claims in the past 3-5 pages

"I believe this will be the ultimate fate of Bitcoin, to be the "high-powered money" that serves as a reserve currency for banks that issue their own digital cash." Hal Finney, Dec. 2010
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
November 18, 2014, 10:23:07 PM
 #17455

Unlike most detractors in here, Adam Back and Austin Hill's track record speak for themselves.
You're definitely new here, or else you'd recognize that exact same argument has been run by each and every single long-con scammer and ponzi operator going back to Pirate@40 until the present day.

Are you getting paid to discredit Blockstream?

well, another way to look at them is that they both admittedly missed the Bitcoin train in the beginning and only came around in 2013.  how visionary is that?

 Roll Eyes

A technology that Adam Back developed is being leveraged in Bitcoin. Austin Hill has been working on zero-knowledge system since before you probably know they existed.

You really want to debate who is the visionary here?

I'd also like to know if you plan to respond to everyone who has thoroughly debunked your claims in the past 3-5 pages

well, i recognized Bitcoin for what is was in Jan 2011 and acted on it.  there is no debate.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
November 18, 2014, 10:23:58 PM
 #17456

Unlike most detractors in here, Adam Back and Austin Hill's track record speak for themselves.
You're definitely new here, or else you'd recognize that exact same argument has been run by each and every single long-con scammer and ponzi operator going back to Pirate@40 until the present day.

Are you getting paid to discredit Blockstream?

well, another way to look at them is that they both admittedly missed the Bitcoin train in the beginning and only came around in 2013.  how visionary is that?

 Roll Eyes

A technology that Adam Back developed is being leveraged in Bitcoin. Austin Hill has been working on zero-knowledge system since before you probably know they existed.

You really want to debate who is the visionary here?

I'd also like to know if you plan to respond to everyone who has thoroughly debunked your claims in the past 3-5 pages

you're a legend in your own mind.
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 644

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
November 18, 2014, 10:29:34 PM
 #17457

Unlike most detractors in here, Adam Back and Austin Hill's track record speak for themselves.
You're definitely new here, or else you'd recognize that exact same argument has been run by each and every single long-con scammer and ponzi operator going back to Pirate@40 until the present day.

Are you getting paid to discredit Blockstream?

well, another way to look at them is that they both admittedly missed the Bitcoin train in the beginning and only came around in 2013.  how visionary is that?

 Roll Eyes

A technology that Adam Back developed is being leveraged in Bitcoin. Austin Hill has been working on zero-knowledge system since before you probably know they existed.

You really want to debate who is the visionary here?

I'd also like to know if you plan to respond to everyone who has thoroughly debunked your claims in the past 3-5 pages

you're a legend in your own mind.

and you're a fraud in your own thread

"I believe this will be the ultimate fate of Bitcoin, to be the "high-powered money" that serves as a reserve currency for banks that issue their own digital cash." Hal Finney, Dec. 2010
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
November 18, 2014, 10:33:38 PM
 #17458

Unlike most detractors in here, Adam Back and Austin Hill's track record speak for themselves.
You're definitely new here, or else you'd recognize that exact same argument has been run by each and every single long-con scammer and ponzi operator going back to Pirate@40 until the present day.

Are you getting paid to discredit Blockstream?

well, another way to look at them is that they both admittedly missed the Bitcoin train in the beginning and only came around in 2013.  how visionary is that?

 Roll Eyes

A technology that Adam Back developed is being leveraged in Bitcoin. Austin Hill has been working on zero-knowledge system since before you probably know they existed.

You really want to debate who is the visionary here?

I'd also like to know if you plan to respond to everyone who has thoroughly debunked your claims in the past 3-5 pages

you're a legend in your own mind.

and you're a fraud in your own thread

i'm sure everyone's here to read you then, right?
hdbuck
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1274



View Profile
November 18, 2014, 10:34:54 PM
 #17459

Unlike most detractors in here, Adam Back and Austin Hill's track record speak for themselves.
You're definitely new here, or else you'd recognize that exact same argument has been run by each and every single long-con scammer and ponzi operator going back to Pirate@40 until the present day.

Are you getting paid to discredit Blockstream?

well, another way to look at them is that they both admittedly missed the Bitcoin train in the beginning and only came around in 2013.  how visionary is that?

 Roll Eyes

A technology that Adam Back developed is being leveraged in Bitcoin. Austin Hill has been working on zero-knowledge system since before you probably know they existed.

You really want to debate who is the visionary here?

I'd also like to know if you plan to respond to everyone who has thoroughly debunked your claims in the past 3-5 pages

you're a legend in your own mind.

and you're a fraud in your own thread

i'm sure everyone's here to read you then, right?

yawp
adaseb
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1386



View Profile
November 18, 2014, 10:42:44 PM
 #17460

Yes but right now the price of GOLD depends on whats happens to the Gold referendum with the CHF.

Its massive news at the moment.

FORTUNEJACK.COM[
                            
9 BTC WELCOME PACK FOR 1ST 5 DEPOSITS
FREE 1,000 mBTC daily for LuckyJack winners
[
          
]
Pages: « 1 ... 823 824 825 826 827 828 829 830 831 832 833 834 835 836 837 838 839 840 841 842 843 844 845 846 847 848 849 850 851 852 853 854 855 856 857 858 859 860 861 862 863 864 865 866 867 868 869 870 871 872 [873] 874 875 876 877 878 879 880 881 882 883 884 885 886 887 888 889 890 891 892 893 894 895 896 897 898 899 900 901 902 903 904 905 906 907 908 909 910 911 912 913 914 915 916 917 918 919 920 921 922 923 ... 1558 »
  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!