Bitcoin Forum
December 09, 2016, 12:09:08 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 ... 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 1241 1242 [1243] 1244 1245 1246 1247 1248 1249 1250 1251 1252 1253 1254 1255 1256 1257 1258 1259 1260 1261 1262 1263 1264 1265 1266 1267 1268 1269 1270 1271 1272 1273 1274 1275 1276 1277 1278 1279 1280 1281 1282 1283 1284 1285 1286 1287 1288 1289 1290 1291 1292 1293 ... 1560 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.  (Read 1806589 times)
Adrian-x
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1330



View Profile
May 26, 2015, 10:35:15 PM
 #24841

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.


Thank me in Bits 12MwnzxtprG2mHm3rKdgi7NmJKCypsMMQw
1481242148
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481242148

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481242148
Reply with quote  #2

1481242148
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1481242148
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481242148

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481242148
Reply with quote  #2

1481242148
Report to moderator
Fakhoury
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 882


Permabull Bitcoin Investor


View Profile
May 26, 2015, 10:39:31 PM
 #24842

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.

Quote from:  Satoshi Nakamoto
Feb. 14, 2010: I’m sure that in 20 years there will either be very large transaction volume or no volume.
HeliKopterBen
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 622



View Profile
May 26, 2015, 11:18:18 PM
 #24843

Quote from: Lawrence Summers
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.

Counterfeit:  made in imitation of something else with intent to deceive:  merriam-webster
Carlton Banks
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1470



View Profile
May 26, 2015, 11:30:31 PM
 #24844

Quote from: Lawrence Summers
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.

Either it is or it isn't. This is the exact issue I'm trying to draw attention to. It is a big assumption to make that the pressure for miners to conform to government edicts will not increase in step with bitcoin's influence on world finance. By the time that happens, and without an alteration in the barriers to entry for mining or the miners ability to control transactions, then mining centralisation will become even more entrenched.

How are you going to feel if a future mining majority decides that Austrianism is no longer fashionable any more, and Keynesianism is back? 500 BTC superwhales could end up with something closer to 500 dollars.

Vires in numeris
HeliKopterBen
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 622



View Profile
May 26, 2015, 11:53:46 PM
 #24845

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.

Either it is or it isn't. This is the exact issue I'm trying to draw attention to. It is a big assumption to make that the pressure for miners to conform to government edicts will not increase in step with bitcoin's influence on world finance. By the time that happens, and without an alteration in the barriers to entry for mining or the miners ability to control transactions, then mining centralisation will become even more entrenched.

How are you going to feel if a future mining majority decides that Austrianism is no longer fashionable any more, and Keynesianism is back? 500 BTC superwhales could end up with something closer to 500 dollars.

It is highly unlikely to happen as radically as you describe.  If this were to happen, then most likely we would end up with an Austrian fork and a Keynesian fork dueling it out, which I could see possibly happening.  Users would have to make a choice between one or the other, or a combination of the two.  This is the likely outcome in your scenario because bitcoin is global and can be forked easily.  The dollar or Euro cannot be forked with a new set of rules applied, so this scenario is impossible with legacy currencies.

Counterfeit:  made in imitation of something else with intent to deceive:  merriam-webster
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
May 27, 2015, 12:08:38 AM
 #24846

need some opinions on this, from Reddit:

"Second, if push comes to shove and we end up with a fork battle then whoever holds the most will have the most power in choosing which wins out anyway. They can simply sell on one fork and buy on the other to shift the relative values. Whichever fork ends up most valuable will attract the most miners. Stronger value and security will attract more users to that fork."

is this viable?  this could be interesting...
Carlton Banks
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1470



View Profile
May 27, 2015, 12:16:51 AM
 #24847

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.

Either it is or it isn't. This is the exact issue I'm trying to draw attention to. It is a big assumption to make that the pressure for miners to conform to government edicts will not increase in step with bitcoin's influence on world finance. By the time that happens, and without an alteration in the barriers to entry for mining or the miners ability to control transactions, then mining centralisation will become even more entrenched.

How are you going to feel if a future mining majority decides that Austrianism is no longer fashionable any more, and Keynesianism is back? 500 BTC superwhales could end up with something closer to 500 dollars.

It is highly unlikely to happen as radically as you describe.  If this were to happen, then most likely we would end up with an Austrian fork and a Keynesian fork dueling it out, which I could see possibly happening.  Users would have to make a choice between one or the other, or a combination of the two.  This is the likely outcome in your scenario because bitcoin is global and can be forked easily.  The dollar or Euro cannot be forked with a new set of rules applied, so this scenario is impossible with legacy currencies.

And given that most likely of outcomes in my apparently extreme scenario, bitcoin ceases to be. You state this in a way that implies an unavoidable consequence: that no-one would risk such an outcome, as the stakes are too high for something as trivial as having a "sound" (i.e. Keynesian) money system, right? I don't believe you're imagining this from the perspective of a) the tiny minority of influential figures in government and corporations, or b) the majority of people who are ignorant not just to cryptocurrency, but even their regular currency.

Vires in numeris
Peter R
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 938



View Profile
May 27, 2015, 12:18:05 AM
 #24848

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.

Either it is or it isn't [permissionless]…


I dunno; that doesn't seem like a useful way to look at it.  By similar logic, could one not state:

   Either Blockchain signatures are forgeable or unforgeable

and then, since there's a 1 in 1461501637330902918203684832716283019655932542975 odds of picking a private key that will allow you to forge a signature, conclude that:

    Blockchain signatures are forgeable  

It's technically true, but practically useless.  

Anyways, is this not just semantics? According to my definition, Bitcoin is permissionless.  If it ever becomes non-permissionless, then it would cease being Bitcoin.  Maybe that's a more useful way to look at it.  The question then becomes, will it ever stop being bitcoin?

I thought Adrian-X made a great comment about this (riffing on the point ZB often makes, and related to the question Cypherdoc asks above):

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.

Does the ecomonic majority want permissionless, borderless bitcoin or something else?

Run Bitcoin Unlimited (www.bitcoinunlimited.info)
Carlton Banks
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1470



View Profile
May 27, 2015, 12:35:33 AM
 #24849

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.

Either it is or it isn't [permissionless]…


I dunno; that doesn't seem like a useful way to look at it.  By similar logic, could one not state:

   Either Blockchain signatures are forgeable or unforgeable

and then, since there's a 1 in 1461501637330902918203684832716283019655932542975 odds of picking a private key that will allow you to forge a signature, conclude that:

    Blockchain signatures are forgeable  

It's technically true, but practically useless.  

Anyways, is this not just semantics? According to my definition, Bitcoin is permissionless.  If it ever becomes non-permissionless, then it would cease being Bitcoin.  Maybe that's a more useful way to look at it.  The question then becomes, will it ever stop being bitcoin?

I thought Adrian-X made a great comment about this (riffing on the point ZB often makes, and the point Cypherdoc makes above):

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.

Does the ecomonic majority want permissionless, borderless bitcoin or something else?


There is no "practical uselessness" to this property of the bitcoin system in anything like the way you present with your comparison; there is no similarity in the logic at all. One is a question of statistical probability of guessing a number from an impracticably sized domain. And the resolution depends only on the math. The other has nothing to do with any branch of mathematics at all, it's about decisions made by humans, dependent only on social or moral values. I do not take your comparison seriously, Peter.

And you're saying the same thing that anyone else seems to: that because miners do not and have not censored transactions, they never will. This is clearly not the case, and I would argue it's an unwise assumption.

Vires in numeris
Peter R
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 938



View Profile
May 27, 2015, 12:44:30 AM
 #24850

...
And you're saying the same thing that anyone else seems to: that because miners do not and have not censored transactions, they never will. This is clearly not the case, and I would argue it's an unwise assumption.


What do you say to the argument that, if the miners ever enforced rules that were unacceptable to the economic majority, that we'd push Adam Back's "big red button" by forking the protocol, rendering all their hardware useless?


Run Bitcoin Unlimited (www.bitcoinunlimited.info)
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
May 27, 2015, 12:49:34 AM
 #24851

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.

Either it is or it isn't [permissionless]…


I dunno; that doesn't seem like a useful way to look at it.  By similar logic, could one not state:

   Either Blockchain signatures are forgeable or unforgeable

and then, since there's a 1 in 1461501637330902918203684832716283019655932542975 odds of picking a private key that will allow you to forge a signature, conclude that:

    Blockchain signatures are forgeable  

It's technically true, but practically useless.  

Anyways, is this not just semantics? According to my definition, Bitcoin is permissionless.  If it ever becomes non-permissionless, then it would cease being Bitcoin.  Maybe that's a more useful way to look at it.  The question then becomes, will it ever stop being bitcoin?

I thought Adrian-X made a great comment about this (riffing on the point ZB often makes, and the point Cypherdoc makes above):

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.

Does the ecomonic majority want permissionless, borderless bitcoin or something else?


There is no "practical uselessness" to this property of the bitcoin system in anything like the way you present with your comparison; there is no similarity in the logic at all. One is a question of statistical probability of guessing a number from an impracticably sized domain. And the resolution depends only on the math. The other has nothing to do with any branch of mathematics at all, it's about decisions made by humans, dependent only on social or moral values. I do not take your comparison seriously, Peter.

And you're saying the same thing that anyone else seems to: that because miners do not and have not censored transactions, they never will. This is clearly not the case, and I would argue it's an unwise assumption.


in honor of John Nash:

https://twitter.com/cypherdoc2/status/602533856290349056
Carlton Banks
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1470



View Profile
May 27, 2015, 01:17:30 AM
 #24852

...
And you're saying the same thing that anyone else seems to: that because miners do not and have not censored transactions, they never will. This is clearly not the case, and I would argue it's an unwise assumption.


What do you say to the argument that, if the miners ever enforced rules that were unacceptable to the economic majority, that we'd push Adam Back's "big red button" by forking the protocol, rendering all their hardware useless?

I agree with that assessment, except for the "rendering all their hardware useless" part. I've expressed the same point a different way already. The miners that won't take an ethical stand would continue to mine the bitcoin network, and the economic majority might find their minds will change when they are similarly pressurised.


I'm not sure whether you're defining the boundaries of this particular game too leniently. You're approaching this from the perspective of the miners self-interest in respect of each other, but they're not the only actors playing, and monetary systems are not the only game dynamic. What stops government saying "never mind your sound money game, allow me to introduce you to the game we're actually playing..."

Vires in numeris
shmadz
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1428


@theshmadz


View Profile
May 27, 2015, 01:23:28 AM
 #24853

need some opinions on this, from Reddit:

"Second, if push comes to shove and we end up with a fork battle then whoever holds the most will have the most power in choosing which wins out anyway. They can simply sell on one fork and buy on the other to shift the relative values. Whichever fork ends up most valuable will attract the most miners. Stronger value and security will attract more users to that fork."

is this viable?  this could be interesting...

Mircea proposes something similar as an attack or defense against Gavincoin.

http://qntra.net/2015/01/the-hard-fork-missile-crisis/
http://trilema.com/2015/if-you-go-on-a-bitcoin-fork-irrespective-which-scammer-proposes-it-you-will-lose-your-bitcoins/

You can love him or hate him but he does have a certain amount of both funding and following...

Gotta love bitcoin drama, lol

"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
majamalu
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1652



View Profile WWW
May 27, 2015, 02:13:44 AM
 #24854


 What stops government saying "never mind your sound money game, allow me to introduce you to the game we're actually playing..."


In Bitcoin you "vote" for what will happen to your own money, not other people's money. This is the big difference, and the reason why the state can not co-opt it.

http://elbitcoin.org - Bitcoin en español
http://mercadobitcoin.com - MercadoBitcoin
thezerg
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1246


View Profile
May 27, 2015, 02:20:45 AM
 #24855

need some opinions on this, from Reddit:

"Second, if push comes to shove and we end up with a fork battle then whoever holds the most will have the most power in choosing which wins out anyway. They can simply sell on one fork and buy on the other to shift the relative values. Whichever fork ends up most valuable will attract the most miners. Stronger value and security will attract more users to that fork."

is this viable?  this could be interesting...

Mircea proposes something similar as an attack or defense against Gavincoin.

http://qntra.net/2015/01/the-hard-fork-missile-crisis/
http://trilema.com/2015/if-you-go-on-a-bitcoin-fork-irrespective-which-scammer-proposes-it-you-will-lose-your-bitcoins/

You can love him or hate him but he does have a certain amount of both funding and following...

Gotta love bitcoin drama, lol

His post is mostly FUD because he is pushing an Anti-Gavin agenda and myopically assumes himself to be on the winning side rather than looking at the system as a whole.

If the world was beautiful and clean a fork would instantly separate the networks, so if you had N coins on Bitcoin, you'd now have N on BitcoinA and N on BitcoinB.  Someone would then quickly put up an exchange site that let you trade BitcoinA for BitcoinB, so you could sell the side you think will lose and buy the other, or choose nothing, in which case you'd end up unaffected (that is, still with N coins) once one fork dwindled to nothing.

But the reality is more complicated and you'd need careful code analysis and probably simulation to figure it out.  Yes you have N coins on both forks but the problem is that when you issue a transaction, it will be picked up by BOTH forks.  You can't spend on just one fork!  Your txn is valid on both, and even if you figure out how to "trigger" it on just one fork, the receiver could reissue it on the other thereby "stealing" your coins on the other fork.

But in theory the receiver would not have to; pending transactions won't be purged, so BitcoinA and BitcoinB would process the same transactions on different blockchains forever, keeping the forks in sync.  In practice, the smaller blockchain would probably drop some pending transactions eventually, resulting in a slow divergence.  Could you force this divergence?  It would take careful code analysis to figure out a way, but it would certainly be messy and probability based.  But eventually when transactions increase to consistently exceed the capacity of blocks in the smaller chain it would chew up all RAM and crash the code today (as per Mike Hearn's analysis).  But if patches were added clean that up, then finally you'd be able to pretty reliably target a transaction to a particular fork (by giving a txn fee too low for the fork with smaller blocks, for example).  Once you get the first single-fork transaction, you can now spend those coins independently because they are on different addresses on different forks.

At that point, both forks would see and attempt to apply each other's transactions, so you end up with lots of spends from "invalid" addresses "spamming" the network.  This would be a huge mess for statistics, visibility and analysis sites like blockchain.info.

Rather then risk the mess above, it would probably be better to add a "version" field to the transactions (and every other protocol message), change this version field EVEN if that protocol message didn't actually change, and have clients ignore messages of the wrong version.  Write your new clients to rev the version field once a particular block # is mined.  This would get you a clean separation.


TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
May 27, 2015, 03:21:28 AM
 #24856

INVALID BBCODE: close of unopened tag in table (1)

Adrian-x
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1330



View Profile
May 27, 2015, 03:54:55 AM
 #24857

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.

me too, but the Venture capital coming in at the moment seems to be hedging the other way, Blockstream being an extreme example. 

Thank me in Bits 12MwnzxtprG2mHm3rKdgi7NmJKCypsMMQw
TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
May 27, 2015, 04:03:35 AM
 #24858

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?

They are not defecting. They are saboteurs (or allies depending on your goals) subsuming Bitcoin into the mainstream financial system and the plan for the NWO.

Very simple. They have monopolized the mining (ASICs concentrated into farms, 21 Inc, pools hidden behind Sybil attack) and the userbase (Coinbase, Paypal, Circle, Bitpay, etc). Checkmate.

Do you eat delusion for breakfast every morning?

P.S. Bitcoin will succeed in being widely adoped, because the elite want it to succeed. But they will be in control of Bitcoin. The decentralized, permission-less quality of Bitcoin will be a propaganda lie only, not reality.

TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
May 27, 2015, 04:17:42 AM
 #24859


 What stops government saying "never mind your sound money game, allow me to introduce you to the game we're actually playing..."


In Bitcoin you "vote" for what will happen to your own money, not the money of others. This is the big difference, and the reason why the state can not co-opt it.

Did they not teach you in Political Economics 101 that democracy and voting is power vacuum, thus a winner-take-all paradigm?

Will you continue to eat the democracy lie for breakfast that the intellectuals have been feeding you ever since you stopped accepting a mirror in exchange for your ancestral land?



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.

Does the ecomonic majority want permissionless, borderless bitcoin or something else?

Does a cow not want to eat grass? Does a human not want to urinate and shit?

Some things are immutable because otherwise they can't exist without. The elite exist because they enslave those of you who wish to be enslaved because you eat delusion every day. Without that paradigm, they can not exist.

Larry Summers and the financial elite can't give up their power and join a power-sharing arrangement in a decentralized Bitcoin, because Bitcoin is a power vacuum that is winner-take-all by whoever will monopolize the mining and users.

Until we make crypto-currency technically impossible to monopolize, then we've given them no choice but to do what they do best.

Bitcoin's design can't resist monopolization. Impossible. Do I need to repeat all the detailed reasons again?



That power elite conspire to capture power vacuums is fact, not theory. Conspiracy theory is a term used by people who wish to live in a fantasy nirvana of democracy, voting, equality, human rights, etc. (it doesn't exist, the world is run by a Club and you ain't in it). All lies pitched to you by those whose role is to capture the power vacuum you've collectively laid out for them.

TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
May 27, 2015, 04:43:44 AM
 #24860

Hope the light bulb goes on:

http://thedailycoin.org/?p=30597


Soros funded the Ferguson protests.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jan/14/george-soros-funds-ferguson-protests-hopes-to-spur/?page=all

Kochs and the Rockefellers (fossil fuel and bankster oligarchs, pitched by intellectuals as "good plutocrats" were instrumental in the creation of the UN) BOTH have foundations that are the major sponsors of the Colorado Climate Project with it's Agenda 21 directives.
http://www.thecommonsenseshow.com/2013/12/01/the-agenda-21-enslavement-of-colorado/
Kochs are the antithesis to the Rockefeller thesis on many issues, ultimately both have the same agenda. This is the Hegelian dialectic (i.e. the good car salesman and bad car salesman ploy[1]) paradigm employed by the elite. The Kochs are known globalists going back to their father funding and organizing the development of what eventually became the controlled opposition John Birch Society.

Bitcoin is another such "controlled opposition" thesis and antithesis paradigm.

[1]http://www.businessinsider.com/how-to-avoid-21-car-dealer-scams-tricks-2013-9?op=1

Quote
Good Guy, Bad Guy

The Scam: Similar to the classic good cop, bad cop routine, one salesmen is "honest" and can be trusted, but his sales manager is hard to deal with.

This strategy is meant to [get you to trust the "good" guy (who really has same agenda as the bad guy)], forcing you to agree to a bad deal.


If you geeks are still so damn gullible as to fall for the Good Guy, Bad Guy scam, then it is hopeless.

P.S. I assume many readers here are aware that Google, Facebook, etc were funded and created by the CIA under their data mining initiatives. We are battling a DEEP STATE with a massive $3 trillion budget.



...

TPTB

I caught the following re Larry Summers just now:

https://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/visas-hock-citibanks-reed-former-treasury-secretary-summers-join-xapos-advisory-board/

Three suspicious types joining Xapo's Board...

(Message)

http://willembuiter.com/ELB.pdf

Citi research on eliminating currency and the benefits to banksters and big gov.

Pages: « 1 ... 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 1241 1242 [1243] 1244 1245 1246 1247 1248 1249 1250 1251 1252 1253 1254 1255 1256 1257 1258 1259 1260 1261 1262 1263 1264 1265 1266 1267 1268 1269 1270 1271 1272 1273 1274 1275 1276 1277 1278 1279 1280 1281 1282 1283 1284 1285 1286 1287 1288 1289 1290 1291 1292 1293 ... 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!