Bitcoin Forum
December 04, 2016, 08:40:44 PM *
News: To be able to use the next phase of the beta forum software, please ensure that your email address is correct/functional.
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Poll
Question: Will you support Gavin's new block size limit hard fork of 8MB by January 1, 2016 then doubling every 2 years?
1.  yes
2.  no

Pages: « 1 ... 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 1323 1324 1325 1326 1327 1328 1329 ... 1560 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.  (Read 1804271 times)
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
June 05, 2015, 04:40:23 AM
 #25561

XMR is a complement, not competition, for BTC.  One provides transparency, the other opacity.  Salt & Pepper.   Cool

If it is competition at least there's a remote chance for xmr, otherwise it is doomed -- people that need it will not hold the units; they will make use and those units will be exchanged for btc units ASAP in the other end.

It might survive as a sidechain though.

Where is the evidence for these naked assertions?  (InVisible) market volume vs emission indicates most XMR miners are accumulating.

Why would the mutually-reinforcing perfect complement to BTC be "doomed?"  Let's wait until sidechains exist before drawing conclusions.

Another part of XMR's attraction is its property of being a hedge against BTC implemented with a completely different dev team, codebase, and PoW.

If forced to choose between them, I'd rather hold perfectly fungible XMR than possibly tainted, potentially white/black/red/grey-listed BTC.

ftfy  Cheesy
1480884044
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1480884044

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1480884044
Reply with quote  #2

1480884044
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1480884044
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1480884044

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1480884044
Reply with quote  #2

1480884044
Report to moderator
1480884044
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1480884044

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1480884044
Reply with quote  #2

1480884044
Report to moderator
1480884044
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1480884044

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1480884044
Reply with quote  #2

1480884044
Report to moderator
tvbcof
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 1974


View Profile
June 05, 2015, 04:45:11 AM
 #25562

XMR is a complement, not competition, for BTC.  One provides transparency, the other opacity.  Salt & Pepper.   Cool

If it is competition at least there's a remote chance for xmr, otherwise it is doomed -- people that need it will not hold the units; they will make use and those units will be exchanged for btc units ASAP in the other end.

It might survive as a sidechain though.

I don't have any Monero and don't know jack shit about it.  Or any alt.  It's one of those "Why go out for hamburger when one has steak at home?" type of deals to me.

Now, if Monero or pretty much any total shitcoin was a sidechain and I could have the proper level of confidence that I could, autonomously, shift my holdings back to BTC, I'd be all over it.  If XMR is as great for privacy as iCEBREAKER claims (again and again and again), fantastic!  I'd happily use it whenever I have that need.

In some back-of-my-mind sort of way I sense that somehow privacy and use as a reserve currency are not very compatible.  I cannot put my finger on it and have not spent the time to think up a theory, but it's just a sense.  Perhaps it is a sense that without understanding with some precision the backing store, the system built on top of it is suspect.  Anyway, I personally don't sweat the rather severe privacy deficiencies Bitcoin has in my particular use-case.


majamalu
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1652



View Profile WWW
June 05, 2015, 04:47:55 AM
 #25563

XMR is a complement, not competition, for BTC.  One provides transparency, the other opacity.  Salt & Pepper.   Cool

If it is competition at least there's a remote chance for xmr, otherwise it is doomed -- people that need it will not hold the units; they will make use and those units will be exchanged for btc units ASAP in the other end.

It might survive as a sidechain though.

Where is the evidence for these naked assertions?

When money is forced to compete, Thiers' law takes effect.

"in the absence of effective legal tender laws, Gresham's Law works in reverse. If given the choice of what money to accept, people will transact with money they believe to be of highest long-term value. However, if not given the choice, and required to accept all money, good and bad, they will tend to keep the money of greater perceived value in their possession, and pass on the bad money to someone else. In short, in the absence of legal tender laws, the seller will not accept anything but money of certain value (good money), while the existence of legal tender laws will cause the buyer to offer only money with the lowest commodity value (bad money) as the creditor must accept such money at face value."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gresham%27s_law#Reverse_of_Gresham.27s_Law_.28Thiers.27_Law.29

http://elbitcoin.org - Bitcoin en español
http://mercadobitcoin.com - MercadoBitcoin
iCEBREAKER
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 1498


Crypto is the separation of Power and State.


View Profile WWW
June 05, 2015, 04:51:17 AM
 #25564

XMR is a complement, not competition, for BTC.  One provides transparency, the other opacity.  Salt & Pepper.   Cool

If it is competition at least there's a remote chance for xmr, otherwise it is doomed -- people that need it will not hold the units; they will make use and those units will be exchanged for btc units ASAP in the other end.

It might survive as a sidechain though.

Where is the evidence for these naked assertions?  (InVisible) market volume vs emission indicates most XMR miners are accumulating.

Why would the mutually-reinforcing perfect complement to BTC be "doomed?"  Let's wait until sidechains exist before drawing conclusions.

Another part of XMR's attraction is its property of being a hedge against BTC implemented with a completely different dev team, codebase, and PoW.

If forced to choose between them, I'd rather hold perfectly fungible XMR than possibly tainted, potentially white/black/red/grey-listed BTC.

ftfy  Cheesy

Oh, silly old Frap.doc!   Cheesy

You fixed it until it broke, just like 20MB blocks would have done to BTC if Evil Blockstream Conspirator Peter Todd hadn't checked Gavin's shitmath and noticed the correct most optimistic answer was actually 8MB.

We of course don't know about "invisible" (IE off-market and/or non-public) XMR volume, but what we do see is dumping insufficient to erode the price, indicating miners are either accumulating or selling new coins somewhere besides Polo.

The difference between bad and well-developed digital cash will determine whether we have a dictatorship or a real democracy.  David Chaum 1996
Fungibility provides privacy as a side effect.  Adam Back 2014
"Monero" : { Private - Auditable - 100% Fungible - Flexible Blocksize - Wild & Free® - Intro - Wallets - Podcats - Roadmap - Dice - Blackjack - Github - Android }


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


"I believed @Dashpay instamine was a bug & not a feature but then read: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=421615.msg13017231#msg13017231
I'm not against people making money, but can't support questionable origins."
https://twitter.com/Tone_LLT/status/717822927908024320


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

"Hard forks cannot be co
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
June 05, 2015, 04:57:48 AM
 #25565

XMR is a complement, not competition, for BTC.  One provides transparency, the other opacity.  Salt & Pepper.   Cool

If it is competition at least there's a remote chance for xmr, otherwise it is doomed -- people that need it will not hold the units; they will make use and those units will be exchanged for btc units ASAP in the other end.

It might survive as a sidechain though.

Where is the evidence for these naked assertions?  (InVisible) market volume vs emission indicates most XMR miners are accumulating.

Why would the mutually-reinforcing perfect complement to BTC be "doomed?"  Let's wait until sidechains exist before drawing conclusions.

Another part of XMR's attraction is its property of being a hedge against BTC implemented with a completely different dev team, codebase, and PoW.

If forced to choose between them, I'd rather hold perfectly fungible XMR than possibly tainted, potentially white/black/red/grey-listed BTC.

ftfy  Cheesy

Oh, silly old Frap.doc!   Cheesy

You fixed it until it broke, just like 20MB blocks would have done to BTC if Evil Blockstream Conspirator Peter Todd hadn't checked Gavin's shitmath and noticed the correct most optimistic answer was actually 8MB.

We of course don't know about "invisible" (IE off-market and/or non-public) XMR volume, but what we do see is dumping insufficient to erode the price, indicating miners are either accumulating or selling new coins somewhere besides Polo.

that's a stunning 21BTC daily 24 h volume you got there iCELatte!  i shit that amt every mornin'!  Wink
tvbcof
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 1974


View Profile
June 05, 2015, 05:06:58 AM
 #25566

...
You fixed it until it broke, just like 20MB blocks would have done to BTC if Evil Blockstream Conspirator Peter Todd hadn't checked Gavin's shitmath and noticed the correct most optimistic answer was actually 8MB.

I don't believe it was Todd himself who bothered to check the 'chief scientist's arithmetic.  But anyway, what's the big deal with a 100% error (give or take) on something as minor and trivial as the blocksize which obviously nobody cares about?  It's just a monetary solution which some people might dump their PM stash to go all in on.


iCEBREAKER
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 1498


Crypto is the separation of Power and State.


View Profile WWW
June 05, 2015, 05:14:46 AM
 #25567

XMR is a complement, not competition, for BTC.  One provides transparency, the other opacity.  Salt & Pepper.   Cool

If it is competition at least there's a remote chance for xmr, otherwise it is doomed -- people that need it will not hold the units; they will make use and those units will be exchanged for btc units ASAP in the other end.

It might survive as a sidechain though.

Where is the evidence for these naked assertions?

When money is forced to compete, Thiers' law takes effect.

"in the absence of effective legal tender laws, Gresham's Law works in reverse. If given the choice of what money to accept, people will transact with money they believe to be of highest long-term value. However, if not given the choice, and required to accept all money, good and bad, they will tend to keep the money of greater perceived value in their possession, and pass on the bad money to someone else. In short, in the absence of legal tender laws, the seller will not accept anything but money of certain value (good money), while the existence of legal tender laws will cause the buyer to offer only money with the lowest commodity value (bad money) as the creditor must accept such money at face value."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gresham%27s_law#Reverse_of_Gresham.27s_Law_.28Thiers.27_Law.29

Your response doesn't even mention XMR!   Tongue

I asked for hard empirical on-point evidence, not general navel-gazing hypothetical analysis of angels on pinheads.

There exists plenty of evidence people will hold XMR; where is the evidence supporting your assertion they will not?

Don't make me google "evidence vs analysis" for you...  Wink

The difference between bad and well-developed digital cash will determine whether we have a dictatorship or a real democracy.  David Chaum 1996
Fungibility provides privacy as a side effect.  Adam Back 2014
"Monero" : { Private - Auditable - 100% Fungible - Flexible Blocksize - Wild & Free® - Intro - Wallets - Podcats - Roadmap - Dice - Blackjack - Github - Android }


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


"I believed @Dashpay instamine was a bug & not a feature but then read: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=421615.msg13017231#msg13017231
I'm not against people making money, but can't support questionable origins."
https://twitter.com/Tone_LLT/status/717822927908024320


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

"Hard forks cannot be co
majamalu
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1652



View Profile WWW
June 05, 2015, 05:54:46 AM
 #25568

XMR is a complement, not competition, for BTC.  One provides transparency, the other opacity.  Salt & Pepper.   Cool

If it is competition at least there's a remote chance for xmr, otherwise it is doomed -- people that need it will not hold the units; they will make use and those units will be exchanged for btc units ASAP in the other end.

It might survive as a sidechain though.

Where is the evidence for these naked assertions?

When money is forced to compete, Thiers' law takes effect.

"in the absence of effective legal tender laws, Gresham's Law works in reverse. If given the choice of what money to accept, people will transact with money they believe to be of highest long-term value. However, if not given the choice, and required to accept all money, good and bad, they will tend to keep the money of greater perceived value in their possession, and pass on the bad money to someone else. In short, in the absence of legal tender laws, the seller will not accept anything but money of certain value (good money), while the existence of legal tender laws will cause the buyer to offer only money with the lowest commodity value (bad money) as the creditor must accept such money at face value."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gresham%27s_law#Reverse_of_Gresham.27s_Law_.28Thiers.27_Law.29

Your response doesn't even mention XMR!   Tongue

I asked for hard empirical on-point evidence, not general navel-gazing hypothetical analysis of angels on pinheads.

There exists plenty of evidence people will hold XMR; where is the evidence supporting your assertion they will not?

Don't make me google "evidence vs analysis" for you...  Wink

Better pay attention to those angels from the realm of theory; they can save you a lot of pain.

If you want "hard empirical on-point evidence" in cryptoland, I'm afraid you will have to wait.

http://elbitcoin.org - Bitcoin en español
http://mercadobitcoin.com - MercadoBitcoin
TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
June 05, 2015, 06:15:28 AM
 #25569

How do you create a network topology that is decentralized at any scale?

With a design that enables the ends of the network to be autonomous (e.g. the internet), i.e. the End-to-End principle. Ideally the power (autonomy) of the ends over the center (or the group) should get stronger the more it is Sybil attacked (i.e. the attack doesn't exist).

Abstractly not erroneously redefining decentralization to be centralization-by-free-will-but-no-other-choice (aka "one for all, and all for one" collectivism) as Bitcoin did:

Marching in lockstep doesn't mean centralized (of course; that's the whole idea of Bitcoin in a way).


Anyone guessed my paradigm shift yet?

The goal is clear enough, and laudable.  It is the path to that goal that remains occluded.

Appreciated.

It is time to either move forward, quit, or shut up (or both).

TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
June 05, 2015, 06:31:37 AM
 #25570

fiat 2.0, SDR's come on.

Hehe. Bitcoin is centralized, you are only obfuscating to yourself if you claim that it isn't.

The centralization was put in the wrong place in Bitcoin's design. Move it, then the decentralization can control the centralization.

do you care to explain how it's centralized again.

if the idea you have is correct then it needs to spread, it wont spread if it cant be understood.

can you ELI5.

Because the center (the group acting in lock step) has the power to include or not include transactions (and set transaction fees).

That alone is already centralization.

And worse is that power (lack of autonomy of the ends of the network) can be monopolized, e.g. State regulation of mining, Larry Summer's 21 Inc economics that mine for free for the cartel, Sybil attack on pools, economies-of-scale (and fiat subsidy via the usury backstop) with ASICs, electricity costs charged to the society, Transactions Withholding Attack, etc, etc, etc. Do I need to enumerate every monopolization vector in detail again (each was already debated upthread)?

The only retort is that the society will rebel against any monopoly, which is complete nonsense because we have innumerable examples in history and society never does. At least two others made a similar comment upthread.

I have given my support to spreading Bitcoin knowing with complete certainty (based on my detailed posts about human nature, Logic of Collective Action, and historical evidence) that it will end up being used by the State to oppress us (and cypherdoc's Africans too), because it also has seepage and helps to grow the capital base (network effects) for crypto-currency, which can aid the process of making an ideal crypto-currency.

cypherdoc is so excited to enslave the world in a fully tracked money that never existed before in history. Cash was always anonymous. He is ostensibly oblivious to the blood that is going to be on his hands. He is excited about what in effect will a euthanization of the world in the NWO global Technocracy where everything will be controlled and tracked by the State.

shmadz
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1428


@theshmadz


View Profile
June 05, 2015, 07:03:57 AM
 #25571

fiat 2.0, SDR's come on.

Hehe. Bitcoin is centralized, you are only obfuscating to yourself if you claim that it isn't.

The centralization was put in the wrong place in Bitcoin's design. Move it, then the decentralization can control the centralization.

do you care to explain how it's centralized again.

if the idea you have is correct then it needs to spread, it wont spread if it cant be understood.

can you ELI5.

Because the center (the group acting in lock step) has the power to include or not include transactions (and set transaction fees).

That alone is already centralization.

And worse is that power (lack of autonomy of the ends of the network) can be monopolized, e.g. Larry Summer's 21 Inc economics that mine for free for the cartel, Sybil attack on pools, economies-of-scale (and fiat subsidy via the usury backstop) with ASICs, electricity costs charged to the society, Transactions Withholding Attack, etc, etc, etc. Do I need to enumerate every monopolization vector in detail again (each was already debated upthread)?

The only retort is that the society will rebel against any monopoly, which is complete nonsense because we have innumerable examples in history and society never does. At least two others made a similar comment upthread.

I have given my support to spreading Bitcoin knowing with complete certainty (based on my detailed posts about human nature, Logic of Collective Action, and historical evidence) that it will end up being used by the State to oppress us (and cypherdoc's Africans too), because it also has seepage and helps to grow the capital base (network effects) for crypto-currency, which can aid the process of making an ideal crypto-currency.

cypherdoc is so excited to enslave the world in a fully tracked money that never existed before in history. Cash was always anonymous. He is ostensibly oblivious to the blood that is going to be on his hands. He is excited about what in effect will a euthanization of the world in the NWO global Technocracy where everything will be controlled and tracked by the State.

Ok, seepage, yes I get that, and yes, it's nice to have bitcoin as a reserve currency against which all other digital currencies are priced. Alt coins that have true innovation or advantage should appreciate in value vs bitcoin over time.

  I would very much like it if you could come up with a superior alternative, but your hints and allegations of a "better way" have a decidedly hollow ring to them.

Time to put up or shut up dude, seriously, crackpot schemes like 21 can raise more than a hundred million, and your idea can't raise ten grand?

Best of luck, I hope you save us all with your super crypto and I hope you monetize your way to a private island and a personal yacht, but please do it soon, we're running out of time here.


"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
June 05, 2015, 07:08:49 AM
 #25572

I don't agree with your apathy on whether cryptographers who invent anything that truly threatens TPTB will be made into examples.

Smooth I also don't think it is viable to murder dozens of open source programmers because it would be difficult to obscure on that scale and thus the hacker community would likely rise up and retaliate (and win!). But in terms of stopping an immediate threat or making an example out of a serious threat which can be done in an obfuscated manner so as to not wake up the entire community, I think it is a realistic consideration. Perhaps avoiding outcomes below is contingent on carefully accessing the situation the potential victim has placed himself into. For example, attack the Russian oligarchs and you will be overtly assassinated. Attack the CIA or NSA and they will weigh the cost of murdering versus the risk of waking up the sheeople.

Yeah its posible that one or two people could be taken out in a "suspicious" manner. So as I said earlier, open the project. Get others to participate (even if that includes giving up some measure of your anonymity to do it, and I think it does). Otherwise, as long as you remain critical to the effort, you are betting solely on your ability to actually remain anonymous for your safety. That is difficult and may even be impossible. It certainly didn't work out too well for Ross.

For all we know satoshi's identity is well known to the NSA, etc. (I consider that quite likely). Likewise the developers of cryptonote are probably identifiable by the NSA too. But what difference does either really make at this point? The code is out there. Interest has been established, so the projects will continue.

Agreed all.

Opening a project too soon or launching with a non-anonymous dev has trade-offs:

* loosing first mover advantage
* regulatory threats against an ICO
* no ICO then no $ to pay for development
* no money to pay for development to race ahead, then another effort can leech and create an ICO to steal the work
* radical design by consensus is sub-optimal. Refinement by consensus is optimal.

I don't know how high to weigh your argument that an anonymous launch will cause other developers and investors to be disinterested. I find that hard to believe. An anonymous launch with all the correct attributes is not different than one with a named dev, because by your own logic, the coin should be judged on its open source merits if it is to be truly decentralized. The main killer of an altcoin is a huge premine that doesn't allow the coin to be fairly distributed or any scheme which allows a disproportionate amount of the coins to be controlled by one person or group. Ideally some percent (in the typical power law distribution) of the coins should be distributed to the users of the currency (who don't just HODL and never sell for fiat).

iCEBREAKER
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 1498


Crypto is the separation of Power and State.


View Profile WWW
June 05, 2015, 07:10:19 AM
 #25573

There exists plenty of evidence people will hold XMR; where is the evidence supporting your assertion they will not?

Don't make me google "evidence vs analysis" for you...  Wink

Better pay attention to those angels from the realm of theory; they can save you a lot of pain.

If you want "hard empirical on-point evidence", I'm afraid you will have to wait.


We already have 1 year of data in the form of volume/price on XMR emission (IE supply) vs demand.

It indicates XMR is not economical to mine (or short) because most miners are mining with the intention of holding, not dumping.

What are you waiting for?  In any case, enjoy your ethereal analysis paralysis while we in the real world get things done and make stuff happen.

The difference between bad and well-developed digital cash will determine whether we have a dictatorship or a real democracy.  David Chaum 1996
Fungibility provides privacy as a side effect.  Adam Back 2014
"Monero" : { Private - Auditable - 100% Fungible - Flexible Blocksize - Wild & Free® - Intro - Wallets - Podcats - Roadmap - Dice - Blackjack - Github - Android }


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


"I believed @Dashpay instamine was a bug & not a feature but then read: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=421615.msg13017231#msg13017231
I'm not against people making money, but can't support questionable origins."
https://twitter.com/Tone_LLT/status/717822927908024320


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

"Hard forks cannot be co
TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
June 05, 2015, 07:17:07 AM
 #25574

allegations of a "better way" have a decidedly hollow ring to them.

Of course when details have been purposely withheld. I tried to give enough of a taste so I could judge the rationality of the community. This was an important marketing test for me to do, which impacts my decision process. I also tried to be vague enough that I could retain plausibly deniability.

To assert that most everything being done in Bitcoin is unnecessary is going to have a hollow ring to it, absent any details. I will just add that Bitcoin is trying to do too much. Too much power was given to the mining. This appears to have been designed with forethought. There was this elaborate strawman built about the tech envy of the formerly unresolved Byzantine General's problem (which I assert Bitcoin does not solve in the context of being resistant to monopolization).

TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
June 05, 2015, 07:39:32 AM
 #25575

An observation about the blockchain, that I have not seen commented elsewhere.

You are getting too close to my idea.

That is good. If someone launches, it will not be certain it is me.

P.S. I planted this epiphany in your subconscious. Just as smooth planted the End-to-End principle in my subconscious when he told me a pigeon could carry a Monero transaction to the network.

majamalu
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1652



View Profile WWW
June 05, 2015, 07:42:42 AM
 #25576

There exists plenty of evidence people will hold XMR; where is the evidence supporting your assertion they will not?

Don't make me google "evidence vs analysis" for you...  Wink

Better pay attention to those angels from the realm of theory; they can save you a lot of pain.

If you want "hard empirical on-point evidence", I'm afraid you will have to wait.


We already have 1 year of data in the form of volume/price on XMR emission (IE supply) vs demand.

It indicates XMR is not economical to mine (or short) because most miners are mining with the intention of holding, not dumping.

What are you waiting for?  In any case, enjoy your ethereal analysis paralysis while we in the real world get things done and make stuff happen.

God bless my analysis paralysis; if it were not for it, I would have fallen into the altcoin trap many times in the past.

http://elbitcoin.org - Bitcoin en español
http://mercadobitcoin.com - MercadoBitcoin
TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
June 05, 2015, 07:46:08 AM
 #25577

That and ordering.

Wink I did expect smooth would identify the key word.

TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
June 05, 2015, 07:50:47 AM
 #25578

again as long as mining remains decentralized (and if it isn't then all bets are off)

That was my point.

iCEBREAKER
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 1498


Crypto is the separation of Power and State.


View Profile WWW
June 05, 2015, 08:02:02 AM
 #25579

God bless my analysis paralysis; if it were not for it, I would have fallen into the altcoin buttcoin trap many times in the past.

Right, you and the other buttcoiners should never risk anything on crazy new ideas like e-cash.  Better to wait until something has already been proven successful than befriend an emerging trend.   Roll Eyes

When your analyzer thingy can't (even after a great first year) tell the difference between generic altcoins and the Bitcoin-type Holy Grail breakthrough of Monero, it's time to replace the batteries and update the firmware.

Wading back on topic, here's this:


^^Needs moar Monero!

The difference between bad and well-developed digital cash will determine whether we have a dictatorship or a real democracy.  David Chaum 1996
Fungibility provides privacy as a side effect.  Adam Back 2014
"Monero" : { Private - Auditable - 100% Fungible - Flexible Blocksize - Wild & Free® - Intro - Wallets - Podcats - Roadmap - Dice - Blackjack - Github - Android }


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


"I believed @Dashpay instamine was a bug & not a feature but then read: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=421615.msg13017231#msg13017231
I'm not against people making money, but can't support questionable origins."
https://twitter.com/Tone_LLT/status/717822927908024320


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

"Hard forks cannot be co
TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
June 05, 2015, 08:05:54 AM
 #25580

this lady is highly unlikely to be making a mistake:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PZ6WR2R1MnM&feature=youtu.be

Will be amazing if she is right, maybe she just hopes she is as it definitely makes a good speech.  To say with that certainty that blockchain transactions will be part of all public financing and as ground breaking as the internet is quite a statement if we consider just how much trade is done by the markets every day.

Blythe worked for JP Morgan and the banksters. I'm sure she wishes it would be so, since they plan to track and control us with public ledgers which are only decentralized in name but actually monopolized.

Bitcoin can never scale as the internet did because it violates the two key scaling principles of the internet, End-to-end and Principle of Least Power. They might be able to scale it as they did Facebook to most people on earth, but it will never scale to most economic activity on earth (and note the distinction). The only way they win with Bitcoin (i.e. for it to encompass most economic activity) is by oppressing the economic freedom that will drive most of the future economic activity.

Bitcoin is a (planted) ruse to entice people to agree to give up the anonymity of cash. It is leverage against governments and financial institutions that resist takeover by the NWO.

Pages: « 1 ... 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 1323 1324 1325 1326 1327 1328 1329 ... 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!