Bitcoin Forum
December 05, 2016, 12:43:25 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 ... 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 1310 1311 1312 1313 1314 1315 1316 1317 1318 1319 1320 1321 1322 ... 1560 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.  (Read 1804601 times)
phoenix1
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 784



View Profile
June 03, 2015, 11:41:05 PM
 #25421


<snip>

i smell Monero all over him.

Ok, as you mention it, and this is not meant as an attack on Monero, what I really don't understand is how a truly anonymous coin can survive, regardless of the tech, when the lead developers are public figures (eg Smooth, who was extremely helpful when I asked about the 21inc stuff) and they have a very public 'castle' as the home of one of their lead promoters (Risto).
How does that work if/when  the SHTF ??
Honestly, I have nothing against Monero, but I can't wrap my head around how something that TPTB will obviously fight against can flourish with these criteria. $5 wrench anyone ??

Please enlighten me. I say this in a truly non-confrontational manner - I am truly confused

"Before you embark on a journey of revenge, dig two graves"  - Confucius (China 551BC-479 BC)
1480941805
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1480941805

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1480941805
Reply with quote  #2

1480941805
Report to moderator
1480941805
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1480941805

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1480941805
Reply with quote  #2

1480941805
Report to moderator
1480941805
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1480941805

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1480941805
Reply with quote  #2

1480941805
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
June 03, 2015, 11:41:46 PM
 #25422

that's good that California is winning:

https://coincenter.org/2015/06/our-thoughts-on-the-bitlicense-california-is-winning/
tvbcof
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1974


View Profile
June 03, 2015, 11:47:48 PM
 #25423

bad smell all over xt ... note it is not even a faithful branch fork of the main bitcoin repo look https://github.com/bitcoinxt/bitcoinxt at the main link, if it was fork it would have a link beneath it to the git repo it was forked from. So what? you might ask, software forking is subtle ... what this means is there is no way to easily know what has and hasn't been left out out of XT that was in Core ... why do that?

On the front page you can tell things have been changed that have nothing to do with "only 3 major difference" there is a file called "pkg.m4"https://github.com/bitcoinxt/bitcoinxt/blob/0.10.2A/pkg.m4 that was removed from Core because of erroneous behaviour that made every system it was built on to default to using it instead of the system pkg.m4 ... why put broken behaviour back in? Maybe some bad coding reasons but way too much fishy shit right on the front page of XT to trust in the slightest. Removed files put back in, and not a correct, verifiable fork of Core, it looks dodgy as all heck. If it was just some anonymous guy on the internet I would expect coins to go missing immediately if you ran this code.



To me this seems like more fear-mongering from you  m_o_a
Just like when you told us that BitStamp would never come back after the hack as they were all crooks (I am not going to waste my time digging out your post, but you know what you said)
I don't know the truth of the matter, but I don't trust your judgement either. I have seen it to be negatively biased on more than one occasion, enough to make me think that you have your own (unspoken) agenda here

"just trust us" (your ninja edit) ... I don't trust you


i smell Monero all over him.

I smell competent engineer who is familiar with standard codebase practices, modern revision control systems, and has his eyes open.  I see a guy who is probably not going to be separated from his wealth in a trivial manner.


TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
June 04, 2015, 12:11:21 AM
 #25424

[gossip about personalities]

This seems very plausible.

It's also irrelevant.

20MB blocks aren't a Gavinista vs Greg issue.  The XT controversy has set the Gavinistas against all our other core devs.

You still haven't answered my bolded question below.

I have reviewed the pegged side-chains idea at Blockstream. The idea is BTC value can be moved to orthogonal blockchains. Assuming these "pegged coins" remain fungible (which is dubious and probably an incorrect assumption[1]), then in theory the shared-in-common unit-of-account network effects are not hindered, yet the network effects due to interoperability is lost because competing chains are not required to interopt, i.e. spending from one chain to another might require a trip back through the Bitcoin blockchain which defeats the scalability due to constricting the Bitcoin blocksize.

Pegged side-chains are a hack that move the same problems that need to be fixed in the main blockchain to the side-chain, but the fundamental problem remains. Worse they destroy interoperability and probably create a huge mess of fungibility.

Bottom line is that Bitcoin is an overly complex, highly flawed mess that can not be fixed. There is only one outcome which will be accepted by the masses, which is the one where they are insured and protected by the State, i.e. Coinbase, Paypal, Circle (CPC). Whether this is achieved with huge blocks (much greater than 20 MB eventually) and centralized Bitcoin mining, or CPC interoption on their proprietary "side-chains" is irrelevant. It doesn't matter which choice is made now, the effectual outcome on the masses will be the same.

[1] For example someone creates a side-chain with anonymity, so then these coins on the Bitcoin blockchain become tainted and subject to blacklisting.

BTC's "intrinsic value" is the fact is fulfills Aristotle's criteria for good money better than anything else (except Monero).

The BTC price is rising in terms of the last 5/4/3 years.  Zero to $250, by way of $1200.  Excellent performance by any definition.

The price rises when more people act on the optimistic zoomed out view than a cherry-picked local retrace.

You apparently have fooled yourself into believing the market performance of Bitcoin had nothing to do with the promotion of Bitcoin by the mainstream media (and thus implicitly by the banksters who own the mainstream media) or that you believe the MSM can be induced to cover a grassroots, virally growing phenomenon w/o the blessing of the banksters. I assert that if you were to go against their aims and goals (which you won't be able to do any way, Gavincoin has already won), then they would pull the plug on your fork and you would learn about the reverse wealth effect (the fact that the market cap != the amount of capital invested in the coin and this levered effect is a snowball uphill and downhill).

The synergy of believing Bitcoin is an improved money along with the prospect of future scaling of Bitcoin to the world's txns, is what drives wealth effect you love. Take away one, you lose the other. I do hope you try to fork Gavincoin.

The smart money already knows all about the hard UXTO limit, and is therefor investing in systems built on the core blockchain which offload tx pressure to sidechains and other off-main-chain whatnot.

If one had unlimited number of side-chains, this would fundamentally scale even without changing the fundamental design of the ledger for those side-chains. Those side-chains might even be non-public and/or non-decentralized ledgers (and perhaps even fractional reserves, etc).

I don't consider that option as viable is because currency requires a fungible unit-of-exchange (although there is an argument against this with real-time exchange between side-chains, which is an argument I presented ... but not sure if this is realistic or not). So side-chains won't help scale to the transaction volume of the world. We must fix the fundamental decentralized crypto design, or accept centralized morass (which btw won't scale either so that is yet another reason the NWO coin is going to be a dying paradigm...to be toppled by 2033).

An unlimited number of non-fungible side-chains might be useful for smart contracts but not for money.

As for the Gresham's Law.

Yes, I do want people to HLOD their BTC.  Hoarding helps the price in terms of fiat trash rise, and invigorates the beneficial feedback loops driving adoption which ultimately result in a race condition that breaks petrodollar hegemony.  It's the Cartmanland principle: if people can't have Bitcoin they will want it more than ever.

As much as the people jealously crave platinum, plutonium, and Astatine.  Roll Eyes

I specifically didn't mention gold because it is shiny and dense and thus has other appealing attributes for people besides its rare monetary value.

Quote
This ship is going to hit an iceberg, stop dead in its tracks and start leaking water as soon as the 1MB limit is hit consistently.

Bro, do you even Nassim Taleb?  

If you did, you'd already know antifragile systems require adversity to grow stronger (BTW, BTC is not analogous to The Titanic).

Conceptually I agree. But realize that creative destruction of species is often a result of competition in evolution.


The UXTO set is only the current bottleneck for scaling BTC to Visa++ levels of retail usage.  There are many others waiting in the wings (*cough, 10 min. block time, cough*).

Bitcoin's Mother-of-All-Blockchains is simply not the right tool for real-time retail POS interfaces.  Bitcoin's Mother-of-All-Blockchains is a back-office tool.

Okay so considering the trade-offs we have today to choose between (even VaporCoin was available, it would still be irrelevant to the choice made for Bitcoin), I have refuted side-chains. What is this back-office Bitcoin going to be used for then?

cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
June 04, 2015, 12:22:13 AM
 #25425

Rusty may very well be the only level headed one within Blockstream:

Interpretation: Hard Landing Unlikely, But Microtransactions Lose
If the block size doesn’t increase (or doesn’t increase in time): we’ll see transactions get slower, and fees become the significant factor in whether your transaction gets processed quickly.  People will change behaviour: I’m not going to spend 20c to send you 50c!

Because block finding is highly variable and many miners are capping blocks at 750k, we see backlogs at times already; these bursts will happen with increasing frequency from now on.  This will put pressure on Satoshdice and similar services, who will be highly incentivized to use StrawPay or roll their own channel mechanism for off-blockchain microtransactions.


http://rusty.ozlabs.org/?p=500

the anti-increase crowd never bother to explain clear increasing centralization and regulatory risk caused by forcing everyone to use 3rd party offchain services.  

oh, but of course i forgot, who cares about users, it's about full nodes! :/
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
June 04, 2015, 12:34:16 AM
 #25426

Rusty may very well be the only level headed one within Blockstream:

Interpretation: Hard Landing Unlikely, But Microtransactions Lose
If the block size doesn’t increase (or doesn’t increase in time): we’ll see transactions get slower, and fees become the significant factor in whether your transaction gets processed quickly.  People will change behaviour: I’m not going to spend 20c to send you 50c!

Because block finding is highly variable and many miners are capping blocks at 750k, we see backlogs at times already; these bursts will happen with increasing frequency from now on.  This will put pressure on Satoshdice and similar services, who will be highly incentivized to use StrawPay or roll their own channel mechanism for off-blockchain microtransactions.


http://rusty.ozlabs.org/?p=500

the anti-increase crowd never bother to explain clear increasing centralization and regulatory risk caused by forcing everyone to use 3rd party offchain services.  

oh, but of course i forgot, who cares about users, it's about full nodes! :/

here, let's do this.

let's make blocksize=0kB that way we can have infinite full nodes and decentralization!  nirvana!
marcus_of_augustus
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2086



View Profile
June 04, 2015, 12:34:29 AM
 #25427

bad smell all over xt ... note it is not even a faithful branch fork of the main bitcoin repo look https://github.com/bitcoinxt/bitcoinxt at the main link, if it was fork it would have a link beneath it to the git repo it was forked from. So what? you might ask, software forking is subtle ... what this means is there is no way to easily know what has and hasn't been left out out of XT that was in Core ... why do that?

On the front page you can tell things have been changed that have nothing to do with "only 3 major difference" there is a file called "pkg.m4"https://github.com/bitcoinxt/bitcoinxt/blob/0.10.2A/pkg.m4 that was removed from Core because of erroneous behaviour that made every system it was built on to default to using it instead of the system pkg.m4 ... why put broken behaviour back in? Maybe some bad coding reasons but way too much fishy shit right on the front page of XT to trust in the slightest. Removed files put back in, and not a correct, verifiable fork of Core, it looks dodgy as all heck. If it was just some anonymous guy on the internet I would expect coins to go missing immediately if you ran this code.



To me this seems like more fear-mongering from you  m_o_a
Just like when you told us that BitStamp would never come back after the hack as they were all crooks (I am not going to waste my time digging out your post, but you know what you said)
I don't know the truth of the matter, but I don't trust your judgement either. I have seen it to be negatively biased on more than one occasion, enough to make me think that you have your own (unspoken) agenda here

"just trust us" (your ninja edit) ... I don't trust you


But you haven't refuted anything I pointed out. Don't trust me, trust your own lying eyes. But keep attacking the source not the facts, that is what this thread is all about after all right?

Bitstamp didn't implode as I thought but looks to be bleeding out slowly instead, if volume is any indicator. So I got the method of their demise a bit wrong but it still looks like they are finished ... still think they are crooks.

No agenda, no monero.

marcus_of_augustus
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2086



View Profile
June 04, 2015, 12:37:54 AM
 #25428

bad smell all over xt ... note it is not even a faithful branch fork of the main bitcoin repo look https://github.com/bitcoinxt/bitcoinxt at the main link, if it was fork it would have a link beneath it to the git repo it was forked from. So what? you might ask, software forking with git trackinng is subtle ... what this means is there is no way to easily know what has and hasn't been left out of XT that was in Core ... why do that? Git is a system of hashing every commit so you can easily verify every commit back to the original source dump and know it hasn't been messed with, exactly like a block hash chain Wink ... XT has branched in such a way you will never really easily know how it is different from Core, except for, yes you guessed it, "just trust us".

On the front page you can tell things have been changed that have nothing to do with "only 3 major differences" there is a file called "pkg.m4"https://github.com/bitcoinxt/bitcoinxt/blob/0.10.2A/pkg.m4 that was removed from Core because of erroneous behaviour that made every system it was built on to default to using it instead of the system pkg.m4 ... why put broken behaviour back in? Maybe some bad coding reasons but way too much fishy shit right on the front page of XT to trust in the slightest. Removed files put back in, and not a correct, verifiable fork of Core, it looks dodgy as all heck. If it was just some anonymous guy on the internet I would expect coins to go missing immediately if you ran this code.

The other reason is to simply get on the path of being a fully independent implementation that breaks ties with the Satoshi client.

Except everything on the XT readme goes to lengths to explain that is simply "based on Core". In fact it is not "rebased", in the git sense, on Core at all but is a complete new code base. The way it has been forked it will never be a true branch of Core and never able to be rebased upon it. That is all you need to know as a developer to know where they are coming from.

marcus_of_augustus
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2086



View Profile
June 04, 2015, 12:40:23 AM
 #25429

bad smell all over xt ... note it is not even a faithful branch fork of the main bitcoin repo look https://github.com/bitcoinxt/bitcoinxt at the main link, if it was fork it would have a link beneath it to the git repo it was forked from. So what? you might ask, software forking is subtle ... what this means is there is no way to easily know what has and hasn't been left out out of XT that was in Core ... why do that?

On the front page you can tell things have been changed that have nothing to do with "only 3 major difference" there is a file called "pkg.m4"https://github.com/bitcoinxt/bitcoinxt/blob/0.10.2A/pkg.m4 that was removed from Core because of erroneous behaviour that made every system it was built on to default to using it instead of the system pkg.m4 ... why put broken behaviour back in? Maybe some bad coding reasons but way too much fishy shit right on the front page of XT to trust in the slightest. Removed files put back in, and not a correct, verifiable fork of Core, it looks dodgy as all heck. If it was just some anonymous guy on the internet I would expect coins to go missing immediately if you ran this code.



To me this seems like more fear-mongering from you  m_o_a
Just like when you told us that BitStamp would never come back after the hack as they were all crooks (I am not going to waste my time digging out your post, but you know what you said)
I don't know the truth of the matter, but I don't trust your judgement either. I have seen it to be negatively biased on more than one occasion, enough to make me think that you have your own (unspoken) agenda here

"just trust us" (your ninja edit) ... I don't trust you


i smell Monero all over him.

No monero and even if I did how does it change the facts that you refuse to accept?

character assassin, smear tactics ... is about all you have left when you are of limited intellect i'm guessing? Such a drag explaining every last detail like you are 5, are you 5?

phoenix1
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 784



View Profile
June 04, 2015, 12:43:18 AM
 #25430



Bitstamp didn't implode as I thought but looks to be bleeding out slowly instead, if volume is any indicator. So I got the method of their demise a bit wrong but it still looks like they are finished ... still think they are crooks.



A bit wrong ? You said they were crooks and were going to run off with the money. Difference between that and a slow bleed is enormous ( FWIW I actually agree they wil probably suffer a slow painful demise)
And you threw that huge 'error' out at a critical point for BTC ...

"Before you embark on a journey of revenge, dig two graves"  - Confucius (China 551BC-479 BC)
kazuki49
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 350



View Profile
June 04, 2015, 12:52:42 AM
 #25431

bad smell all over xt ... note it is not even a faithful branch fork of the main bitcoin repo look https://github.com/bitcoinxt/bitcoinxt at the main link, if it was fork it would have a link beneath it to the git repo it was forked from. So what? you might ask, software forking is subtle ... what this means is there is no way to easily know what has and hasn't been left out out of XT that was in Core ... why do that?

On the front page you can tell things have been changed that have nothing to do with "only 3 major difference" there is a file called "pkg.m4"https://github.com/bitcoinxt/bitcoinxt/blob/0.10.2A/pkg.m4 that was removed from Core because of erroneous behaviour that made every system it was built on to default to using it instead of the system pkg.m4 ... why put broken behaviour back in? Maybe some bad coding reasons but way too much fishy shit right on the front page of XT to trust in the slightest. Removed files put back in, and not a correct, verifiable fork of Core, it looks dodgy as all heck. If it was just some anonymous guy on the internet I would expect coins to go missing immediately if you ran this code.



To me this seems like more fear-mongering from you  m_o_a
Just like when you told us that BitStamp would never come back after the hack as they were all crooks (I am not going to waste my time digging out your post, but you know what you said)
I don't know the truth of the matter, but I don't trust your judgement either. I have seen it to be negatively biased on more than one occasion, enough to make me think that you have your own (unspoken) agenda here

"just trust us" (your ninja edit) ... I don't trust you


i smell Monero all over him.

No monero and even if I did how does it change the facts that you refuse to accept?

character assassin, smear tactics ... is about all you have left when you are of limited intellect i'm guessing? Such a drag explaining every last detail like you are 5, are you 5?

Yes last time I went against the fork I was called a Monero shill so I fully embraced it since Monero is better than Bitcoin anyway, last time few prominent core devs were talking against it too so I thought it was understandable, you need to see that its their insecurity talking, deep down everyone know how Monero is better. Not saying you agree with me, but welcome to the club.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
June 04, 2015, 12:53:59 AM
 #25432



Bitstamp didn't implode as I thought but looks to be bleeding out slowly instead, if volume is any indicator. So I got the method of their demise a bit wrong but it still looks like they are finished ... still think they are crooks.



A bit wrong ? You said they were crooks and were going to run off with the money. Difference between that and a slow bleed is enormous ( FWIW I actually agree they wil probably suffer a slow painful demise)
And you threw that huge 'error' out at a critical point for BTC ...


guys like marcus, tvbcof, and iCE are bombastic, antagonistic, fear mongerers that seldom contribute any meaningful theoretical discussion here.  they usually attack first by suddenly appearing out of nowhere throwing bombs and vicious name calling; usually at me.  i can easily take it but i've seen them do it to other ppl too.  they are extremists and unfortunately want Bitcoin to wallow in it's own small little corner here in the US & Europe.  which is quite ironic given their objectives.  i just don't think they realize what the hell they're doing.

i can kinda be that way too but usually in self defense.  but at least i'm willing to engage in deep thought, talk openly, ask questions, acknowledge not knowing some things, or ask for help.  these guys are like terrorist know-it-alls that have no remorse.
kazuki49
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 350



View Profile
June 04, 2015, 12:56:56 AM
 #25433


<snip>

i smell Monero all over him.

Ok, as you mention it, and this is not meant as an attack on Monero, what I really don't understand is how a truly anonymous coin can survive, regardless of the tech, when the lead developers are public figures (eg Smooth, who was extremely helpful when I asked about the 21inc stuff) and they have a very public 'castle' as the home of one of their lead promoters (Risto).
How does that work if/when  the SHTF ??
Honestly, I have nothing against Monero, but I can't wrap my head around how something that TPTB will obviously fight against can flourish with these criteria. $5 wrench anyone ??

Please enlighten me. I say this in a truly non-confrontational manner - I am truly confused

Its simple: I thought Bitcoin was already anonymous? Are you saying its all deep down an agenda to make us more traceable? Just confess how much of a nightmare Bitcoin is just waiting like a glove to be used by a NWO hand.
marcus_of_augustus
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2086



View Profile
June 04, 2015, 01:01:17 AM
 #25434

Bitstamp didn't implode as I thought but looks to be bleeding out slowly instead, if volume is any indicator. So I got the method of their demise a bit wrong but it still looks like they are finished ... still think they are crooks.

A bit wrong ? You said they were crooks and were going to run off with the money. Difference between that and a slow bleed is enormous ( FWIW I actually agree they wil probably suffer a slow painful demise)
And you threw that huge 'error' out at a critical point for BTC ...


I never said they were going to run off with the coins. If anything, I think Stamp are hugely net short of coins due to the crazy leveraged shorting they allow ... and I was saying that before the hack. Worse is who they are allowing to short. The hack may have been their wake up call that saves them, who knows, sometimes the places need to be taught a lesson to see the error of their ways.

I encourage idiots to run XT because it will weed them out. frap.doc keeps saying most people will be left without coins ...

phoenix1
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 784



View Profile
June 04, 2015, 01:05:54 AM
 #25435


<snip>

i smell Monero all over him.

Ok, as you mention it, and this is not meant as an attack on Monero, what I really don't understand is how a truly anonymous coin can survive, regardless of the tech, when the lead developers are public figures (eg Smooth, who was extremely helpful when I asked about the 21inc stuff) and they have a very public 'castle' as the home of one of their lead promoters (Risto).
How does that work if/when  the SHTF ??
Honestly, I have nothing against Monero, but I can't wrap my head around how something that TPTB will obviously fight against can flourish with these criteria. $5 wrench anyone ??

Please enlighten me. I say this in a truly non-confrontational manner - I am truly confused

Its simple: I thought Bitcoin was already anonymous? Are you saying its all deep down an agenda to make us more traceable? Just confess how much of a nightmare Bitcoin is just waiting like a glove to be used by a NWO hand.

Not saying anything of the sort, tho its pretty clear that anonymity /=BTC
I don't have any agenda re BTC vs Monero. I am simply asking how a coin with acknowledged superior anonymity features can thrive if all the devs and the HQ are publicly known. It's a purely innocent unbiased question that I would love to hear a solid answer on.




"Before you embark on a journey of revenge, dig two graves"  - Confucius (China 551BC-479 BC)
kazuki49
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 350



View Profile
June 04, 2015, 01:09:49 AM
 #25436


<snip>

i smell Monero all over him.

Ok, as you mention it, and this is not meant as an attack on Monero, what I really don't understand is how a truly anonymous coin can survive, regardless of the tech, when the lead developers are public figures (eg Smooth, who was extremely helpful when I asked about the 21inc stuff) and they have a very public 'castle' as the home of one of their lead promoters (Risto).
How does that work if/when  the SHTF ??
Honestly, I have nothing against Monero, but I can't wrap my head around how something that TPTB will obviously fight against can flourish with these criteria. $5 wrench anyone ??

Please enlighten me. I say this in a truly non-confrontational manner - I am truly confused

Its simple: I thought Bitcoin was already anonymous? Are you saying its all deep down an agenda to make us more traceable? Just confess how much of a nightmare Bitcoin is just waiting like a glove to be used by a NWO hand.

Not saying anything of the sort, tho its pretty clear that anonymity /=BTC
I don't have any agenda re BTC vs Monero. I am simply asking how a coin with acknowledged superior anonymity features can thrive if all the devs and the HQ are publicly known. It's a purely innocent unbiased question that I would love to hear a solid answer on.





Well personally I feel better knowing some devs are public, the most important is that the code is public and while the devs maintain a neutral usage view of the coin it wont matter if its bitcoin or monero. Also they didn't launched it, just like the current core devs of bitcoin.
smooth
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1246



View Profile
June 04, 2015, 01:10:43 AM
 #25437


<snip>

i smell Monero all over him.

Ok, as you mention it, and this is not meant as an attack on Monero, what I really don't understand is how a truly anonymous coin can survive, regardless of the tech, when the lead developers are public figures (eg Smooth, who was extremely helpful when I asked about the 21inc stuff) and they have a very public 'castle' as the home of one of their lead promoters (Risto).
How does that work if/when  the SHTF ??
Honestly, I have nothing against Monero, but I can't wrap my head around how something that TPTB will obviously fight against can flourish with these criteria. $5 wrench anyone ??

Please enlighten me. I say this in a truly non-confrontational manner - I am truly confused

What do you think the developers and promoters can actually do to stop it, even when/if the $5 wrench is applied?

It's an open source project, the code is "out there."

Worst case I suppose is some sort of malicious/coerced code changes to introduce a back door, of the sort that some of the most paranoid attribute to Gavin (I don't). But those are going to be public, and the code is sufficiently well organized that nefarious changes to the "juicy" stuff would be pretty darn obvious.

What am I missing here?

Also, by the way, not all the devs and especially independent contributors are public at all. Some are much more cautious with their identities than than I am. Even with some highly implausible seven person global takedown (for what exactly?), the project would likely continue.
phoenix1
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 784



View Profile
June 04, 2015, 01:11:22 AM
 #25438

Bitstamp didn't implode as I thought but looks to be bleeding out slowly instead, if volume is any indicator. So I got the method of their demise a bit wrong but it still looks like they are finished ... still think they are crooks.

A bit wrong ? You said they were crooks and were going to run off with the money. Difference between that and a slow bleed is enormous ( FWIW I actually agree they wil probably suffer a slow painful demise)
And you threw that huge 'error' out at a critical point for BTC ...


I never said they were going to run off with the coins. If anything, I think Stamp are hugely net short of coins due to the crazy leveraged shorting they allow ... and I was saying that before the hack. Worse is who they are allowing to short. The hack may have been their wake up call that saves them, who knows, sometimes the places need to be taught a lesson to see the error of their ways.


Really not sure what you are talking about. As far as I am aware Stamp are one of the few exchanges that have not introduced leverage yet.


"Before you embark on a journey of revenge, dig two graves"  - Confucius (China 551BC-479 BC)
kazuki49
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 350



View Profile
June 04, 2015, 01:16:43 AM
 #25439


What am I missing here?

Its pretty disappointing really, in attacking the anonymous nature of Monero, most people inadvertently revel their subconscious backing of TPTB agendas, it just confirm that Bitcoin is not what I was waiting for.
phoenix1
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 784



View Profile
June 04, 2015, 01:20:00 AM
 #25440


<snip>

i smell Monero all over him.

Ok, as you mention it, and this is not meant as an attack on Monero, what I really don't understand is how a truly anonymous coin can survive, regardless of the tech, when the lead developers are public figures (eg Smooth, who was extremely helpful when I asked about the 21inc stuff) and they have a very public 'castle' as the home of one of their lead promoters (Risto).
How does that work if/when  the SHTF ??
Honestly, I have nothing against Monero, but I can't wrap my head around how something that TPTB will obviously fight against can flourish with these criteria. $5 wrench anyone ??

Please enlighten me. I say this in a truly non-confrontational manner - I am truly confused

What do you think the developers and promoters can actually do to stop it, even when/if the $5 wrench is applied?

It's an open source project, the code is "out there."

Worst case I suppose is some sort of malicious/coerced code changes to introduce a back door, of the sort that some of the most paranoid attribute to Gavin (I don't). But those are going to be public, and the code is sufficiently well organized that nefarious changes to the "juicy" stuff would be pretty darn obvious.

What am I missing here?

That is exactly what I am asking about. IMO that is not unlikely to occur in the event of significant traction and non-co-operation with TPTB. What happens to Monero in that scenario?

"Before you embark on a journey of revenge, dig two graves"  - Confucius (China 551BC-479 BC)
Pages: « 1 ... 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 1310 1311 1312 1313 1314 1315 1316 1317 1318 1319 1320 1321 1322 ... 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!