Bitcoin Forum
June 26, 2017, 05:35:24 AM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.14.2  [Torrent].
 
   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 ... 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 1294 1295 1296 1297 1298 1299 1300 1301 1302 1303 1304 1305 ... 1559 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.  (Read 1922035 times)
TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
May 30, 2015, 02:05:52 AM
 #25081

Pretty bold claims from Middleton, but I have tried it and it works, at least in a beta phase, not vapor phase or proof of concept phase, but beta phase.  You can trade all tickers that Cypherdoc mentions on here.  

I still don't understand how the tickers are fed into veritaseum to settle the bets. Can you explain that?

Saying "it works" without understanding how it works is short-sighted.

Twice or thrice I tried to find technical documentation (wading through all the promotional crap) and was stifled, so I assumed it is centralized bullshit.

That's not a fair presumption. Most tech dudes (and most people in general) use the financial system and have absolutely no idea how it works. Does that mean that your money doesn't spend? Veritaseum, from a capital perspective, is fully decentralized. It is the only automated system that I know of that is fully autonomous in that you keep your private keys private and on your client under your control. All transactions are peer to peer through the blockchain, and our server doesn't touch, house, hold, custody or control a single satoshi of your coin. Read http://veritaseum.com/index.php/homes/1-blog/128-will-new-vc-investment-trump-the-returns-of-the-early-movers-in-the-digital-currency-space-quite-possibly-let-me-show-you-how and http://veritaseum.com/index.php/homes/1-blog/94-bitcoin-1-0-vs-2-0-or-a-comparison-of-legacy-exchanges-veritaseum-s-ultracoin for the difference between centralized and decentralized systems.
As an aside, the vast majority of bitcoin traders don't seem to have a problem with centralized systems as they freely send their decentralized assets to fully centralized entities to house, trade and exchange. Just a little food for thought.

If it is really just a protocol, then by definition there is nothing to stop someone from bypassing your client and writing directly to the protocol, cutting out the Middleton-man.

I am assuming there is some proprietary lockin somewhere in there, but without code and technical documentation, why should I (or other hackers/geeks/tech dudes) consume my (our) time trying to understand the system using inefficient means of trying to deobfuscate what you ostensibly (at least last time I looked) want to obfuscate. I will take a quick glance at the links above, but if they don't get direct to the technical points (as what I saw on your website before) then I will not expend more time.

P.S. some of us do understand both economics and programming. That is not to say I have any insider or real-world WallStreet experience (thank the almighty for that blessing).

Edit: I glanced at the links. Reggie we know already all about the virtues and design of decentralized exchanges. We understand the use of a mutually trusted "Facilitator" (Escrow agent). We understand the need for decentralized, consensus data feeds (which you apparently don't yet have in your system). We do not need to read all that shit over and over again. When we ask for technical documentation, we mean precisely that and none of this marketing overhead. Some of us are much more aware than you may think. We are also thinking about these sorts of designs and markets too (believe me you were not any where close to being the first).

I do not understand how to expect to gain traction. You can leverage your reputation and connections in the financial sphere, but afaics you do not know how to interface with the tech dudes who are the core of the Bitcoin sphere. IMO, if you want us on board, this has to be a collaborative effort and open source system. And so then how do you make your ROI on this? Does this project have its own coin (I think not). The world is not going to adopt Reggie-wallet. Sorry. You will need an open protocol and another way to make your ROI.

Perhaps there is some way to leverage your strengths and the open source community, but afaics you haven't partnered with the right CTO to get it done. I see more of a closed-source, proprietary, marketing spin philosophy thus far.

Also you appear to be building a specific protocol for trading options. Ethereum (and CounterParty?) is in the space of creating a programmable block chain wherein there can be a free market competition amongst protocols. I suggested last year that Ethereum can never scale and the only solution is merge-minded chains for programmable chains.

Some of us are thinking much bigger and more open than you. You should not assume you are the next Google. I highly doubt it.

P.S. your calls on Apple and Google were obvious to me also (before I found out about you on Zerohedge). I had written similar predictions on http://esr.ibiblio.org perhaps before you did. My point is your very boastful marketing spins are out of proportion to the technical acumen display openly thus far. Perhaps your team are technical wizards, but I don't know.

You are awfully confrontational. Why is that? What boasting are you speaking of. I believe I have over 80 vindicated contrarian calls covering many industries and sovereign nations, going back to 2006. Is that what you consider boasting? If so, it's not - it's marketing, designed to inform those who don't know who I am (likely many in this forum) of what I've accomplished in the past. Now, on to your points.

Anyone can, with enough effort, reproduce anything that's done on Wall Street, yet somehow Wall Street thrives. The reasons are a) its often difficult without both capital resources and specialized knowledge b) its really just not worth it much of the time c) many don't know how.

We are a financial software company, thus our core audience are financial types, not "technical dudes" as you describe them. Goldman, Bitfinex, itBit, JP Morgan and Citi don't have technical documents on their site describing what they do and how they do it. They offer you a service and/or solution and you decide if you want to use it. For some reason, you are not comparing us to our competitors, you are comparing us to a technical concern. I don't believe that is fair.

As for understanding economics, that has little to do with what we have built. Financial engineering, valuation and markets knowledge are much, much more useful in understanding what we're doing than economics will ever be.

As for proprietary lock-in, we let you keep your keys, and the code is on your client. We provide a service, just like a financial institutions does. It's simply that since our service and code is based on autonomy, you are in control. The institutions that you are used to dealing with are heteronomous, hence they must usurp control to reap margin - two very, very different business models. You can guess which one I think is superior. Time will tell if enough of the world agrees with me.

Your assertions about who was the first to do this and that are totally unnecessary. For one, you have no idea when I started doing anything that I did. In addition, its a useless debate anyway. Who really cares who was first, second or third? Really. What actually matters is who has a usable product now, and will that product be able to blossom and grow into the future. Isn't this correct? Now, enough of the unwarranted challenges. I'm here to work with you guys.

If you want to work with me to improve the code, then by all means let's do it. The code is not open sourced for legal, business and logistical reasons, but I as founder am willing to have the community work on it, we just need the resources to manage such. Keep in mind that this is going significantly above what ALL of our competition is willing to, or has done thus far. As for our CTO, he is quite qualified. Very, very few CTOs can right competent legal contracts. Very few IP lawyers can architect and design competent legal code. Our CTO is ivy league trained in both fields and has 15 years experience in payments with some of the biggest names in the industry. I'm proud to have him on board as part of the project. We are more open than any derivatives concern that I know of. If I'm mistaken, then please point that out.

We don't trade options. You are mistaken. We deal in smart contracted, OTC, P2P swaps. I believe our system is more advanced than anything available on Counterparty and Ethereum, and more importantly it is up and running and working right now.

You said, "Some of us are thinking much bigger and more open than you. You should not assume you are the next Google. I highly doubt it.". Well, I love you too! :-)  Grin May I suggest a more friendly, less insulting approach? I don't recall assuming anything of the sort.

In the marketing blog posts which you linked to in your prior post in this thread, I've read the comparison to the next Google et al; and afaics there is not a clear delineation whether you are referring to the trend of Bitcoin 2.0 or your effort specifically. It comes across (at least to me) as wanting to sell yours as the big breakthrough vastly superior (in terms of being first to innovate, patents, and insight) over efforts before and ongoing in crypto. I found that to be paradigmatically (not personally) offensive because you are creating a for-profit company approach and as I understand the entire point of decentralized crypto-currency is to remove the profit from the center of the network and push the profit out to the ends of the network.

Thus finally fulfilling the essential End-to-end Principal of the internet's network design onto the monetary attributes of the internet.

I am so fanatical about that attribute of crypto-currency not even for ideological preferences, rather pragmatic because I believe we are headed into a totalitarian abyss of epic proportions[1] and only systems which are monetarily End-to-end structured will prosper medium-term (2018+) and beyond.

Note I am not a Communist and I am not against profit. I am speaking about the paradigm of where profit originates (at the ends, where the Knowledge Age producers are[1]) and about Anti-fragility and resilience of networks and societies.

So let me respond to all your posts by saying I don't dislike you and I don't have any personal animosity towards you. I am actually a very friendly, smiling, and amicable person. At the moment, I feel an intense tiger fight inside of me because of what we are facing here. I think perhaps you are oblivious. And thus you are proceeding in mainstream financial circles as if no paradigmatic cliff is awaiting you and the mainstream.

Someone important asked me in private about your effort, and my pragmatic advice was essentially, "it is too non-standard for the WallStreet types he wants to target, and too closed-source, top-down business model for the rest of us in the Bitcoin sphere to adopt". I don't think you have a market. Thus you can offend (or cause us to ignore) the techie crowd that want an end-to-end monetary world and fail to gain the trust of the mainstream as well (btw if I was a mainstream investor and I saw all that bling-bling imagery and "blahblahblah" verbiage all over your website, I would leave and not come back. Get to the point and make it look more conservative like a financial services company). Perhaps I am wrong if you can target the Europeans who will be fleeing their October 2015 economic cliff into US dollars and US dollar assets. Afaik there is no coin attached to your effort, thus there is no wealth effect reason for the speculators to stampede into your effort. Afaics, you are trying to sell services with a proprietary model that violates the End-to-end principle.

Perhaps we can find some way to work with your system by attaching some open-source interoperable interface on it. For example, if we can figure out some way that individuals can trade mainstream assets anonymously with minimal counter party risk, that is big plus. Note that any such interoption is going to (via decentralized innovation) over time subsume your business model into the superior economics of the End-to-end principle, except for any server services that can't be subsumed due to social or technical limitations.

I think we need to dig into the details before we can make any more definitive statements than those abstractions.

One of the frustrations is your business model and marketing choices, has made it very inefficient to dig into the details. You are probably losing synergy opportunities by not interfacing to the techie crowd in our preferred modes of interaction (e.g. show us the code and technical documents on a github account).

Closed source will die over time except at the ends of the network.

The crypto market is choosing leaders who (and movements which) can fulfill the End-to-end Principle of meritocracy onto the monetary attributes of the world.

P.S. I was aware you had chosen your CTO for his experience with law in addition to his technical acumen. I am not claiming he isn't talented. Rather I am just addressing the market and paradigmatic realities as I see them. He was chosen to lead a business model which I believe is antithetical to the direction crypto and the world is headed.

[1]One-world reserve currency inevitable...
Economic Devastation
Economic Totalitarianism
Is a Madmax outcome coming before 2020? Thus do we need anonymity?

Note I formerly posted under the pseudonym AnonyMint and several others.

1498455324
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1498455324

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1498455324
Reply with quote  #2

1498455324
Report to moderator
1498455324
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1498455324

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1498455324
Reply with quote  #2

1498455324
Report to moderator
There are several different types of Bitcoin clients. Hybrid server-assisted clients like Electrum get a lot of their network information from centralized servers, but they also check the server's results using blockchain header data. This is perhaps somewhat more secure than either server-assisted clients or header-only clients.
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1498455324
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1498455324

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1498455324
Reply with quote  #2

1498455324
Report to moderator
1498455324
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1498455324

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1498455324
Reply with quote  #2

1498455324
Report to moderator
shmadz
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1470


@theshmadz


View Profile
May 30, 2015, 02:12:18 AM
 #25082

Gavin moving forward. Will you be left behind? :

http://sourceforge.net/p/bitcoin/mailman/message/34155307/

There you go again.  Using fear (this time, of being "left behind" from the glorious rapture of GavinCoin) to sell a hard fork.

The rough consensus of all non-Gavin core devs is against 20mb blocks in the near future.

But for some reason, Gavin will only accept a consensus which aligns with his position.  Who does he think he is, Linux Torvalds or Evan Duffield?

So how does Gavin the pointy-headed boss react to being unable to convince his coders and engineers?

By lobbying (*cough, panicking, cough*) the drooling masses in an attempt to overrule the experts with a stampeding mob.

That's not the path of "calm down already" suggested by Nick Szabo.

The Gavin tail is trying to wag the core dev dog, which guarantees the predictable "rancor" he's whining about.

Ironically, when the wheels fall off of GavinCoin because of UXTO assplosions or whatever, these spurned core devs will be the ones Gavin and everyone else will turn to for solutions.  Typical "Oops I broke it, now you fix it" pointy-headed boss behavior!   Cheesy

If persistent full 1mb blocks turn out to be an insurmountable problem, consensus to modify that limit would not need to be manufactured with lobbying and tales of impending dooom.

take a look at how a rag tag army of volunteers can clog up the network.  we're still stuck at over 23000 unconf tx's, with a peak around 25000, now about 2 hrs later:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/37rwph/stress_test_for_the_next_few_hours_ill_be/

I just sent a test transaction, just a quick spend from my Blockchain.info spending wallet, and it made it into the very next block, so as far as my experience goes, that rag tag army clogged up exactly nothing.




"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 30, 2015, 02:57:13 AM
 #25083

...

it's just based on the general concept of a swap thus possibly quite different from what many are used to. Think in terms of buying one exposure and paying for it with another. Use tickers to describe each exposure you'd like to buy (receive) and sell (pay) and voila, you've created your first swap contract! Don't use time based tickers that contain dates (ex. options or futures). If you want a high leverage contract based on an underlying or an index, you can use a ticker to access that underlying or index directly (ex 10 year treasury) then use our leverage option to dial in as much gearing as your stomach can handle. Its digital, and its unlimited (theoretically up to 10,000x). This way you avoid theta and time decay issues inherent in options, as well has delta and gamma and sensitivity to volatility. As I mentioned to the guy in the previous post these are swaps, not options. Options are not well suited for bitcoin speculation due to their sensitivity to volatility and bitcoins extreme volatility.

...

This is interesting to me, because conceptually I visualize that replacing a thresholding criteria (which can have aliasing error) with a criteria that is based on an average state over time thus I assume (without digging into the math) removes the aliasing error and thus the unnecessary carrying cost of implied volatility for options. I am not familiar with swaps nor have I studied the math for Black-Scholes implied volatility. Note to self to dig into this concept in the future. This is very important to me if it applies to the carry cost of hedging altcoin volatility.

Reggie afair this is not succinctly communicated on your company website.

Maybe you should clarify it for us "N00bs". Exactly what does HFT have to do with digital OTC swaps, particularly P2P swaps. For the life of me, I can't figure it out and as far as I know I believe I created them.

After several tries of attempting to digest your website in a reasonably quick perusal, the distinction about the focus on swaps was not communicated to me. Normally I am known to have in the 99th percentile of reading comprehension (perhaps will not be the case from here forward because I am skimming and rushing). Perhaps that is because I am not a trader and not familiar with swaps, thus the word takes on its general definition for me, not the financial derivative. So is it my fault or your communication style? I dunno but I am betting on the latter.

I've tried to watch some Youtubes of you speaking in the past, and you do not communicate efficiently to me. I get tired of waiting for you to get to the point. Your writing style here in this forum is more direct to the point.

Note that HFT was not the only concern I enumerated nor are all my concerns (as expressed in "etc") bounded by the enumerated items. I was speaking paradigmatically about the "devil is in the details" and the inherent risks of closed source.


He is a troll, Reggie.

You apparently don't realize that expressing an opinion does not make a person a troll. But calling a person who expresses an opinion a troll, makes you one.

Can you make any point?

TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
May 30, 2015, 03:18:34 AM
 #25084

The reason we have to worry about miners producing "too large" blocks is because they don't pay for all the P2P network resources they use (neither do end users).

All the arguments we have about resource consumption are derived from that primary design flaw.

If we fix it, then we won't have to argue any more.

Any mechanism you envision must also incorporate the fact that if collusion and monopolistic strategies are viable, they will be deployed.

Miners and pools have an incentive to include as many txns as they can get paid for and scale up the resource requirements to drive small miners to pools. So the community got up in arms about GHash.io, so no problem just hide your ownership behind a Sybil attack on the pools (that is surely the case today) so the community is either ignorantly pacified or can play Whack-A-Mole.

Even if you made txns free or negative cost (miners pay spenders), the incentive of the prior paragraph remains.

There is fundamental design flaw here that can't be fixed without radical overhaul of the design of PoW.
Economic FUD appears to be the type most resistant to being discarded after having been falsified. That particular bit has been floating around for over a century despite being thoroughly debunked.

https://www.mises.org/library/myth-natural-monopoly-0

The so called "natural monopoly" that has been falsified does not apply to what I wrote. Indeed it is preposterous to assume that all utility markets are naturally uniform to the extent that one provider can gain lower-cost economies-of-scale over all markets. Markets are diverse and require local differentiation (for reasons including Antifragility). However, if the monopolist can capture the State, then the monopoly becomes viable.

I am stating above that if the monopolist can capture nearly ubiquitous economies-of-scale in the social and economic inertia of the coin, then the monopoly is viable.

In short, remove the word "natural" from your retort, then it falls apart. I am using the word "viable" not "natural". The distinction is semantics around the ramifications of lower-cost and Antifragility. The Mises Institute seems to perhaps imply the Iron Law Of Political Economics is not natural.  Roll Eyes (but I just skimmed the linked page)

There's a peculiar kind of incoherence about people who can argue both for decentralization and also argue that users of the system can not be relied up to decide their own best interests.

The incoherence is yours because you don't seem to reason out that individual incentives can be misaligned with global optimization of systems and societies. Again read the Iron Law of Political Economics.

Generally speaking you seem to lack the intellect (or desire/motivation?) to consider all the possibilities of issues you entertain.


lol so now gavin is only considering mike's opinion. plus calling for lobbying ( big fat not-so-democratic word here Shocked ) from merchants and centralized businesses...

mymy.. USG get out of this body! Roll Eyes

Exactly as I wrote since 2013, that it would play out.

Monopolists capturing the social and economic inertia...


As block rewards diminishes the Nash equilibrium is introduced and miners become marginalized with little to no power in the system.

This is otherwise known as a power vacuum of the Tragedy of the Commons and I warned in 2013 that it makes monopolies viable.

TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
May 30, 2015, 03:48:58 AM
 #25085

It's not possible to build a currency on misanthropy.

You seem to often conflate orthogonal concerns. We can fight the global cancer which some 50% are individually aligned, while still having their best interests in mind[1].

Mass education...

There is no shortcut.

Paradigms don't shift by educating people to ignore their individual incentives and go for global optimization. Rather the waterfall crashes force the adjustments.

[1]https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=355212.msg11462546#msg11462546
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=355212.msg11469562#msg11469562


It is very much expected that the individual incentives are to be more concerned about the Bitcoin price than the greater implications of this totalitarianism and Ross's plight.

Individuals do not prioritize the global optimization of the society, but rather our own selfish incentives.

iCEBREAKER
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1708


https://monero.stackexchange.com/a/1203


View Profile WWW
May 30, 2015, 04:02:53 AM
 #25086

take a look at how a rag tag army of volunteers can clog up the network.  we're still stuck at over 23000 unconf tx's, with a peak around 25000, now about 2 hrs later:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/37rwph/stress_test_for_the_next_few_hours_ill_be/

 Angry  Good.  /grumpy cat

This stunt may generate the type of incalculable empirical feedback we need to ascertain how best to modify the max_block_size parameter.

Of course since it is artificial demand in the form of a stress-test that factor must be accounted for.

But in the aggregate, we see here the ecosystem demanding/supplying a required service, so it's not completely bogus data.

It is critical for Bitcoin to grow up, not out.

Bitcoin's Mother of Blockchains needs skycraper transactions, not sprawl.

Bitcoin and its Blockchain must develop like a culture, not merely grow like cancer.

Full block pressure catalyzes development of optimal strategies for using the limited space; subsidizing artificially sparse blocks retards that process.

It's not possible to build a currency on misanthropy.

Au contraire, misanthropy is the only rational basis on which to build a currency.

That is why Bitcoins trustless Satoshi-Consensus mechanism disrupted and made obsolete all manner of weighted-trust-node-network Rube Goldberg schemes.

Bitcoin is the only currency still works like gold and silver when about half of humanity is an adversary.

The difference between bad and well-developed digital cash will determine whether we have a dictatorship or a real democracy.  David Chaum 1996
"Monero" : { Private - Auditable - 100% Fungible - Flexible Blocksize - Wild & Free® - Intro - Core GUI - Podcats - Roadmap - Dice - Blackjack - Github - Android }
MoneroForCash.com  |  Buy and sell XMR near you  |  Easymonero.com  |  Bitsquare.io - Decentralized XMR Exchange  |  Buy XMR with fiat
Fungibility provides privacy as a side effect.  Adam Back 2014

Bitcoin is intentionally designed to be ungovernable and governance-free.  luke-jr 2016
Blocks must necessarily be full for the Bitcoin network to be able to pay for its own security.  davout 2015
Blocksize is an intentionally limited resource, like the 21e6 BTC limit.  Changing it degrades the surrounding economics, creating negative incentives.  Jeff Garzik 2013


The raison d'être of bitcoin is trustlessness. - Eric Lombrozo 2015
It is an Engineering Requirement that Bitcoin be “Above the Law”  Paul Sztorc 2015
Resiliency, not efficiency, is the paramount goal of decentralized, non-state sanctioned currency -Jon Matonis 2015

Bitcoin is intentionally designed to be ungovernable and governance-free.  luke-jr 2016

Technology tends to move in the direction of making surveillance easier, and the ability of computers to track us doubles every eighteen months. - Phil Zimmerman 2013

The only way to make software secure, reliable, and fast is to make it small. Fight Features. - Andy Tanenbaum 2004
TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
May 30, 2015, 04:08:13 AM
 #25087

It is critical for Bitcoin to grow up, not out.

Bitcoin's Mother of Blockchains needs skycraper transactions, not sprawl.

Bitcoin and its Blockchain must develop like a culture, not merely grow like cancer.

When will you accept that individual incentives are not aligned in Bitcoin with your ideological global optimization?

People will use their coins and this will force miners to adopt Gavincoin. It is demand driven and you can foam at the mouth as much as you want, but you won't stop this freight train.

MP can drop his nuke on Gavincoin, we will scoop up cheap coins and then move on to the next ramp. Thanks MP for giving us your money.

The utility of early adopters to Larry Summers has now diminished. He has used you successfully and is moving on. You can be discarded now.

TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
May 30, 2015, 04:09:06 AM
 #25088

Folks, what I take away from this recent splash in this thread is that you all are trying to be pragmatic. There are differing opinions about how to best try to change the world.

I can only ask that you read my posts and consider my points. And note that I have been both correct about price and general trends since 2013.


Australia is a member of the Five Eyes nations.

Indeed this shows how desperate they are. As with Napster, they will just drive the movement to anonymity.

出る釘は打たれる (deru kugi wa utareru) - "A nail that sticks out will be hammered"

Ross Ulbricht sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole the harshest sentence possible.
http://www.wired.com/2015/05/silk-road-creator-ross-ulbricht-sentenced-life-prison/

Let's hope we can free him and the others from jail one day in the future, but it won't likely be soon.

Clearly the system is going to attempt to apply maximum punishment on any individual which creates something which has a huge market and is in defiance of the TPTB and their NWO plans.

Quote from: Wired Magazine
“The stated purpose [of the Silk Road] was to be beyond the law. In the world you created over time, democracy didn’t exist. You were captain of the ship, the Dread Pirate Roberts,” she told Ulbricht as she read the sentence, referring to his pseudonym as the Silk Road’s leader. “Silk Road’s birth and presence asserted that its…creator was better than the laws of this country. This is deeply troubling, terribly misguided, and very dangerous.”

So assuming I believe I have finally stumbled onto the design for altcoin that would actually scale and resist centralization, I hope you all can understand why I am contemplating whether I should proceed or not.

The interaction here is valuable both in terms of learning about the thoughts, synergies and counter-points, but between personal pressures on me and the overall speed at which the system is progressing towards the totalitarian outcome, it is about time for me to retire from Bitcointalk so I can devote full-time to making some decisions and then working on my chosen direction(s). Note I do have a newly launched fledgling social network to attend to which is demonstrating some traction.

Any one who desires to have ongoing communication with me, please keep (permanently) a Bitmessage address on your Bitcointalk profile, make sure you have posted (anything) in one of the 4 threads I have been posting in recently. I will contact you when my free time allows. You must run your Bitmessage at least every other day (old messages are discarded from the network) and make sure you run it on a computer that can't be infected with any virus (i.e. hopefully not the same computer you surf the net from and download porn to!)

Bitmessage is the only means I am aware of for us to communicate where it can't be proven by the NSA whom was talking to whom.

The anonymity facilities on the internet are sorely lacking. This must change and pronto, if we are to avoid a Dark Age.

cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
May 30, 2015, 04:41:59 AM
 #25089

Bitcoin is the only currency still works like gold and silver when about half of humanity is an adversary.

it won't work like gold when only 0.0000001% of the world's population think like us or have any exposure to Bitcoin due to the strangulation by 1MB blocks.
iCEBREAKER
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1708


https://monero.stackexchange.com/a/1203


View Profile WWW
May 30, 2015, 05:20:59 AM
 #25090

Bitcoin is the only currency still works like gold and silver when about half of humanity is an adversary.

it won't work like gold when only 0.0000001% of the world's population think like us or have any exposure to Bitcoin due to the strangulation by 1MB blocks.

Direct use of BTC by >0.0000001% of the world's population isn't necessary nor supportable.

Indirect usage is.  Plenty of space in the alt/side chains and trustless payment processors (ZOMG ABRA!!!) for coffee and pizza.

Quote
The true value that Bitcoin brings to the table is not "everyone gets to write into the holy ledger", it is instead "everyone gets to benefit from sane and non-inflationary financial instutions whose sanity and honesty are ensured by the holy blockchain".
-davout

The difference between bad and well-developed digital cash will determine whether we have a dictatorship or a real democracy.  David Chaum 1996
"Monero" : { Private - Auditable - 100% Fungible - Flexible Blocksize - Wild & Free® - Intro - Core GUI - Podcats - Roadmap - Dice - Blackjack - Github - Android }
MoneroForCash.com  |  Buy and sell XMR near you  |  Easymonero.com  |  Bitsquare.io - Decentralized XMR Exchange  |  Buy XMR with fiat
Fungibility provides privacy as a side effect.  Adam Back 2014

Bitcoin is intentionally designed to be ungovernable and governance-free.  luke-jr 2016
Blocks must necessarily be full for the Bitcoin network to be able to pay for its own security.  davout 2015
Blocksize is an intentionally limited resource, like the 21e6 BTC limit.  Changing it degrades the surrounding economics, creating negative incentives.  Jeff Garzik 2013


The raison d'être of bitcoin is trustlessness. - Eric Lombrozo 2015
It is an Engineering Requirement that Bitcoin be “Above the Law”  Paul Sztorc 2015
Resiliency, not efficiency, is the paramount goal of decentralized, non-state sanctioned currency -Jon Matonis 2015

Bitcoin is intentionally designed to be ungovernable and governance-free.  luke-jr 2016

Technology tends to move in the direction of making surveillance easier, and the ability of computers to track us doubles every eighteen months. - Phil Zimmerman 2013

The only way to make software secure, reliable, and fast is to make it small. Fight Features. - Andy Tanenbaum 2004
Peter R
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1036



View Profile
May 30, 2015, 05:26:29 AM
 #25091

Direct use of BTC by >0.0000001% of the world's population isn't necessary nor supportable.

0.0000001% of the world's population is only 7 people, you know  Wink

Run Bitcoin Unlimited (www.bitcoinunlimited.info)
TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
May 30, 2015, 05:27:10 AM
 #25092

Bitcoin is the only currency still works like gold and silver when about half of humanity is an adversary.

it won't work like gold when only 0.0000001% of the world's population think like us or have any exposure to Bitcoin due to the strangulation by 1MB blocks.

Cypherdoc please help me understand you (and others like you).

How do you envision the growth of Bitcoin changing the way sufficient other people behave or think such that this would avoid the current system wherein the individual incentives are aligned with the cartels and oligarchs (a.k.a. the 0.0001%, banksters or TPTB) in a socialism+totalitarian cancer?

My assertion to Justus upthread (on this page) is that the masses don't change via education nor by evolution, rather only by the revolution of suffering a dead end in the road.

Icebreaker seems to think that the minority can impose their will on the majority, but he needs to consider that the upper 0.01% gain their power by aligning their incentives with the lower 50% in collectivism. His minority (which is my minority, i.e. We The Upper Middle Class Knowledge Age Producers) which is perhaps the upper 0.1% or so, will not succeed for as long as we do not align ourselves with a greater proportion of the middle class (the upper 50%).

My plans going forward in crypto (if I do proceed) are about forming that middle class alliance that can lead to overtaking Bitcoin by 2033 as Bitcoin falls into the NWO morass of the 0.01% + lower 50%.

Cypherdoc you and others seem to think Bitcoin can somehow escape that morass of the 0.01% + lower 50%. How so?


Direct use of BTC by >0.0000001% of the world's population isn't necessary nor supportable.

0.0000001% of the world's population is only 7 people, you know  Wink

Obviously it was a "rough" number. It would great if they would both clarify which demographics they are referring to.

Note when I write 0.01% there are is also another upper 1+% or so of the Middle Class that align themselves opportunitistically but this can shift if they shift allegiances. And this is why the TPTB wish to destroy the millionaires, because they are the "parasites" (from the elite's perspective) that drive antifragility (with shifting allegiance) and defy the totalitarian control of the elite.

cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
May 30, 2015, 05:31:40 AM
 #25093

Direct use of BTC by >0.0000001% of the world's population isn't necessary nor supportable.

0.0000001% of the world's population is only 7 people, you know  Wink

Not 700?

Edit:  oops. I even took the time to think about the numbers yet stillput on  the percentag sign .  Grin
TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
May 30, 2015, 05:37:29 AM
 #25094

Cypherdoc please answer me. I really want to understand your reasoning. It is important and impacts my decision process.

Justus et al, please also chime in. I want to understand the model you all have in mind of how Bitcoin changes the world.

Peter R
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1036



View Profile
May 30, 2015, 05:37:35 AM
 #25095

Direct use of BTC by >0.0000001% of the world's population isn't necessary nor supportable.

0.0000001% of the world's population is only 7 people, you know  Wink

Not 700?

0.0000001% / 100% x (7x10^9 people)  = 7 people.

Sorry to be pedantic; I just found iCEBREAKER's comment humorous because it meant that supporting more than 7 people using bitcoin wasn't supportable.   Our scalability problems aren't that challenging Cheesy. I'm sure we can support at least 8. 

Run Bitcoin Unlimited (www.bitcoinunlimited.info)
TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
May 30, 2015, 05:39:22 AM
 #25096

Direct use of BTC by >0.0000001% of the world's population isn't necessary nor supportable.

0.0000001% of the world's population is only 7 people, you know  Wink

Not 700?

700 if you remove the %

cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
May 30, 2015, 05:41:05 AM
 #25097

Direct use of BTC by >0.0000001% of the world's population isn't necessary nor supportable.

0.0000001% of the world's population is only 7 people, you know  Wink

Not 700?

Edit:  oops. I even took the time to think about the numbers yet stillput on  the percentag sign .  Grin
TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
May 30, 2015, 05:53:10 AM
 #25098

Ironically, when the wheels fall off of GavinCoin because of UXTO assplosions or whatever, these spurned core devs will be the ones Gavin and everyone else will turn to for solutions.  Typical "Oops I broke it, now you fix it" pointy-headed boss behavior!   Cheesy

If persistent full 1mb blocks turn out to be an insurmountable problem, consensus to modify that limit would not need to be manufactured with lobbying and tales of impending dooom.

This stunt may generate the type of incalculable empirical feedback we need to ascertain how best to modify the max_block_size parameter.

Of course since it is artificial demand in the form of a stress-test that factor must be accounted for.

1. You seem to not be aware that $billions in capital (a lot of it not invested in BTC but rather VC investments in the space) is invested on the future of Bitcoin, and to make the future uncertain causes capital to become risk adverse. Gavin can't wait, because capital has to plan out the future.

2. You seem to assume centralization[1] can't solve every technical issue of scaling higher transaction rates. Wasn't Visa scale the initial goal? Is Visa not centralized? ("Damn it, but we want decentralization and we will early adopters will fork and short NWOcoin" is not a logical retort)

Come on man, come back to reality.

You seem to have developed an overconfidence from your early adopter decision, which you are projecting as correct analysis of the future. But where is the logic?

The utility of early adopters to Larry Summers has now diminished. He has used you successfully and is moving on. You can be discarded now.

You early adopters were bought at a very small cost by the banksters to help them launch the NWOcoin trojan horse. You are now expendable. They have already the inertia they need.

[1] IBLT is a fancy sugar coating on centralization to make geeks wet their pants again (see their Jesus) and be fooled, as they were with the original DEEP STATE whitepaper.

cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
May 30, 2015, 06:24:45 AM
 #25099

Cypherdoc please answer me. I really want to understand your reasoning. It is important and impacts my decision process.

Justus et al, please also chime in. I want to understand the model you all have in mind of how Bitcoin changes the world.

i think you underestimate the common man and their ability to discern what the hell is going on in today's world.  i've sprinkled hints throughout posts but we generally ignore each other so i don't blame you for missing it.  understanding hard money is not hard.  i think most ppl innately understand that repeatedly printing up a bunch of money to solve a debt problem isn't a solution.  borrowing more money is not a solution for a borrowing problem.  there is also plenty of evidence TPTB are losing their grip.  i see evidence of this everywhere.

the internet combined with smartphones is contributing to this more widespread awareness and education of what's going on in the world.  it used to be taboo reading your smartphone out in public.  now it's acceptable and you're even considered unimportant if you don't check it every once in a while.  the enhanced connectivity of ppl round the world allows for the free exchange of ideas and information never seen before.  we can now educate each other.  this is exactly what we're doing here in this thread.  for a bunch of towel-head Muslims to rise up in revolution around Facebook & Twitter communiques in Egypt and Libya back in the Arab Spring is one of a number of signs that the masses aren't going to put up with TPTB bullshit anymore.  corruption and fraud need to hide in the dark.  it hates transparency.  the internet is shining a bright light upon TPTB.  they don't like it and the more they complain (like Mitch McConnell, James Comey of FBI, Clapper of NSA, Cameron of UK) the more i know we're on the right path to disruption.

central bank reputations have taken a beating the last 6 yrs.  anyone who follows the financial mkts, like i do, can see evidence of their manipulation everywhere.  everyone knows it's ludicrous to see stocks gyrate wildly immediately after an FOMC announcement.  sidhujag keeps talking about staying long the stock mkt "until the masses" come in.  as if they are going to be sheep once again.  well, i don't think that's happening this time.  and if i'm right about stocks rolling over right now as per my charts, guys like him who've always assumed the idiot on the street (avg Joe investor) is going to buy from them at 32000 are going to be in for a painful realization that the game has now leveled out due to less information asymmetry.  60% of American in fact do not own stocks (which is way down) and it doesn't look like they're going to anytime soon as they've learned from 2 major crashes of >50% in the last 15 yrs along with a real estate crash.  this is also why 80% of Americans voted against TARP despite the propaganda.

come June 1 we'll find out if the NSA will retain their mass data collection program.  it will be a sad day if they prevail but there's alot of lobbying going on right now and i'm hopeful it will not be extended.  either way, guys like Glenn Greenwald, Eric Snowden, and many others continue to fight back.  they are hard to ignore and fundamentally the NSA and TPTB will find it harder and harder to defend their policies out in public.  they don't realize how stupid they sound and most ppl realize this.

and simply from a numerical standpoint, i don't see how TPTB can control all of us especially if i'm right about the increased generalized awareness of the public.  i often fly and like to look down across the landscape at all the millions of homes and dwellings scattered around.  i imagine all of these dwellings being connected by the internet and ppl talking, texting, emailing freely their opinions and concerns.  i don't think there is anyway a small # of elites with their police can stop everyone.  it's impossible.  this is why torrenting, file sharing and streaming continue to go on unchecked despite persistent and expensive music and Hollywood campaigns to snuff this out.  the disruption of Wherehouse, Barnes & Noble, Borders, Encyclopedia Brittanica is evidence of this.  the rise and increasing popularity of Linux, Android, and open source in general is good.

Bitcoin is a major part of this revolution and b/c it is open source and adheres to the principles of sound money, i don't see any way a Digital Kill Switch can keep it away from the general population.  it is too important to us to allow that.  i simply see guys like Larry Summers adhering to his own principle of greed in saving/protecting his built up fortune by coming to Bitcoin b/c he sees the writing on the wall; not as some allegiance to his fellow elites as you claim.  they are all greedy bastards and they realize that the zero bound on interest rates is the end of the line.  negative interest rates are sure to spark a revolution.  the smart ones are abandoning ship.  they've had their run, they know it, and the smart thing is to pivot in the other direction before their brethren jump ship.

that's alot of rambling.  i'm tired and i don't usually like to compose this much shit.  most of what i have to say is in my earlier posts in 2011.
TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
May 30, 2015, 06:41:33 AM
 #25100


Thank you Cypherdoc. You put a lot of effort into that post and it makes your stance clear. I need to be reminded of that noble and inspirational perspective, although I was exposed to it before. The idea that information is spreading now with the internet and thus the masses will suddenly for the first time in human history change how they behave. Ya know, "it is different this time" has always been wrong for 6000 years since Mesopotamia.

Did you know that Napoleon won not because of his military genius but because (the Pen Is Mightier Than the Sword so) he promulgated the idealism that he was liberating the conquered areas from the oppression they were suffering. Later on when it became apparent tha Napoleon was the same oppression they were trying to get rid of, Napoleon began to lose battles.

But never did the masses succeed in eliminating the elite and system of oppression. Some blue bloods were beheaded, but the upper 0.0001% banksters were not touched (they didn't stick around during the French Revolution and they continued on under Napoleon).

The elite always co-op every mass movement. Why? Because collectivism is a power vacuum. It demands that an elite come into that entropic vacuum.

You can never win with the masses. They will always be wrong, for as long as they demand to organize themselves in collectives. And I have explained upthread that Bitcoin is power vacuum collective, i.e. it can't resist centralization.

So as nice as your theory sounds, it is incorrect. I wish you could agree, but alas some people need to be wrong (or let's say diverse objectives have to be fulfilled) to make a market, because there needs to be both a buyer and seller.

I do agree the general spread of technology improves the quality of life of the people, so there is a benefit to spreading these new technologies which can also be used to enslave us. My point is only that you won't get the revolutionary outcome via Bitcoin rather just more of the same oppression (and worse because of the peaking totalitarianism coming).

For the upper middle class, the only way to avoid expropriation is to find a frontier, technology and a market that is sufficiently large (noting that geographical frontiers and gold are no longer an option), which is can not be centralized, which does not require any ideological groupthink, and in which rather the individual incentives are aligned with no power vacuum.

P.S. the recent examples you cite as cases of the masses rising up were all engineered by the banksters. Do some research. Start with the Benghazi incident and Hillary Clinton's private email server. Dude they have the brains of the masses zombified with Facebook. They can put up anything there on Facebook and drive an overthrow of a government by releasing some corruption via Wikileaks, etc.. There has been a long-standing plan to foment chaos in the Middle East to drive the end of petro-dollar as they prepare the global economic collapse to drive the political result of the one world reserve currency and global Technocracy. The Middle East had to be eliminated as potential safe haven for capital.

The central bank and nation-states reputations are being destroyed on purpose by the banksters in order to usher in the one-world reserve currency solution to that morass.

Larry Summers would not cross over from a $3+ trillion black budget to a measily $10 billion marketcap because he has banked his entire life on the fact that the elite have never lost control ever. The names change, but the paradigm of the Iron Law of Political Economics have no changed in all of recorded human history.

He knows damn well that the elite are in control of Bitcoin and DEEP STATE think tanks know very well that you will fall for these delusions that you have.

In the case critical thinkers such as Peter R, etc, I presume these guys refuse to entertain information they can't prove as in equivalent to a scientific laboratory experiment. They fail to correlate the repeating pattern of history thus they they don't see the corroborating evidence. Thus they remain uncommitted until it is too late to do anything. Sad.

Pages: « 1 ... 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 1294 1295 1296 1297 1298 1299 1300 1301 1302 1303 1304 1305 ... 1559 »
  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!