Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[8up]

more and more defectors:

https://blog.xapo.com/announcing-xapos-advisory-board/

Do we have a list of all the current big name defectors?

feel free, to add to it.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/16eHxzLoJk5GnkqNBCrVfBRbXm82-QJRqMq1BStVKDOw/edit?pli=1#gid=0

[1714022351]

1714022351

[1714022351]

1714022351

[1714022351]

1714022351

[1714022351]

1714022351

[1714022351]

1714022351

[Bagatell]

Summers is a trojan horse

i used to enjoy the tinfoil hat aspect to so many bitcoiners, but these days it is just sad & annoying.

Given Mr Summers past achievements and business associates, I too, have to ask where his allegiances lie.

[Natalia_AnatolioPAMM]

Summers is a trojan horse

so true

[bassclef]

more and more defectors:

https://blog.xapo.com/announcing-xapos-advisory-board/

Larry Summers once again.  That means he's now an advisor to both Xapo and 21.

whereas TPTB will scream "conspiracy!", i take it for what i think it is, a darn good bullish thing.  this is promoter of Gibson's Paradox, the tie btwn interest rates and the gold price.  he understands Sound Money.  for him to get behind Bitcoin means he understands the Sound Money aspects of Bitcoin.  that can only help.

Seems like rats fleeing a sinking ship, or at least hedging against it. You'd have to be a special person not to see the what a mess the intertwined global political/financial landscape is in right now. Politico types will go wherever they smell money and opportunity.

[tvbcof]

Summers is a trojan horse

i used to enjoy the tinfoil hat aspect to so many bitcoiners, but these days it is just sad & annoying.

In my scan of this morning's 'gold collapsing, bitcoin up.' thread, I sense that, true to form, the anticipated contingent feels that maybe Summers thinks he can make a ton off Bitcoin and there is a hope from some that they can ride his coat-tails as he surfs the wave.  My 'conspiracy theory' is that Summers has had ample opportunity over his career to amass as much wealth as he desires and he has no need of Bitcoin to help him in this (likely long ago achieved) endeavor.  Summer's track record seems to be one of engineering methods of financial control over the masses (and other lesser states) which is typical off many of those among us who have 'made it' and are interested mostly in moving on-ward and up-ward.  To the run-of-the-mill Bitcoin hodler:  Good luck riding Summer's coat-tails.

On a different topic which is only related to the quoted text, here's one amusing conspiracy 'theories' that I thought of recently:

Say someone finally figured out a mildly workable distributed crypto-currency solution and it passed some bar needed to partially prove it's mettle.  Helping fund Wikilieaks in the face of a block by the mainstream financial system, for instance.

Say this raised Bitcoin to the attention of those who engineered this mainstream financial block and they considered it a viable threat.

Say that the early participants in Bitcoin were a conglomeration of what were mainly losers and it included one unemployed engineer who was bored enough to set up a faucet and thus garner some attention in the community but who clearly loved big brother.

Say TPTB realized that they could easily take out the originator who was something of a lone-wolf and had been fairly careful to preserve his identity to the extent needed to throw off the masses investigative efforts, and install their more more favored 'leader'.  If said 'more appropriate' leader claimed this happened just because 'Satoshi' changed an e-mail address, most of the Bitcoin fanatics would buy the story hook, line, and sinker.

Although well below the bar of 'theory', this hypothesis has some explanatory power.  In particular, if Satoshi is simply no longer among the living it would explain why he's not been heard from and why his quasi-pre-mine have remained static.  More than anything it would explain why Gavin is intent on destroying the solution but in a careful way which seems to exceed his native abilities.

[justusranvier]

more and more defectors:

https://blog.xapo.com/announcing-xapos-advisory-board/

Do we have a list of all the current big name defectors?

feel free, to add to it.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/16eHxzLoJk5GnkqNBCrVfBRbXm82-QJRqMq1BStVKDOw/edit?pli=1#gid=0

Assume some or all of the individuals in this list are saboteurs instead of defectors.

What types of attacks can they carry out?

What countermeasures are available to defend against those attacks?

[Zangelbert Bingledack]

eh, disagree. summers' involvement is tptb driven. nothing more. nothing less.

tptb driven...asunder

[Zangelbert Bingledack]

more and more defectors:

https://blog.xapo.com/announcing-xapos-advisory-board/

Do we have a list of all the current big name defectors?

feel free, to add to it.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/16eHxzLoJk5GnkqNBCrVfBRbXm82-QJRqMq1BStVKDOw/edit?pli=1#gid=0

Nice. A sections for endorsers would be cool, too.

[Carlton Banks]

Until now whenever we’ve needed to transfer money we’ve had to rely on a third party, whether it be a bank, a clearing house or a payment network. Bitcoin offers, for the first time, a method for transferring value and making payments from anywhere to anywhere, in real-time, without any intermediary.

^ Bitcoin is powerful because it is borderless and permissionless.  

This is not true, and people keep repeating it at a concerning rate. The reality isn't quite so snappily summed up, but it's wildly different from this presentation, and that makes it very dangerous misinformation.

There is counter party risk

There is permission

There is trust

And all three are vested in the mining network, and everyone happily sweeps this under the rug at every opportunity. Until someone comes up with a way to decentralise mining (or remove the miners ability to choose which transactions to include), I will not allow people to repeat this misinformation unchallenged.

[Peter R]

Sorry for the OT, but anyone want to do (what I believe is) a simple JavaScript task for some coin?  Place a bid here.

[HeliKopterBen]

Until now whenever we’ve needed to transfer money we’ve had to rely on a third party, whether it be a bank, a clearing house or a payment network. Bitcoin offers, for the first time, a method for transferring value and making payments from anywhere to anywhere, in real-time, without any intermediary.

^ Bitcoin is powerful because it is borderless and permissionless.  

This is not true, and people keep repeating it at a concerning rate. The reality isn't quite so snappily summed up, but it's wildly different from this presentation, and that makes it very dangerous misinformation.

I agree but not in the senstionalist sense that you like to put it.

There is counter party risk

What counter party risk?

There is permission

There is trust

I agree.  However, I would use the terms 'trust-minimized' and 'permission-minimized' instead of trustless and permissionless.  

Nothing is completely trustless.  If we used a scale of 0 to 100, with 0 being completely trustless and 100 needing full trust, then bitcoin is much closer to 0 and fiat currencies are much closer to 100.  

[thezerg]

First off, miners can't spend your coins, they can only deny that you spend them.  So counterparty risk is so significantly diminished as to warrant a different term.  And so is trust.

Second, if you don't like what miners are doing (presumably denying your transactions), you (or more likely a group of similarly minded people) can pool your money and buy your own miners.  (This presupposes that the miners can even identify your transactions which is a necessary step before one can even think about granting permission) Your miners can join the network (without permission) and so some % of blocks mined will be what you want them to be, unless the majority of other miners collectively choose to ignore your blocks at a potential economic disadvantage to themselves.  In which case you can continue on your own fork if you really want.  So again so much less permission is required as compared to traditional payment networks that is does not make sense to claim that bitcoin requires "permission".

[Erdogan]

When considering the general deflation, don't underestimate the different ages of the capital. Low interest skews projects towards long time projects, which happen to be oil, iron and other metals. Oil is 30 years from start of investment (surveying) to finished consumer goods. That is now why the products from oil and other long time, capital intensive industries are too plentiful compared to actual demand. When capitcal cost is zero, any project is profitable, as long as sales pay for daily expenses.

[Adrian-x]

Summers is a trojan horse

i used to enjoy the tinfoil hat aspect to so many bitcoiners, but these days it is just sad & annoying.

Given Mr Summers past achievements and business associates, I too, have to ask where his allegiances lie.

In my mind Summers, knows who the insiders and outsiders are, he is both strong and smart enough to have the foresight to passed up the blue pill, yet being an adviser to Bitcoin start ups is still enough of a buffer to avoid swallowing the red pill.

In my view he is a Professor Bitcoin with lots of wisdom, he seems well positions to ride the Bitcoin wave, or just sit on his surfboard and enjoy the sun.

all the TPTB conspiracy is a bit much at the moment, Bitcoin is not a sure thing by any means, if it were this bear market would turnaround.
If Bitcoin is a highly engendered event, what we could be seeing at this point in time is a  practical review of how big can this scale, even an economic fitness test for both Bitcoin insiders and outsiders.
Bitcoin is still the best shot civilization has at functioning practically. Bitcoin shouldn't escape this downtrend until it is understood it can scale, and while Gavin tackles that, I agree with him that Bitcoin is still a very risky put.

[Fakhoury]

Summers is a trojan horse

i used to enjoy the tinfoil hat aspect to so many bitcoiners, but these days it is just sad & annoying.

Given Mr Summers past achievements and business associates, I too, have to ask where his allegiances lie.

In my mind Summers, knows who the insiders and outsiders are, he is both strong and smart enough to have the foresight to passed up the blue pill, yet being an adviser to Bitcoin start ups is still enough of a buffer to avoid swallowing the red pill.

In my view he is a Professor Bitcoin with lots of wisdom, he seems well positions to ride the Bitcoin wave, or just sit on his surfboard and enjoy the sun.

all the TPTB conspiracy is a bit much at the moment, Bitcoin is not a sure thing by any means, if it were this bear market would turnaround.
If Bitcoin is a highly engendered event, what we could be seeing at this point in time is a  practical review of how big can this scale, even an economic fitness test for both Bitcoin insiders and outsiders.
Bitcoin is still the best shot civilization has at functioning practically. Bitcoin shouldn't escape this downtrend until it is understood it can scale, and while Gavin tackles that, I agree with him that Bitcoin is still a very risky put.

Still I don't get it, why bitcoin is risky put with all movements and effort that are put into ?

[hdbuck]

Summers is a trojan horse

i used to enjoy the tinfoil hat aspect to so many bitcoiners, but these days it is just sad & annoying.

Given Mr Summers past achievements and business associates, I too, have to ask where his allegiances lie.

In my mind Summers, knows who the insiders and outsiders are, he is both strong and smart enough to have the foresight to passed up the blue pill, yet being an adviser to Bitcoin start ups is still enough of a buffer to avoid swallowing the red pill.

In my view he is a Professor Bitcoin with lots of wisdom, he seems well positions to ride the Bitcoin wave, or just sit on his surfboard and enjoy the sun.

all the TPTB conspiracy is a bit much at the moment, Bitcoin is not a sure thing by any means, if it were this bear market would turnaround.
If Bitcoin is a highly engendered event, what we could be seeing at this point in time is a  practical review of how big can this scale, even an economic fitness test for both Bitcoin insiders and outsiders.
Bitcoin is still the best shot civilization has at functioning practically. Bitcoin shouldn't escape this downtrend until it is understood it can scale, and while Gavin tackles that, I agree with him that Bitcoin is still a very risky put.

Still I don't get it, why bitcoin is risky put with all movements and effort that are put into ?

<blockchain summit>

because it's about the blockchain technology

</blockchain summit>


isnt there a Blockchain Foundation somewhere by now?

[Carlton Banks]

Until now whenever we’ve needed to transfer money we’ve had to rely on a third party, whether it be a bank, a clearing house or a payment network. Bitcoin offers, for the first time, a method for transferring value and making payments from anywhere to anywhere, in real-time, without any intermediary.

^ Bitcoin is powerful because it is borderless and permissionless.  

This is not true, and people keep repeating it at a concerning rate. The reality isn't quite so snappily summed up, but it's wildly different from this presentation, and that makes it very dangerous misinformation.

I agree but not in the senstionalist sense that you like to put it.

So, bitcoin is permissionless? I don't see how it's possible to sensationalise such a basic fact. Bitcoin holders can be prevented from spending their bitcoin by a majority of miners: that's just plain statement of facts. Another would be that, currently, no organised scheme exists to politicise the validity of bitcoins. And a further dispassionate fact would be that there always remains a risk that miners will end up in such a scheme while the system still permits it.

There is counter party risk

What counter party risk?

The risk that a counter party represents to your assets (not the same way the expression is applied with physical commodities, but I don't see that as a technical let-off). Bitcoin holders can be prevented from spending their bitcoin by a majority of miners.

Second, if you don't like what miners are doing (presumably denying your transactions), you (or more likely a group of similarly minded people) can pool your money and buy your own miners.  (This presupposes that the miners can even identify your transactions which is a necessary step before one can even think about granting permission) Your miners can join the network (without permission) and so some % of blocks mined will be what you want them to be, unless the majority of other miners collectively choose to ignore your blocks at a potential economic disadvantage to themselves.  In which case you can continue on your own fork if you really want.  So again so much less permission is required as compared to traditional payment networks that is does not make sense to claim that bitcoin requires "permission".

None of that is a practical way around transaction censorship, and certainly not as a solution for all users of bitcoin. The block solution difficulty is just too high for that, and will remain out of reach to all but professional miners until that dynamic can be changed. Someone in the development forum just today came up with "Helical blockchains" as a solution to mining centralisation, more thought needs to go towards that side of things IMO.

[Adrian-x]

Still I don't get it, why bitcoin is risky put with all movements and effort that are put into ?

if it wasn't it would be worth a lot more,

I'm long on Bitcoin, but there is a lot going on and lots of politics. in practice what I'm seeing is political pressure is rivaling the mechanics that makes up the protocol.
This is a huge risk to the future of Bitcoin imo many don't see it as they are practical motivated and circumvent social engineering and political situations. If you can tweak the mechanics of the protocol by leveraging political pressure then Bitcoin will be leveraged by political pressure. Bitcoin does what the economic majority want, the only question in my mind is does the economic majority want to adopt the immutable rules of Bitcoin, or does the economic majority want to tweak the rules by manipulating politics.

[Fakhoury]

Still I don't get it, why bitcoin is risky put with all movements and effort that are put into ?

if it wasn't it would be worth a lot more,

I'm long on Bitcoin, but there is a lot going on and lots of politics. in practice what I'm seeing is political pressure is rivaling the mechanics that makes up the protocol.
This is a huge risk to the future of Bitcoin imo many don't see it as they are practical motivated and circumvent social engineering and political situations. If you can tweak the mechanics of the protocol by leveraging political pressure then Bitcoin will be leveraged by political pressure. Bitcoin does what the economic majority want, the only question in my mind is does the economic majority want to adopt the immutable rules of Bitcoin, or does the economic majority want to tweak the rules by manipulating politics.

This is a good point really, this question raised a flay in my mind, what option would you go with ?

Me, myself, will go with the adaption of the bitcoin rules.

[HeliKopterBen]

Until now whenever we’ve needed to transfer money we’ve had to rely on a third party, whether it be a bank, a clearing house or a payment network. Bitcoin offers, for the first time, a method for transferring value and making payments from anywhere to anywhere, in real-time, without any intermediary.

^ Bitcoin is powerful because it is borderless and permissionless.  

This is not true, and people keep repeating it at a concerning rate. The reality isn't quite so snappily summed up, but it's wildly different from this presentation, and that makes it very dangerous misinformation.

I agree but not in the senstionalist sense that you like to put it.

So, bitcoin is permissionless? I don't see how it's possible to sensationalise such a basic fact. Bitcoin holders can be prevented from spending their bitcoin by a majority of miners: that's just plain statement of facts.

I used the term 'permission-minimized.'  How many times has someone been prevented from spending their coins?  None that I am aware of.  It's just another theoretical attack that doesn't work in practice.