Bitcoin Forum
December 08, 2016, 12:29:52 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 ... 1140 1141 1142 1143 1144 1145 1146 1147 1148 1149 1150 1151 1152 1153 1154 1155 1156 1157 1158 1159 1160 1161 1162 1163 1164 1165 1166 1167 1168 1169 1170 1171 1172 1173 1174 1175 1176 1177 1178 1179 1180 1181 1182 1183 1184 1185 1186 1187 1188 1189 [1190] 1191 1192 1193 1194 1195 1196 1197 1198 1199 1200 1201 1202 1203 1204 1205 1206 1207 1208 1209 1210 1211 1212 1213 1214 1215 1216 1217 1218 1219 1220 1221 1222 1223 1224 1225 1226 1227 1228 1229 1230 1231 1232 1233 1234 1235 1236 1237 1238 1239 1240 ... 1560 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.  (Read 1805803 times)
TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
May 10, 2015, 01:27:09 AM
 #23781

The pools don't have any large investment in hardware. Thus they are free to maximize revenue by any paradigm which does so, including collusion and selling out to the banksters who captured the State and the fiat levers. Economics rules, not morals.

huge inconsistency in logic for someone who claims to be logical.  or maybe it's just from someone who lacks comprehension of how Bitcoin incentives work in practice?

so if the pools didn't invest in their hardware, then logically you're referring to pools that aggregate individual mining power.  if that is the case, how can pool operators freely collude and sell out to banksters or any other attacker when those same individuals can just as freely yank their power out of the pool and point it elsewhere as we saw in ghash?

Did you completely fail to read the post I made about pools being a Sybil attack vector?

You have no way of knowing if a Sybil attack in occurring now at the pools. You don't have to see an overt attack.

Did humanity see an attack on their government over the past 80+ years while the DEEP STATE has been festering?

If you were trying to grow Bitcoin into a global centralized ledger, would you reveal your hand too soon and cause the frogs to jump out of the pot? Of course not!

The totalitarianism comes all at once at the end game. You can remain blissfully ignoring that possibility if you want. Most humans cows do and so do frogs that boil in the pot. Bitcoin was design to suck you into complacency and disbelief in (cognitive dissonance groupthink slander of logical, rational) dissension.

I suggest you retract your pitiful attempts to slander whether I am logical. You won't likely win a logic debate against me. Smooth might, but you are not capable.

1481156992
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481156992

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481156992
Reply with quote  #2

1481156992
Report to moderator
1481156992
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481156992

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481156992
Reply with quote  #2

1481156992
Report to moderator
1481156992
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481156992

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481156992
Reply with quote  #2

1481156992
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1481156992
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481156992

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481156992
Reply with quote  #2

1481156992
Report to moderator
1481156992
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481156992

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481156992
Reply with quote  #2

1481156992
Report to moderator
1481156992
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481156992

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481156992
Reply with quote  #2

1481156992
Report to moderator
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
May 10, 2015, 01:36:12 AM
 #23782

The pools don't have any large investment in hardware. Thus they are free to maximize revenue by any paradigm which does so, including collusion and selling out to the banksters who captured the State and the fiat levers. Economics rules, not morals.

huge inconsistency in logic for someone who claims to be logical.  or maybe it's just from someone who lacks comprehension of how Bitcoin incentives work in practice?

so if the pools didn't invest in their hardware, then logically you're referring to pools that aggregate individual mining power.  if that is the case, how can pool operators freely collude and sell out to banksters or any other attacker when those same individuals can just as freely yank their power out of the pool and point it elsewhere as we saw in ghash?

Did you completely fail to read the post I made about pools being a Sybil attack vector?

You have no way of knowing if a Sybil attack in occurring now at the pools. You don't have to see an overt attack.

Did humanity see an attack on their government over the past 80 years while the DEEP STATE has been festering?

If you were trying to grow Bitcoin into a global centralized ledger, would you reveal your hand too soon and cause the frogs to jump out of the pot? Of course not!

The totalitarianism comes all at once at the end game. You can remain blissfully ignoring that possibility if you want. Most humans cows do and so do frogs that boil in the pot. Bitcoin was design to suck you into complacency and disbelief in dissension.

I suggest you retract your pitiful attempts to slander whether I am logical. You won't likely win a logic debate against me. Smooth might, but you are not capable.

so give me some evidence that the USG is performing a Sybil attack on all the pools.

also, explain to me how the USG controls Chinese mining pools in Mongolia.
smooth
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1246



View Profile
May 10, 2015, 01:37:04 AM
 #23783

I understand the probability equations, but am trying to understand the logic in how they are being used and how an attacker with less than 50% could have an almost 100% chance of forcing a new longer chain. I would expect that no matter what the probability of being successful would be less than 50%.

The reason is the attacker just keeps going with his attack until (with a tiny bit of luck) his chain is longer. At that point everyone else will join his chain and his need to "attack" is over, he just mines his chain along with everyone else.

Intuitively, realize that the success probability is 100% at >50%, because he can always be assured of outrunning the other fork. It doesn't just jump right from near-zero to 100% as soon as you get 50%, it rises gradually with significant shares <50%.





but for every "bit of luck" the 49% attacker gets (by that i'm assuming you mean a "spurt" of luck with several blocks in a row) the 51% honest chain has the same chances of that "bit of luck" of a block spurt.  not only does the 51% honest chain have the advantage of slowly pulling further ahead via percentages alone while the 49% attacker is withholding blocks, he has the advantage of the same block spurt of luck.  both of these factors as the 51% chain pulls further and further ahead will eventually force the 49% attacker to abandon his attack, start over, while suffering losses from the blocks he could have claimed by publishing them instead of holding them back.  in effect, you can neutralize the spurt of blocks from the analysis and just say that the 51% chain will always outrun the 49% chain on average.

The math says otherwise. The 51% chain doesn't need to do anything at all. The 49% chain just needs to get lucky to pull ahead briefly, and it eventually will, usually. That 2% lead isn't much. Occasionally the 51% chain will pull too far ahead and you will need to abandon your attack, that's what accounts for the 4% (or whatever number) chance of failure. But usually this doesn't happen.

If Satoshi's brief explanation or Peter R's use of the math isn't clear enough for you, there is more of a step-by-step explanation here, along with some pictures (Figure 3 in particular): https://bitcoil.co.il/Doublespend.pdf

TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
May 10, 2015, 01:45:08 AM
 #23784

so give me some evidence that the USG is performing a Sybil attack on all the pools.

Apparently you don't understand well that a Sybil attack can be not detectable, especially when the power it wields is not yet being fully utilitized in every facet. If I were the DEEP STATE, I would continue to lay the ground work of growing Bitcoin adoption and not disturbing that, while testing and insuring the Sybil attack vector is going to work as planned once Bitcoin reaches the point where they want to turn on the Digital Kill Switch.

also, explain to me how the USG controls Chinese mining pools in Mongolia.

If you don't believe the Chinese leadership is in bed with the Rockefellers on the planned Global Technocracy, then I suggest you watch Aaron Russo's video explaining about what Nick Rockefeller told him and then do some googling about Nick Rockefeller and China.

But all of your post belies the main point, which is a Sybil attack hole exists. And we should close that hole.

cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
May 10, 2015, 01:48:54 AM
 #23785

so give me some evidence that the USG is performing a Sybil attack on all the pools.

Apparently you don't understand well that a Sybil attack can be not detectable, especially when the power it wields is not yet being fully utilitized in every facet. If I were the DEEP STATE, I would continue to lay the ground work of growing Bitcoin adoption and not disturbing that, while testing and insuring the Sybil attack vector is going to work as planned once Bitcoin reaches the point where they want to turn on the Digital Kill Switch.

also, explain to me how the USG controls Chinese mining pools in Mongolia.

If you don't believe the Chinese leadership is in bed with the Rockefellers on the planned Global Technocracy, then I suggest you watch Aaron Russo's video explaining about what Nick Rockefeller told him and then do some googling about Nick Rockefeller and China.

But all of your post belies the main point, which is a Sybil attack hole exists. And we should close that hole.

i thought you were all about logic.

all i hear is a bunch of FUD.
TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
May 10, 2015, 01:52:53 AM
 #23786

all i hear is a bunch of FUD.

You have not refuted the economics and technical points that indicate that a Sybil attack vector exists with the pools.

You have chosen to remain a frog boiling in the pot, because the former double-digit pools have been dissolved into single-digit pools, but you can not prove that there are not multiple single-digit pools that are owned by the same entity.

You can choose to remain blissfully ignorant of the fact that a Sybil attack is possible (and likely because of the economics of pools which I had explained in the link I provided to you) and perhaps already occurring (in testing and lie-in-wait mode).

You are just being disingenuous now.

cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
May 10, 2015, 01:56:36 AM
 #23787

all i hear is a bunch of FUD.

You have not refuted the economics and technical points that indicate that a Sybil attack vector exists with the pools.

You have chosen to remain a frog boiling in the pot, because the former double-digit pools have been dissolved into single-digit pools, but you can not prove that there are not multiple single-digit pools that are owned by the same entity.

You can choose to remain blissfully ignorant of the fact that a Sybil attack is possible (and likely because of the economics of pools which I had explained in the link I provided to you) and perhaps already occurring (in testing and lie-in-wait mode).

You are just being disingenuous now.

actually, i submit the onus is upon you to prove that the Sybil attacks are occurring especially since we haven't seen any evidence to that fact.  w/o it you are just a troll and Bitcoin continues to gain more acceptance.
Zangelbert Bingledack
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1022


View Profile
May 10, 2015, 02:13:47 AM
 #23788

The math says otherwise. The 51% chain doesn't need to do anything at all. The 49% chain just needs to get lucky to pull ahead briefly, and it eventually will, usually. That 2% lead isn't much. Occasionally the 51% chain will pull too far ahead and you will need to abandon your attack, that's what accounts for the 4% (or whatever number) chance of failure. But usually this doesn't happen.

OK, I see what I was missing: you don't need 6 blocks in a row, you just need to pull ahead at some point by chance and then you have the longest chain so you publish it. However, that's still a whole lot of wasted block rewards if you fail. It really does matter, as a practical concern, how many blocks you could expect to have go before pulling ahead. But if you have >50% then you will eventually win no matter what, as long as you hold out (unless someone comes in with more mining power midway through), so you don't really risk much (except your mining pool's reputation). Also, if some alert happened because your pool's mining power went offline, you'd have to hope your miners don't jump to another pool for a while just in case, and you lose all those nice rewards and rep.

--

As for the Sybil attack, it seems pretty outlandish to imagine all that conspiracy stuff going on just to mess with the network once, lose the opportunity to do so again probably forever, and not actually succeed in destroying Bitcoin anyway. Not to mention this would ideally (for the attacker) have to be actual hashing power in hand, not a pool.

And of course there's a nicely generalizable argument that even managing to destroy Bitcoin just allows any of the myriad other networks to adapt based on the attacker's strategy and come back meaner than Bitcoin ever was. It's not a viable strategy: a decentralized swarm can cycle the OODA loop far faster than any centralized entity.
TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
May 10, 2015, 02:17:44 AM
 #23789

2.  i think that the majority of ppl in this world want to be honest and wish to live in a society that has order.  no one wants to live in chaos.  everybody loses.  in order for society to continue to progress and evolve, order, dependability, and a semblance of honesty is needed.  thus, in a system with so much potential to do good, like Bitcoin, the overwhelming desire is for participants to want to do what makes the system thrive.  to the extent that cheating, dishonesty, and colluding erodes confidence and threatens that goal, most participants will avoid those activities.

That is the same faith we put into a top-down democracy. Fact is a power vacuum sucks in those who can maximize the exploitation of the power vacuum.

You are violating the fundamental tenet of Satoshi's white paper which is decentralized trust, meaning we don't have to trust that people are honest.

you fail to comprehend what i was saying.  the above is simply an observation of mine on human behavior which i think is valid.

Can you not read? Try again to read above. I didn't fail to comprehend your point, I was disagreeing with it. Can you not comprehend the logical distinction between not comprehending and disagreeing? That is a category (a.k.a. taxonomy) logic error.

B-listers (or I suspect C-lister in this case) have such poor logic and rationality, it is almost pointless to try to argue with you, because you can't even recognize your illogic.

Satoshi's brilliance was that he designed what appears to be a rock solid system that allows it's participants to fulfill their desired behaviors w/o fear of widespread cheating.

Precisely that is the fundamental tenet I am referring to upthread where I am thinking about the "one CPU, one vote" and the probabilistic math of Proof-of-Work, but I am arguing that it is not immune to centralization and thus it is an (intentional or not) ruse that is very ideologically compelling.

the incentives programmed into Bitcoin align with their desired behaviors and in fact fosters them.

Subsequent (to yours quoted) posts by myself, inca, and smooth (at least and many others else where such as the Skycoin thread) had argued that the mutual profit motive is not sufficient.

the need for trust is removed for the early adopters.

That was the ideology but the reality is that it ain't so.

bootstrappers like me saw this brilliance and have invested accordingly

Cognitive bias.

and each day that goes by that the protocol doesn't get hacked or that a miner or a cabal of miners fails to perform a 51% is evidence that the system is getting stronger and stronger and more resilient.

How did that work out in the past with governments that get stronger and bigger and then always implode. As Warren Buffet says, "when the tide goes out, we know who wasn't wearing underwear".

How did that work out for the quants and the derivative bombs that finally exploded. Etc, etc.

I think you need to read some of Nicholas Taleb's books on Blackswans, Anti-fragility, etc..

Or simply the common due diligence statement, "past performance is no guarantee of future performance".

what's quite obvious is that more and more deep pocketed investors are climbing onboard

Indeed. Bitcoin is succeeding. And the DEEP STATE is I am sure quite thrilled.

which makes it much harder for gvts or any bad actor to interfere. we're experiencing a growing economy.

That does not logically follow, when the bad guys are the government. They will regulate later. Regulation won't kill Bitcoin at that stage when it is already mature. It can enable the Digital Kill Switch where they can turn off your number if they don't like you (i.e. prevent political free speech, expropriate wealth via the ruse of unconstitutional directly apportioned taxation, etc).

You are blacksliding because there doesn't appear to be any solution the fact that pools become concentrated due to the variance cost to them not. It is pure economics.

what centralization?  i see the charts decentralizing.  and the proof in the pudding is that there are still no 51% attacks despite your FUD and Bitcoin keeps on growing.  and ghash has been reduced to a shadow of itself.

I have already addressed this point.

TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
May 10, 2015, 02:22:43 AM
 #23790

all i hear is a bunch of FUD.

You have not refuted the economics and technical points that indicate that a Sybil attack vector exists with the pools.

You have chosen to remain a frog boiling in the pot, because the former double-digit pools have been dissolved into single-digit pools, but you can not prove that there are not multiple single-digit pools that are owned by the same entity.

You can choose to remain blissfully ignorant of the fact that a Sybil attack is possible (and likely because of the economics of pools which I had explained in the link I provided to you) and perhaps already occurring (in testing and lie-in-wait mode).

You are just being disingenuous now.

actually, i submit the onus is upon you to prove that the Sybil attacks are occurring especially since we haven't seen any evidence to that fact.  w/o it you are just a troll and Bitcoin continues to gain more acceptance.

Repeating yourself redundantly doesn't make your illogic any less so.

I will simply quote myself again above since you clearly refuse to address what I wrote. Asserting that the onus is on me to prove that something that can't be detected is disingenuous. You are not arguing the point, rather just trying to cover your ears and say "nanana".

Apparently you don't understand well that a Sybil attack can be not detectable, especially when the power it wields is not yet being fully utilitized in every facet. If I were the DEEP STATE, I would continue to lay the ground work of growing Bitcoin adoption and not disturbing that, while testing and insuring the Sybil attack vector is going to work as planned once Bitcoin reaches the point where they want to turn on the Digital Kill Switch.

...

But all of your post belies the main point, which is a Sybil attack hole exists. And we should close that hole.

thezerg
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1246


View Profile
May 10, 2015, 02:34:11 AM
 #23791

I love that the crypto anarchists are trying to build a closed system in which everything that is possible is legal.  But let us not forget the reality here.  Multiple successful large double spends will destroy the network so your double spend needs to not just pay for the block opportunity cost but also to pay for all your miners.  And you need to figure out how to cash out quickoy.  And how did you acquire those miners install and run them without anyone knowing who you are?  Because once you steal hundreds of millions and destroy the bitcoin network every other miner is going to collude with the chip fabs and the fbi to figure out who you are. 

Therefore we can conclude that the only entities who could do this would not be motivated by profit and not fear legal responses.  But much cheaper and easier for those entities to declare bitcoin illegal.
TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
May 10, 2015, 02:38:31 AM
 #23792

yes, why not use that 51% of power to mine 51% of the BTC rewards plus fees which is a guaranteed calculable process?

why instead would they perform a 51% attack to double spend a cup of coffee at a retail store?

As for the Sybil attack, it seems pretty outlandish to imagine all that conspiracy stuff going on just to mess with the network once, lose the opportunity to do so again probably forever, and not actually succeed in destroying Bitcoin anyway. Not to mention this would ideally (for the attacker) have to be actual hashing power in hand, not a pool.

The DEEP STATE doesn't want to double-spend nor destroy Bitcoin. That is myopic, childish thinking. They have $trillions already (admitted on national TV by for Head of D.o.D. Donald Rumsfeld on the eve of 9/11). What they want is control and to enforce the legal bullshit they enact with their control over government. They can use the Sybil attack to force you to submit your identification when you submit a transaction or to delay or blackout transactions from people who challenge their totalitarian grip on power over the NWO and the inevitable one-world reserve currency regime coming.

Bitcoin is part of the grand plan for Global Technocracy and total top-down digital control. And it is a marvelous success. You suckers are falling for it.

And of course there's a nicely generalizable argument that even managing to destroy Bitcoin just allows any of the myriad other networks to adapt based on the attacker's strategy and come back meaner than Bitcoin ever was. It's not a viable strategy: a decentralized swarm can cycle the OODA loop far faster than any centralized entity.

I do agree and believe this is the Trojan horse planted by the engineers who created Bitcoin knowing full well that the DEEP STATE would commission others to do it if not them, so they might as well enable the possibility for us to upend Bitcoin.

And damn, I am going to (attempt to) do just that! (especially if I can get some minimal financing to cover my meager expenses so i can work full-time on crypto)

Add: actually I don't want to upend Bitcoin. I just want to provide an alternative that has a compelling use case as well fixes the centralization hole in Bitcoin. I do think Bitcoin will spread out to the masses, regardless of anything I do. I am leveraging Bitcoin as a reserve currency for the altcoins and thus I don't need to disparage Bitcoin for that role. I am not unrealistically trying to stop the inevitable one-world reserve currency new order, rather I am trying to find a way to co-exist with it and maintain my personal liberty.

TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
May 10, 2015, 02:47:08 AM
 #23793

Therefore we can conclude that the only entities who could do this would not be motivated by profit and not fear legal responses.  But much cheaper and easier for those entities to declare bitcoin illegal.

Laws are impotent (and nullified) if they are unenforceable. Example, an anti-jaywalking law for isolated rural dirt roads.

The Sybil attack vector is another facet of enforcement and control. The Sybil attack vector is also the historical modus operandi profile of the banksters because they love to have a paradigm where the masses believe the ideology ("one CPU, one vote", "decentralized mining") yet the truth is they insidiously and covertly control the strings behind the curtain.

TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
May 10, 2015, 03:04:48 AM
 #23794

He's just jealous

There are much more enjoyable vocations I would rather be doing than this shit, like hanging out at the beach at my advanced age with a beautiful lady or raising a family (I am 50 but said I look 30s face and body despite the Multiple Sclerosis). Instead I slog away because I don't want to live in a totalitarian world with no options coming Orwellian global economics collapse starting in earnest 2017 or 18 (with initial effects in at least Europe starting October, 2015).

TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
May 10, 2015, 03:18:17 AM
 #23795

Here's a thought about Gmax's "big block attack" where powerful miners try to eliminate their competition by producing very large blocks that the smaller miners can't handl...

are you sure (bolded part)? the bigger the network bandwidth, the faster a bloat block constructed by an attacking large miner would propagate thus increasing their chances of tormenting smaller miners.  conversely, the smaller the bandwidth, the higher the latency and thus the higher probability of the bloat block being orphaned resulting in failure of the attack.

I'm very much not sure since I'm not familiar with mining technicals, but I think that's what I was saying: the lower the bandwidth in the network, the higher chance of failure of the attack...

Higher orphan rate favors the larger pools since they are going to be better connected and thus will mine the orphaned blocks less frequently. This is related to some of the points and math from the selfish mining paper.

Larger blocks = more centralization (whether it is covert or not is irrelevant). As I said, they can't get a solution without changing to my solution.

Perhaps some of you didn't see that I revealed my math on the solution to selfish mining in my refutation of gmaxell.

btw, shame on pwiullie and gmax for pushing this boogie man attack FUD.

Shame on you for conflating individual degrees-of-freedom with groupwise molasses inertia.

smooth
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1246



View Profile
May 10, 2015, 04:13:22 AM
 #23796

The math says otherwise. The 51% chain doesn't need to do anything at all. The 49% chain just needs to get lucky to pull ahead briefly, and it eventually will, usually. That 2% lead isn't much. Occasionally the 51% chain will pull too far ahead and you will need to abandon your attack, that's what accounts for the 4% (or whatever number) chance of failure. But usually this doesn't happen.

OK, I see what I was missing: you don't need 6 blocks in a row, you just need to pull ahead at some point by chance and then you have the longest chain so you publish it. However, that's still a whole lot of wasted block rewards if you fail. It really does matter, as a practical concern, how many blocks you could expect to have go before pulling ahead.

If you eventually succeed, then you don't care how many blocks you had to go, because all your blocks are then valid.

It is only the case where you fail then this becomes a cost, and this risk is easily calculable in advance. The risk is low to extremely low as you approach 50% from below.
shmadz
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1428


@theshmadz


View Profile
May 10, 2015, 04:21:14 AM
 #23797

He's just jealous

There are much more enjoyable vocations I would rather be doing than this shit, like hanging out at the beach at my advanced age with a beautiful lady or raising a family (I am 50 but said I look 30s face and body despite the Multiple Sclerosis). Instead I slog away because I don't want to live in a totalitarian world with no options coming Orwellian global economics collapse starting in earnest 2017 or 18 (with initial effects in at least Europe starting October, 2015).

I'm sorry to hear about the MS. A colleague of mine had a spouse with MS and I saw the effects in her last few years. I'm having trouble making logic of the comment you make in the thread you just linked, however.

Fighting is barbaric. Professional fighting is a ruse. If I am entering a fight it is to the death and I will shoot first and the end.

If you want your fighting to be less controlled there is always MMA.

One of the best technical fights I have seen.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c44HiW-VEtw

The consistent champions of MMA are grapplers. Boxing has almost no application in real world fighting and rather is a sport that happens to be apparently well tailored to my natural strengths.

I have no skills for wrestling and I am claustrophobic. My only hope in MMA would be to use my very strong legs to kick to prevent it from going to the ground, but unlikely I would succeed. In the real world, I would run away if feasible, because I am fast (4.5seconds on 40 yard dash but not that fast now, but still probably below 5seconds). If not feasible, there are more effective ways to kill someone with your hands, such as a blow to the sternum to incapacite them, then ramming their nose up into their brain.

There is a rumor or tale that some native Americans could purportedly reach under your rib cage and extract your heart with their hands and show it to you before you died.

I'm having trouble with those 2 bolded statements in particular. I'm trying to imagine being 50 years old, having MS, and running a sub-5 second 40 yards... and I just can't.


"You have no moral right to rule us, nor do you possess any methods of enforcement that we have reason to fear." - John Perry Barlow, 1996
zanzibar
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 334


View Profile
May 10, 2015, 04:53:23 AM
 #23798

Wow, this thread just went full retard (Simple Jack).
shmadz
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1428


@theshmadz


View Profile
May 10, 2015, 05:12:07 AM
 #23799

Wow, this thread just went full retard (Simple Jack).

I apologize for going off-topic. Maybe something to bring us back to the block size topic?


*btw, I'm still curious what your full node consumes in bandwidth?



Thanks very much. Do you think 20 MB blocks means 20X bandwidth?

note: In Canada we don't have unlimited plans. (At least none that I'm aware of) so already we are hitting the limits of running a full node with only the 1MB block.

For example: if we look at those 3 consecutive days of March 4,5,6 at 20 gig per day that gives 600 gigs per month. A 750 gig per month plan runs $120 per month. And that's the max plan for residential.



If it costs almost 1500 per year to run a node, we need to have some way to subsidize this cost, if we actually want to keep this thing massively decentralized.

"You have no moral right to rule us, nor do you possess any methods of enforcement that we have reason to fear." - John Perry Barlow, 1996
TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
May 10, 2015, 06:03:25 AM
 #23800

Wow, this thread just went full retard (Simple Jack).

WTF! is wrong with you?   Angry

I will kick your ass in spite of my illness.  Angry

I made extensive and important ontopic posts upthread and there is also a human element to development too. Where the fuck is your humility and compassion?

Wow, this thread just went full retard (Simple Jack).

I apologize for going off-topic.

No you don't have to apologize to that snot fuck. Why do you let him brow beat you and use peer pressure to lower your sensibility and humanity?

Call him out instead. Embarrass him for his lack of human spirit.

I'm sorry to hear about the MS. A colleague of mine had a spouse with MS and I saw the effects in her last few years. I'm having trouble making logic of the comment you make in the thread you just linked, however.

...

I'm having trouble with those 2 bolded statements in particular. I'm trying to imagine being 50 years old, having MS, and running a sub-5 second 40 yards... and I just can't.

I apologize in advance to other readers to introduce so much personal information into the thread (and surely you know I take a great risk that none of you are willing to take by putting your real photos in public!! I avoided this for 2 years!!), but perhaps it is necessary this one time in order to clarify a few points. So let's try to make it once only.

I have always been a jock or athlete, in addition to being a nerd or hacker of sorts. It is rarer combination, but I am not the only one of those. For example, I had a friend and competitor Brad from Bevelry Hills H.S, who had higher SAT scores than me and he beat me in the 800 meter race (the 2nd time, I won the first meet). I think he went on to do something more mainstream than hacking, but I didn't keep in touch. In high school, I ran a sub-4:30 mile, sub-16 min 5K, 35 minute 10K (on a whim and not in best trained shape), yet I also ran 4.5 second 40. For most of my youth, I was in American football (my natural sport since age 5), then I shifted to XCountry and Track when I moved from my birthplace New Orleans, LA to Culver City, CA in 1980. My athleticism is more focused in power and not endurance, but I did the endurance sport because I was in love with the social aspects (running from Culver City to Hunnington Beach and watching the sunset, etc) of it at that age and also I like different challenges and experiences. Frankly I never reached my peak potential in endurance running, because I had too many nerd distractions such as creating WordUp in the mid-1980s which was one of the world's earliest full-feature WYSIWYG word processors.





Here is a pic of myself in 1993-1995 when I worked on what became now Corel Painter:



In 1999, I was at the peak of my career with CoolPage running up to 335,000 published websites users (million or so downloaded copies) and athletically I was in incredible shape. See photo below on the day (Dec. 1, 1999) I was attacked and lost vision in my right eye.



After that my personal life went into disarray and I'd rather not mention all the details out-of-respect for the other party involved.

By 2004 or so, I had recovered physically and emotionally, and in 2005 I started to realize there was a problem in the global economy (my suspicions had started with 9/11) and had discovered gold, silver, etc..




In any case, in 2006 I believe I was infected with a high strain of the HPV virus, and I believe that was a strong contributing factor to my decline thereafter. I still was able to run and even got 2nd place in my 35+ age group for 5K, but it wasn't the same. I didn't have the same oomph and endurance. But it wasn't yet debilitating, just a reduction in my performance. Yet from 2006 to 2010 or 2011, I was still able to pretty much go in the gym or any athletic activity and perform with a lot of power and speed. The deleterious effects up to that point were mainly sustaining energy and endurance and recovery time the next day.

In 2010 or 2011, my feet started to swell, tinnatus in my ears, severe cramping, etc.. The neuropathy had kicked into high gear. You can see the severe eye bags on me in 2010 in the following photo yet also notice how muscular I am (more so than in my 20s).



By 2012, I was hospitalized for h.pylori infection, and after that my body went into a tailspin.

Yet through most of this, I didn't lose my speed and power, except starting around 2013/14, I started to lose power especially on my left side. And in 2014 it was getting so bad that I was getting very desperate. I suppose due to my lifelong athleticism and my continued attempts to fight the M.S. with athletics, I was able to sustain longer than others do with the illness, but yet I was succumbing to it.

But you can see even in this pic in 2014, I was still athletic even though I was struggling every day with debilitating symptoms, I just have incredible will power because of of the long distance running I did over the years where I had to endure extreme pain as a matter of sport and competition:



On my other computer I have photo that shows my face covered with welts and extreme fatigue that was taken also in 2014. Sorry I didn't take many photos of myself when I was feeling horrible. I took photos on those days where I had a burst of energy. M.S. is relapsing thus there can be a good day out of a month. And I would go full blast athletics on those rarer good days.

I had noticed that in all the remedies I had experimented with, only the high dose vitamin D3 that I had tested for 1 week in 2012 (and again for 1 week in 2013) had on both occasions eliminated most if not all of the ill health symptoms. But I was afraid to continue that high dosing of vitamin D3 due to risks of kidney damage. So then my M.S. worsened.

Around the end of March, I got into a horrendous argument with my mother because she expressed no sympathy for what I am going through. I got so pissed off, I felt I didn't care any more if I destroyed my kidneys and I was tired of being this fucking whining ass loser that I become relegated to that my mother could look down on me, when in fact I had accomplished much more in my life (before allowing my life to get involved with the wrong people and venues which lead to my downfall).

My mom and I on better days back in 1995:



So I redid the research on the vitamin D3 and found much  more information than in 2012, such as video from the Brazilian neurologists (graduated and interned in the USA) and his claims on curing 95% of 3000+ M.S. patients.

So I decided to renew the vitamin D3 treatment and sustain it, hell or high water.

And thus far, it is working reasonably well and I have a lot more energy and have been working up to 18 hours daily lately. Unfortunately my M.S. got much worse since 2012, thus the vitamin D3 is not giving me the complete cure in 1 week as it appeared to do before. But the quality of my life is drastically improved already and I am hoping for continued improvement.

So back to your main contention, even when I had these horrendous symptoms 2012 - 2015, I would still force myself with superhuman willpower to go out and exercise hard and I could still run fast or do some power activity, but I could not sustain it long. My sprints dropped from 10 x 150 meters to 1 or 2 x 150 meters.

Since I got on the high dose vitamin D3 (since April 1 at least), my endurance and energy is rising. One day I did 350 pushups, then immediately 8 minutes for 2 kms, then 4 x 150 meters sprints. It is no where near what I used to be able to do and what I am sure I could still do if I wasn't sick, but it is a significant improvement and I am grateful.

My problem right now is I am in a financial stress, because my savings is held by a precious metals dealer and they can't seem to give it all to me. They dole it out a little by little and I am afraid they may stop. And thus I am surviving with very little cash cushion.

And I am diverting my energies onto to projects (hoping to raise cash more surely and quickly) which are much less important than what I think I could probably contribute in crypto.

P.S. when I was 26 I looked like I was 16. The following pic was taken in New Orleans in 1991.


Pages: « 1 ... 1140 1141 1142 1143 1144 1145 1146 1147 1148 1149 1150 1151 1152 1153 1154 1155 1156 1157 1158 1159 1160 1161 1162 1163 1164 1165 1166 1167 1168 1169 1170 1171 1172 1173 1174 1175 1176 1177 1178 1179 1180 1181 1182 1183 1184 1185 1186 1187 1188 1189 [1190] 1191 1192 1193 1194 1195 1196 1197 1198 1199 1200 1201 1202 1203 1204 1205 1206 1207 1208 1209 1210 1211 1212 1213 1214 1215 1216 1217 1218 1219 1220 1221 1222 1223 1224 1225 1226 1227 1228 1229 1230 1231 1232 1233 1234 1235 1236 1237 1238 1239 1240 ... 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!