Bitcoin Forum
December 10, 2016, 06:42:55 PM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.13.1  [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 ... 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 1306 1307 1308 1309 ... 1560 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.  (Read 1808043 times)
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
May 30, 2015, 05:39:49 PM
 #25161

Fascinating chart posted in masterluc's thread. I trust I don't need to spell out the implications.



so what is weighted stability?

More on that you will find here http://bitcoinstability.github.io/bitcoinstability/#/home and here https://azopstability.com/

i got so many anti malware extensions installed in my browser, i can't draw the graphs in those links.  so is it a measure of price stability?  the higher the spikes, the more stable? 

yes, volatility is damping down to almost nothing, which is predictably followed by huge moves, either up or down.  in this case, after a 1.5 yrs of bear and a 90% pullback w/o outright death, and increasingly good news in the form of Wall St and intl participation, and w/o a protocol "break", the logical conclusion is UP.

I concur. Expect a 'shake out' dump just before we start to move up.

So do I.

so in essence, a double bottom, with even maybe a throw under.  maybe. 

otoh, what would really throw everybody would be a big move up from here.  no way to tell for sure.
1481395375
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481395375

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481395375
Reply with quote  #2

1481395375
Report to moderator
1481395375
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481395375

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481395375
Reply with quote  #2

1481395375
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
May 30, 2015, 05:40:43 PM
 #25162

You're over thinking this, we're just recovering from the invention (social hack) of PR as defined by Edward Bernays.

I am writing about an immutable attribute of human society since Mesopotamia and you cite a man that was born in 1928.

8up
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 618



View Profile
May 30, 2015, 05:41:11 PM
 #25163

This time it's different?



Great graphs, 8up!

Credit goes to /u/azop Wink

Always wrong until not.
TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
May 30, 2015, 05:47:17 PM
 #25164

now that we have money types that can navigate around these monopolies

Which money can resist takeover by centralization?

Sorry I don't see any such money that exists, not even gold.

cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
May 30, 2015, 06:06:22 PM
 #25165


You can never win with the masses. They will always be wrong, for as long as they demand to organize themselves in collectives.


The Internet is essentially the mass of masses. Extrapolate the audience averaging effect in the popular game show Who Wants to Be a Millionaire:

"But there’s a third option: You can use your “Ask-the-Audience" life line. You can poll the entire studio audience on the four possible answers, and their responses are instantaneously assembled into a bar graph. Invariably, this graph shows one overwhelming choice, and with rare exceptions the audience is right. “I’ll trust the audience,” you tell Regis. “Final answer.”

Good move. But why? No person in the audience is any more likely than you to know where grapes come from, yet the collective intelligence of the group is almost always a better bet than your best guess. Psychologists are very interested in this perplexing statistical phenomenon. If the crowd is always wiser than any individual, what does that say about the way knowledge is stored and arranged in our minds? And can it help us make better choices, even beyond game shows?

...

That’s actually what Vul and Pashler found when they ran the experiment. As reported in the July issue of the journal Psychological Science, the average of two guesses for any individual participant was better than either guess alone, regardless of the time between guesses. So polling the “crowd within” does indeed yield a statistically more accurate answer. What’s more, this internal crowd gets more independent-minded with time: Contestants who were asked to second-guess themselves three weeks later benefited even more by averaging their two guesses than did those who second-guessed themselves immediately. The psychologists speculate that the cognitive pull of the original answer loses its power and allows more mental flexibility over time."
http://www.psychologicalscience.org/onlyhuman/2008/06/polling-crowd-within.cfm

@vokain You have probably seen this already, but in case not: enjoy!
BBC - The Code - The Wisdom of the Crowd
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iOucwX7Z1HU

PS. Interesting how every single block size limit poll, since the first one in Feb 2013, has had majority support for the increase.

I assume both of you are smart guys.

So why do you commit this blatantly obvious category error of equating collective intelligence to the misalignment of priorities in the Iron Law of Political Economics?

I just can't fathom how you can't see that is proximately analogous (in terms of shared versus independent self-interest) to equating ant colonies to Tasmanian devils.

Let me translate that Iron Law into a form that is more easily appreciated:

Quote
Mancur Olson, in his book The Logic Of Collective Action, highlighted the central problem of politics in a democracy. The benefits of political market-rigging can be concentrated to benefit particular special interest groups and simultaneously distributed via debt to the population wherein each self-interested individual has the incentive to maximize his/her parasitic extraction from the collective, while the costs (in higher taxes, slower economic growth, and many other second-order effects) are diffused through the entire population (and often obfuscated and easily ignored as charged to the future generation in the form of debt).

This general model has consequences. Here are some of them:

Political demand for income transfers, entitlements and subsidies always rises faster than the economy can generate increased wealth to supply them from.

The equilibrium state of a regulatory agency is to have been captured by the entities it is supposed to regulate.

The only important class distinction in any advanced democracy is between those who are net producers of tax revenues and those who are net consumers of them.

Corruption is not the exceptional condition of politics, it is the normal one.

P.S. I have tried my best to teach this concept but it seems after 1000s of posts in the Economic Devastation and other threads, I still can't get readers to acknowledge that collective organization of humans suffers from a misalignment of priorities. That humans have big brains or that collective intelligence of humans is higher than for solitary humans is irrelevant.

that "Law" was constructed in the context of a debt-based fiat system in which money printing is central and of which Bitcoin is NOT.  hence, our optimism that we can change things for the better.  does optimism always have to be unrealistic?

The People demand fractional reserves debt. If you deny this fact, then let's go down that rabbit hole such as using the 1800s as an example where the People demanded debt from the private, decentralized banks. Otherwise I assume you accept this fact.

you've got it backwards.  debt has been imposed by bankers.  they've tricked everyone into assuming more debt by manipulating interest rates downwards esp since 1980, the last high of 17%.  this is accomplished by money printing to buy UST's.
Quote

The State and its mandate to regulate legal tender exists because there is a power vacuum on which entity will regulate fractional reserves and backstop the economy when the fractional reserves periodically implode with the business cycle.

have you ever read The Creature from Jekyll Island?  great history on the secret meeting of JP Morgan et al where the Fed was hatched
Quote

We had decentralized money in the 1800s and we can clearly see it ended with the bankruptcy of the USA wherein JP Morgan had to bailout the country (which led to the establishment of the Federal Reserve in 1913).

A power vacuum means that the system in decentralized mode can't squelch some undesired activity (e.g. counterfeiting a.k.a. fractional reserves) without some entity being given the monopoly on force (i.e. Max Weber's canonical definition of the State).

again, you have it backwards.  the Fed facilitates fractional reserves to the point of massive excess.  can 2008 be any clearer?:


Quote

The regulation of fractional reserves is a collective power vacuum that will always exist under any technological paradigm including Bitcoin (unless we can argue that humans will no longer have use for debt).

i actually think that a reasonable debt system (10x) could be overlayed on top of Bitcoin.  and probably in USD which would preserver the existing system with minimal disruption.  i have long argued this here.
Quote

Thus you have transposed (i.e. conflated) causality (cause and effect). The demand for centralized control over legal tender derives from individual self-interest that Bitcoin does not alter.

there is no demand for centralized control.   it was co-opted from the beginning.  you might be able to make that argument only today b/c the debt build up via the dervatives Tower threatens to throw us into Armageddon w/o the centralize manipulation and moral hazard you call for.  change would demand pain, yes.
Quote

Thus Bitcoin is a power vacuum because it can't resist centralization and the People's self-interest in debt implicitly demands the State to maintain force over regulating finance.

those of us who understand the dynamic i've just outlined are NOT demanding centralization and in fact are actively resisting it.  at this pt, after most of the vulnerable have had their homes taken away, the only ones left holding most of the debt are the elitists you are referring to who stand to lose the most in a move towards a decentralized digital currency based on a fixed supply.  this is why we see increasing attempts to co-opt Bitcoin or impose regs.
Quote


I explained in the Economic Devastation thread that I think the demand for debt in the Knowledge Age may diminish, because I explained in great detail in one of my essays linked from the opening post of that thread that knowledge production can't be financed.

the only real debt growth has been the student loan bubble as banksters grasp at the last straws to continue the game.  now they are targeting our offspring who have a whole lifetime ahead of them to be debt slaves.
Quote

Our problem however, is that most humans are not ready to transition to the Knowledge Age work and they will continue to demand debt and Industrial Age jobs (or the government to subsidize failure to obtain such a job).

i foresee a leveling out of resources and wealth due to the transparency of information access facilitated by the Internet.  this can't be stopped despite the state's resistance.
Quote

The only way we cross the chasm without falling into an totalitarian abyss along the way, is a newly designed crypto-currency for the fledgling Knowledge Age that can resist attack by the State because the People implicitly (due to their self-interest in debt and subsidies) demand the State to maintain a monopoly on force.

i agree and think Bitcoin is it.
Quote

Bitcoin can only serve the NWO because it does not have immutable qualities of decentralization and anonymity. You are hoping for a mass awakening (to defend Bitcoin and maintain its decentralization) but that is impossible because the individual self-interest of each of the People are misaligned with such global optimization.

as PeterR described it; Bitcoin offers "Hope".  there is no more powerful motivator for the avg Joe.  ppl have died defending it.  now we have a tool that gives us that.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
May 30, 2015, 06:16:38 PM
 #25166

TPTB, when you get confused as to who is manipulating who, just look around you and see who has all the money.  answer:  it's not you or me or the masses.  it's the 0.001% you are referring to.  and this has only matched and even exceeded the last great disparity level of 1929.

you have been hoodwinked by the very ppl you despise into Self-blame: The Ultimate Emotional Abuse:

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/enlightened-living/201304/self-blame-the-ultimate-emotional-abuse

you are not being logical.
Adrian-x
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1330



View Profile
May 30, 2015, 06:19:03 PM
 #25167

You're over thinking this, we're just recovering from the invention (social hack) of PR as defined by Edward Bernays.

I am writing about an immutable attribute of human society since Mesopotamia and you cite a man that was born in 1928.

No. I'm talking about Plato and the Allegory of the Cave, the TPTB at every reset (like in the Matrix) co-opted technology and refine the management algorithm, we're at the metaphorical 7th reset. (To fit in your narrative it's been happening since before Mesopotamia.) Edward Bernays, is just the inventor of the technology that was used to co-opt the system at the last reset.

The wisdom is in the crowd, in the 70s PR was used to disrupt the wisdom of the group so it could be managed, and before that it was the use of recordings and radio exploited to perfection by the Nazis.

It's not that people want what you think they want, you are making a judgment based on a technology that is being circumvented by the internet and knowledge age..

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

Activity: 420


View Profile
May 30, 2015, 06:19:52 PM
 #25168

TPTB, when you get confused...

Your prior post demonstrated how confused you are. I am contemplating whether it is worth even trying to unravel your numerous delusions. Might be better to just stop. Appears hopeless to educate you.

TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
May 30, 2015, 06:23:34 PM
 #25169

It's not that people want what you think they want, you are making a judgment based on a technology that is being circumvented.

Whether or not a Knowledge Age could alter the incentives people had as serfs is irrelevant to the chasm in front of us on this reset, which Bitcoin does not have the immutable attributes to cross.

cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
May 30, 2015, 06:26:09 PM
 #25170

TPTB, when you get confused...

Your prior post demonstrated how confused you are. I am contemplating whether it is worth even trying to unravel your numerous delusions. Might be better to just stop. Appears hopeless to educate you.

i really don't even have to try.  the evidence is everywhere today.

banks guilty of currency manipulation, banks guilty of Libor manipulation, banks guilty of gold and silver manipulation, banks guilty of money laundering, banks guilty of drug running, banks guilty of not lending, banks guilty of hoarding QE in excess reserves, banks guilty of collusion, banks guilty of outrageous self compensation, banks guilty of illegal lobbying, banks guilty of being opaque, banks guilty of not submitting to audits, banks guilty of liar loans, banks guilty of needless bailouts, etc, etc.
Adrian-x
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1330



View Profile
May 30, 2015, 06:27:41 PM
 #25171

It's not that people want what you think they want, you are making a judgment based on a technology that is being circumvented.

Whether or not a Knowledge Age could alter the incentives people had as serfs is irrelevant to the chasm in front of us on this reset, which Bitcoin does not have the immutable attributes to cross.

We get there with the collective wisdom of the crowd, not by a central authority, Bitcoin is just the last key to completing  the internet.

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

Activity: 420


View Profile
May 30, 2015, 06:34:19 PM
 #25172

It's not that people want what you think they want, you are making a judgment based on a technology that is being circumvented.

Whether or not a Knowledge Age could alter the incentives people had as serfs is irrelevant to the chasm in front of us on this reset, which Bitcoin does not have the immutable attributes to cross.

We get there with the collective wisdom of the crowd, not by a central authority, Bitcoin is just the last key to completing  the internet.

You are going to reeducate all the 60+ age Boomers (who dominate the political demographics in the West) how to become Knowledge Age workers and abandon their bankrupt retirement plans, all within the next 3 years which is the ETA for the cliff dive into the chasm?

Of course not.

The individual incentives of the People who are voting can not align with your vision of global optimization within the timeframe of the rapidly approaching event horizon of economic collapse and totalitarianism.

Edit: Oxford U. in 2012 predicted 47% of existing jobs would be displaced by automation within 20 years. Thus a majority of the working age population are not ready for the transition to a meritocratic Knowledge Age. Bitcoin can't accelerate this process of adjustment, thus the approaching chasm is unavoidable.

Reggie Middleton
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 41

UltraCoin "Smart" Derivatives: The Future of Money


View Profile WWW
May 30, 2015, 06:39:43 PM
 #25173

...

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?
I believe you are making my point for me. A) all financial services organizations of any stature have closed sourced clients. B) Even if I did open source the client (and I am not opposed to it, I just need the resources to manage it) you have just admitted that you don't have the expertise to ascertain what risks you were taking through the open source code to begin with. Those familiar with the swaps concept should be able to recognize it off the bat. If you didn't recognize it, it's really not a big deal because I didn't design the product to be used solely by financial engineers and derivatives traders - hence the simplistic interface. My point is it seems as if you are willing to take extreme risk financially as long the client is open sourced. This doesn't compute. Financial institutions have ripped off many more people through financial machinations than software concerns have, trust me on that. Even if the client was open sourced, the bulk of the business logic is still on the server.
I'd love to walk you through the whole system. I feel it's quite impressive, and I believe you will agree with me once you've used it.


*Link Removed* : The Future of Money! A "Smart", Zero Trust, Peer to Peer, Decentralized derivative layer on top of Bitcoin!!!
 *Image Removed*
TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
May 30, 2015, 06:42:39 PM
 #25174

Reggie, open-source maximizes the division-of-labor. I don't need to be the expert on swaps to trust the Linus Law, "given enough eyeballs, all bugs are shallow".

Open-source is very effective at refining due to the Inverse Commons, but not at leadership. For leadership, you need a Linus Torvalds.

I am not asserting what you built is worthless nor even less than impressive. I hope the community can work with you to add value to what ever you've brought of value to the community. And I do hope all parties can profit, most ideally would be within the paradigms that are sustainable in this new Knowledge Age of meritocracy ahead. We have a chasm to cross along the way, so I don't want to presume that certain closed-source business models are not viable now. I am not making such an accusation nor claiming the requisite omniscience.

TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
May 30, 2015, 06:52:56 PM
 #25175

TPTB, when you get confused...

Your prior post demonstrated how confused you are. I am contemplating whether it is worth even trying to unravel your numerous delusions. Might be better to just stop. Appears hopeless to educate you.

i really don't even have to try.  the evidence is everywhere today.

banks guilty of currency manipulation, banks guilty of Libor manipulation, banks guilty of gold and silver manipulation, banks guilty of money laundering, banks guilty of drug running, banks guilty of not lending, banks guilty of hoarding QE in excess reserves, banks guilty of collusion, banks guilty of outrageous self compensation, banks guilty of illegal lobbying, banks guilty of being opaque, banks guilty of not submitting to audits, banks guilty of liar loans, banks guilty of needless bailouts, etc, etc.

You don't even see that you are writing points that are irrelevant to the points I made.

TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
May 30, 2015, 07:25:48 PM
 #25176

The People demand fractional reserves debt. If you deny this fact, then let's go down that rabbit hole such as using the 1800s as an example where the People demanded debt from the private, decentralized banks. Otherwise I assume you accept this fact.

you've got it backwards.  debt has been imposed by bankers.  they've tricked everyone into assuming more debt by manipulating interest rates downwards esp since 1980, the last high of 17%.  this is accomplished by money printing to buy UST's.

In the 1800s we had decentralized private banks who were incentivized to issue fractional gold reserves to feed demand for loans by the People.

Fractional reserves exist as a natural feature of the economy where demand for loans and supply of fractional reserves meet (Economics 101).

Even if you argued that killing all the banksters in that era would solve the problem, another set of banks would popup to serve the demand for debt by the People.

I probably won't attempt to unravel your other numerous misconceptions of the issues.

cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
May 30, 2015, 08:01:04 PM
 #25177

TPTB, when you get confused...

Your prior post demonstrated how confused you are. I am contemplating whether it is worth even trying to unravel your numerous delusions. Might be better to just stop. Appears hopeless to educate you.

i really don't even have to try.  the evidence is everywhere today.

banks guilty of currency manipulation, banks guilty of Libor manipulation, banks guilty of gold and silver manipulation, banks guilty of money laundering, banks guilty of drug running, banks guilty of not lending, banks guilty of hoarding QE in excess reserves, banks guilty of collusion, banks guilty of outrageous self compensation, banks guilty of illegal lobbying, banks guilty of being opaque, banks guilty of not submitting to audits, banks guilty of liar loans, banks guilty of needless bailouts, etc, etc.

You don't even see that you are writing points that are irrelevant to the points I made.

You don't even see that you made no points whatsoever.
Adrian-x
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1330



View Profile
May 30, 2015, 08:28:34 PM
 #25178

It's not that people want what you think they want, you are making a judgment based on a technology that is being circumvented.

Whether or not a Knowledge Age could alter the incentives people had as serfs is irrelevant to the chasm in front of us on this reset, which Bitcoin does not have the immutable attributes to cross.

We get there with the collective wisdom of the crowd, not by a central authority, Bitcoin is just the last key to completing  the internet.

You are going to reeducate all the 60+ age Boomers (who dominate the political demographics in the West) how to become Knowledge Age workers and abandon their bankrupt retirement plans, all within the next 3 years which is the ETA for the cliff dive into the chasm?

Of course not.

The individual incentives of the People who are voting can not align with your vision of global optimization within the timeframe of the rapidly approaching event horizon of economic collapse and totalitarianism.

Edit: Oxford U. in 2012 predicted 47% of existing jobs would be displaced by automation within 20 years. Thus a majority of the working age population are not ready for the transition to a meritocratic Knowledge Age. Bitcoin can't accelerate this process of adjustment, thus the approaching chasm is unavoidable.

We're immigrating to the internet, all boomers welcome. Please purchase your tokens at an exchange today.
Co-opt Bitcoin and we still get a proverbial "New World" destroy Bitcoin and it may take another hundred years before we get another opportunity.

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

Activity: 714



View Profile
May 30, 2015, 09:46:43 PM
 #25179

now that we have money types that can navigate around these monopolies

Which money can resist takeover by centralization?

Sorry I don't see any such money that exists, not even gold.

Bitcoin has resisted takeover so far. A monopoly can not exist in the free market, there is always someone who eats from the edge of your plate. Monopoly can exist only by using violence. I don't see that it can exist in mining. The competition is merciless. The loss of productivity from unfreeness will immediately remove governmental miners from the scene.

You seem to believe the powers that shouldn't be have divine capabilities. They don't, in fact they are far less competent than the winning actors in the free market. They have to refill their resources all the time, by theft, and they only have the resources the public gives them.

Have some faith.





TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
May 31, 2015, 02:15:35 AM
 #25180

now that we have money types that can navigate around these monopolies

Which money can resist takeover by centralization?

Sorry I don't see any such money that exists, not even gold.

Bitcoin has resisted takeover so far. A monopoly can not exist in the free market, there is always someone who eats from the edge of your plate. Monopoly can exist only by using violence. I don't see that it can exist in mining. The competition is merciless. The loss of productivity from unfreeness will immediately remove governmental miners from the scene.

Have some faith.

 Huh

Faith in what? Faith in ignoring my analysis?

Have you completely ignored all my upthread posts detailing how the mining in Bitcoin is hopelessly trending to centralized?

Do I need to resummarize all the various reasons? You've forgotten for example the 21 Inc plan, the ongoing Sybil attack on pools, etc..

I just don't understand how I can write 100s of posts, not be refuted and yet some still pretend I didn't write the posts.

Groupthink? Selective comprehension? (difference of opinion due to refusal to comprehend the lack of refutation of my analysis, or reservations about the falsifiability and proof of my analysis)

You seem to believe the powers that shouldn't be have divine capabilities. They don't, in fact they are far less competent than the winning actors in the free market. They have to refill their resources all the time, by theft, and they only have the resources the public gives them.

Bitcoin (the Gavincoin fork) will die with the death of the NWO paradigm. That paradigm will enslave the people who can't make the shift the Knowledge Age, and those in that system will parasite on themselves until they have destroyed themselves. The NWO paradigm is a slow burn of eugenics. I am proposing an anonymous, decentralized crypto-currency to service the fledgling Knowledge Age and leave Bitcoin for the NWO which is was designed for. In the Economic Devastation and One-world reserve currency threads I have detailed my expectation for a bifurcation of the economy into NWO masses (stuck in the Old World Industrial Age, high fixed capital, socialism paradigm) and Knowledge Age future.

Pages: « 1 ... 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 1306 1307 1308 1309 ... 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!