Bitcoin Forum
December 08, 2016, 10:22:01 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 ... 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 1330 ... 1560 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.  (Read 1806499 times)
TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
June 05, 2015, 08:14:44 AM
 #25581

...while the technology for genuine orthogonal scaling is developed.

The semi-veiled Blockstream infection (attempted takeover) of Bitcoin is so obvious. You don't even try to obscure it well.

And you still haven't refuted my assertion that pegged side chains break interoperability (and have to transfer back through the Bitcoin blockchain thus don't solve scaling if maximum network effects and interoperability is desired), thus can't scale and lose network effects. $21 million down a hole. Seems Adam's former company is a source of many of the key members of Blockstream and that former startup accomplished what? There might be a pattern of failure. This is often what happens when you put academics and inexperienced venture capital together (the seed capitalist made his fortune by creating an ISP in Canada and selling it back in the boom of the dot.com era).

Gregory is an extremely talented cryptographer (who several times has reused hash trees for compression) but who apparently often doesn't raise his scope of vision over the tree trunks to reason about the forest. CoinJoin? Heuristic spaghetti for Sybil attacks? (or maybe he was just trying to make the best out of the worst?)

1481235721
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481235721

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481235721
Reply with quote  #2

1481235721
Report to moderator
1481235721
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481235721

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481235721
Reply with quote  #2

1481235721
Report to moderator
1481235721
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481235721

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481235721
Reply with quote  #2

1481235721
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
June 05, 2015, 08:20:13 AM
 #25582

If you mix off-chain, you are merely obfuscating and therefore Doing It Wrong.

That articulation is incorrect and implies you don't have solid technological comprehension.

The generative difference with off-chain mixing is it doesn't scale because it is not autonomous and thus violates the End-to-end principle. There is no difference in the level of anonymity for any given anonymity set (all other factors equal which they may not be, such as IP address correlation in off-chain because the parties must coordinate).

All mix-nets are a form of "obfuscation". There is no such thing as 100% anonymity. It is always a measure of the anonymity set size. Obfuscation though is usually differentiated from anonymity sets such that obfuscation is a mixing of itself (e.g. a mangling of JavaScript code), whereas the latter is a mixing of numerous entities.

iCEBREAKER
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1512


Crypto is the separation of Power and State.


View Profile WWW
June 05, 2015, 08:29:23 AM
 #25583

I may have figured out why Doctor Frappe has recently been going off the rails in such an uncharacteristically frothy, grumpy, and ill-tempered manner.

The reason may be read in the implied lines between these two posts:

1. Bitcoin never goes below its previous all-time high after a big rally. ($266)

2. Bitcoin rallies every XXX days.

3. Bitcoin rallies whenever the 3D or 1W MACD turn green.

4. Bitcoin rallies when it's been stable for XXX days.

5. If you hold bitcoin for 2 years, it'll always be higher. (became false in April 2015)

You name it. Every pattern is broken. There are no more clever facts left. No more talking points. No more s-curves going vertical and no more quips. Now there is only reality. What reality? The reality that bitcoin is making good progress but there is lax demand. The road ahead may be much longer than any of us have imagined.

So it turns out:
-Gavin was planning to foist his and Hearns' XT altcoin on the community for one year plus and this was all planned for a long time. (http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/37vg8y/is_the_blockstream_company_the_reason_why_4_core/crqbd78)
-Gavin is the only dev who supports this proposal (https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/34y48z/mike_hearn_the_capacity_cliff_and_why_we_cant_use/cqz9xf3)
-Gavin caused attrition not only for the devteam but for all of the community
-He caused a lot of important people in the space to be upset and even some devs threaten to leave
-Gavin caused a decline in the price of Bitcoin which could possibly turn into panic selling (we don't know yet)
-Gavin caused a serious loss in investors confidence and thus harmed Bitcoin greatly
-He sends blackmail letters to the Bitcoin community "do how i say or else ..."
-He doesn't care for decentralisation
-He lies about many things
-He tried a power grab and sides with people who support blacklisting of coins
-He caused massive unease for everyone for prolonged time
-He has no idea what consensus is or disrespects it willfully
-A majority of the community thinks he is a CIA mole (he lost his marbles)
-He threatens to risk network consensus and thus the value of a lot of peoples' investement

There are certainly more things to list.

I think it's time to think about if he is really an asset for Bitcoin or more of a burden right now. I have a feeling Bitcoin could rebound +10% if he would resign and thus end this discussion and bring back some investors confidence again.

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, 08:36:06 AM
 #25584

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 must carve out a market that Bitcoin doesn't have or it is doomed. That is not necessary the same as competition. New markets means they are not competing. I hope the Monero folks aren't angered by this opinion. I do believe they think they can carve out a market in the anonymity space.

It might survive as a sidechain though.

I refuted pegged side chains and no one has retorted.

Bassica
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 244


View Profile
June 05, 2015, 08:42:48 AM
 #25585

The imposible monero>btc seems more plausible as time goes on

nope.  with Monero wallowing at near all-time lows relative to BTC and way down at #13 in the cryptocurrency mkts, it's no wonder iCELatte and his buddies have decided to come into this thread and try to take advantage of the 20MB controversy.  it's a shameless move yet quite expected from these altscam guys.  too bad it's not going to work:



I have been reading this thread since early 2013, it is one of the little gems this forum has left. I respect your thoughts and what you have contributed. Until now I have refrained from commenting on/about anything monero in the little posts i make here, since there's an altsection for that.

But what you're doing now is playing the exact same card that all the bitcoin sceptics are pulling to illegitimatize btc, which imo is a weak one. Bitcoin provided a mental exercise when it appeared on the scene. You've been able to make it to the other side and are one of the most forward thinking guys ion this subject(esp if compared to the rest of the world). There are a lot of viable arguments against alts or monero but the stance you've been taking is of the same sturdiness of the bitcoin-'haters' and have resulted in fallacies based on price.

Maybe that is because of the monero-proponents here who sort of force you into this position. But don't become like the btc-haters who arn't willing to at least try out other perspectives on the matter. You resorted into the same kind of tactics as the old status quo you once battled.

You've been getting a lot of shit here lately in all the debates. And although you are used to getting shit about these topics it almost seems that lately you're losing it a little. Call me a troll/newb/insignifact whatever. The paragraph i started with was genuine.
TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
June 05, 2015, 08:55:08 AM
 #25586

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.

This is the only retort I've seen in support of pegged side chains. The pegged attribute means the BTC is actually reserved on the Bitcoin chain so that no matter what happens to the side chain, the value can always be recovered back to BTC.

You are not using scaling[1] as the basis of your desire for side chains. Rather you are using the insurance of value relative to BTC. The difference between a peg on the Bitcoin blockchain and a hedging instrument are the zero cost and reservation guarantee of the former.

But I don't see why we need Blockstream to do that. Afaics, any altcoin could offer the feature where its coin supply is the number of BTC on specified reserve on the Bitcoin blockchain (using the methods devised by Blockstream).

But there is no incentive for the altcoin developer because their work doesn't get valued nor monetarily remunerated in terms of coin appreciation. No ICO can be done, because the coins are still reserved on the Bitcoin blockchain.

A risk-free investment does not exist. You are asking to take away all ROI to enable a guarantee but with nothing in return offered to incentivize the market and development. You also remove your ability to profit on HODLing the altcoin. In short, you don't want to invest and you don't want to profit (in anything other than Bitcoin).


[1] Which I argue is not aided by and probably harmed by side chains, because the only way scaling (and thus network effects) are solved by side chains is an unlimited numbers of side chains, else the complexity class is the same as needing to solve how to scale Bitcoin's blockchain. But innumerable side chains kills interoperability and thus the scaling of network effects.

"Why go out for hamburger when one has steak at home?"

Because you might meet the waitress of your dreams. Nothing ventured, nothing gained. No investigation, no knowledge. Ignorance is bliss. Home eating, boring men don't often capture the (attention of the) Playboy bunny and don't stay abreast of current trends outside.

TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
June 05, 2015, 09:14:29 AM
 #25587

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

Armstrong noted that throughout history, peripheral markets counterfeit the reserve currency's coins because these are the widest accepted.

I view Gresham's law as basically saying that the most widely recognized money drives the other money out-of-circulation. I think it applies regardless of legal tender laws as we see throughout history where for example Roman coins circulated even where they weren't required to by law.

Your argument should instead be that Bitcoin is the most widely recognized and accepted crypto money.

TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
June 05, 2015, 10:00:27 AM
 #25588

Gold failed to bounce in June, thus it looks like we are headed down. BTC likely to follow down.

http://armstrongeconomics.com/archives/31318

http://armstrongeconomics.com/archives/31344

Safe haven seeking capital is flowing into the short-end of the bond yield curve in Europe. All in preparation for the contagion Big Bang 2015.75, likely Greece.

TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
June 05, 2015, 10:37:24 AM
 #25589

The Blockstream white paper mentions interoperability, but afaics gives no details other than to say the chains share the same BTC unit.

I assume this means each side chain's money supply will fluctuate according to spending from one chain to the other and presumably not passing back through the Bitcoin blockchain as I had assumed. I suppose this is viable and what remains of my criticism is there is no investment model possible for the side chains unless there is some fee service that can be sold. So I guess the devs of a side chain would need seek their ROI by charging transaction fees but ongoing payment is a form of centralization.

I guess one could view moving BTC from the Bitcoin blockchain to a side chain as an investment in an ecosystem driving the value of BTC higher. Appreciation of the particular side chain will not be possible to capture.

The investment model concerns I think strongly disfavor side chains for any ubiquitous features. Thus side chains don't appear to do anything for the scaling problem of Bitcoin.

Side chains would be useful for isolating blockchain scripting where user programmability is the priority and not investment ROI.

Also I think my interoperability concern remains valid in at least one way. For example Monero as a side chain would presumably have different anonymity properties when spending to another chain than spending within the Monero side chain. Thus the interoperability doesn't scale the same as a single chain with ubiquitous features.

I potentially like side chains as a way of achieving hard forks democratically, i.e. anyone can stay with the old chain or spend off to the new chain (and come back anytime), but this could encourage fragmentation which could retard value appreciation.

I just don't think side chains address scaling and Gregory should either justify how they do or accept that isn't the market he needs to defend with this block size debate.

Edit: there is one way side chains enable scaling. That is the side chain is a centralized ledger. So if the masses can be enticed to spend their BTC into the Coinbase+Paypal+Circle cartel side chain, then it can scale easily. And then the hashrate of the Bitcoin blockchain will wane and can be attacked by the cartel.

Yeah a cartel side chain is great sell out to TPTB. Go! Good job!

Blockstream is (unwittingly?) enabling an easy path for the cartel to fork Bitcoin.

TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
June 05, 2015, 12:42:01 PM
 #25590

Gold failed to bounce in June, thus it looks like we are headed down. BTC likely to follow down.

http://armstrongeconomics.com/archives/31318

http://armstrongeconomics.com/archives/31344

Safe haven seeking capital is flowing into the short-end of the bond yield curve in Europe. All in preparation for the contagion Big Bang 2015.75, likely Greece.

This is the most fascinating post I've perhaps ever seen from Armstrong. Amazing that his Trading Array model has INDEPENDENTLY picked up on the ECM 2015.75 Big Bang:

http://armstrongeconomics.com/archives/31361

Looks like the timing for the capitulation low in private assets (gold, bitcoin, and now the USA stock market too) will be in October.

Again I reiterate my 80% expectation for < $1050 and < $150 for the final bottom (price independent of timing). I assign 50% odds of a bottom < $850 and <$100. Ideally would be a bottom in the mid-$600s and < $50, as that would clear out all the dumb money.

As in 2008, the private assets will rally hard after the initial margin call selling has caused them to crater. Remember when safe haven panic contagion strikes, people are forced to sell their most liquid assets. I was buying 1000oz silver bars at $9/tr.oz.

TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
June 05, 2015, 01:34:09 PM
 #25591

Seems Etlase2 incorporated my 2013 "Topic: "Spiraling Transaction Fees Destruction" of bitcoin  (Read 6785 times)" into his white paper.

http://www.decrits.net/decrits-consensus.pdf

Quote from: Etlase2
November 4, 2014

In the future when Bitcoin mining is no longer as heavily subsidized as it
is today, the problem is compounded by the fact that the network’s security is
relative to the amount of transaction fees assessed. If transaction fees are low,
the comparative network security must be low. If transaction fees are high,
it is likely that fewer transactions will be performed on-chain14 which would
also contribute to lower network security and an easier opportunity to attack.
It may very well be the case that older, less efficient pieces of silicon known as
ASICs that can only perform Bitcoin POW may find new life and profitability
in attacking the Bitcoin network.


I finally had a spare moment to contemplate the variables.

A key factor is the block size. If the block size is unlimited (and bandwidth is an insignificant cost), then unless miners have a monopoly they will accept transactions with fees as low as don't constitute a DoS attack, in order to maximize revenue.

In other words, they would have no pricing power at all (a Tragedy of the Commons) and the system would devolve into a partial-monopoly in order to gain pricing power.

A partial-monopoly in this case is enough % of the network hashrate to delay transactions (by that % of blocks) which do not include a sufficient fee.

If we limit block size, then the system doesn't scale.

If we let the Bitcoin foundation decide when to increase block size, then they control the economic market function, i.e. we've centralized Bitcoin.

Let us assume unlimited block size and partial-monopolies. Thus the transaction fee can always be forced higher in order to generate more revenue for the miners. Thus Bitcoin devolves (as coin rewards diminish) to a system that presents spenders with a choice between include a very high transaction fee or accept an ever increasing delay for confirmation. This will exacerbate as coin rewards diminish and volume of transactions increase.

If we instead assume limited block size, then the Bitcoin foundation will set the transaction fees, not the market.

Bitcoin is a broken design.

And from my account on Bitcoin StackExchange wherein they banned me for several months in 2013...

http://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/876/how-much-will-transaction-fees-eventually-be/8749#8749

Quote from: myself
In any P2P currency, there are only 3 choices, or combination of them.

You fund miners from savers.
You fund miners from spenders.
You let the government provide the mining. A public need so the economy doesn't stop.
1 is not available to Bitcoin long-term, because debasement is halving every four years.

2 penalizes economic activity, which is more important than burying money, ahem saving. Also it doesn't scale, unless it is uniform in the protocol. Gavin wrote making it uniform won't work in the market.

3 is thus the outcome for Bitcoin. (as designed by Satoshi)

TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
June 05, 2015, 01:41:45 PM
 #25592

My prediction in 2013 for something like 21 Inc to arrive by 2016:

http://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/3111/will-bitcoin-suffer-from-a-mining-tragedy-of-the-commons-when-mining-fees-drop-t/8686#8686

Quote from: myself
I now see a much more urgent and catastrophic threat vector potentially circa 2016.

Difficulty will tend to rise and fall such that the system-wide cost of mining is nearly the value of the coins mined (not perfectly but on a smoothed basis roughly true).

Thus the lowest-cost marginal miners will earn the highest profits and rates-of-return. Thus, as Satoshi Nakamoto anticipated, mining will become centralized among those with more capital who can buy the highest performance hardware.

This is more accentuated by the designed volatility in the price of Bitcoins, because a) marginal cost producers can go through periods of negative profits or no production, and b) more capital means more inertial reserve, economy-of-scale access to capital funding markets, and access to debt to delay insolvency so as to smooth volatility in market conditions.

So to capture a majority or maybe even most of the mining, an entity probably merely needs to subsidize on a large-scale.

The government or powerful elite has the funds to do this, either in public view using taxes (or deposit insurance on P2P currencies) or in documented black budgets.

Is there a scenario where the public would clamor for the government to fix a problem by doing this?

Imagine the public became heavily invested in wild "dot.com 2.0" run of Bitcoin price appreciation to say $1000, $10000, or $100000 (as some people expect). All bubbles eventually crash. Tangentially, the creator of Bitcoin would probably be a $billionaire.

So with an exponential crash in price, there could be a drastic reduction in miners, joined with a public wanting to blame something or someone. The government could probably find massive support for deposit insurance.

Thus I conclude that the computational Proof-of-Work design of Bitcoin is a serious threat to anyone who views Bitcoin as being independent of the control of the government. Noting that correlation isn't proof yet via Occam's Razor it is ostensibly designed for this outcome and thus to fall into the lap of the government.

And we are not talking about 2040. The pricing froth is building now so this could happen soon. And we also have another halving of the debasement payout rate in late 2016.

Which Btw, is when the repeating-throughout-all-recorded-history Economic Confidence Model expects this current bounce of capital flows into the USA dollar economy to turn hard down again a la 2008— exactly when we will need a P2P currency to help us avoid chaos of capital controls and liquidity collapse. Bitcoin could fail at precisely the time when we will need it most. That is what concerns me so much.

I would very, very much appreciate if any downvoters sign with a comment, in case this answer becomes prophetic we will be able to know how prescient you were.


https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=158111.msg1684553#msg1684553

Quote from: myself
Satoshi said mining would become centralized:

http://www.mail-archive.com/cryptography@metzdowd.com/msg09964.html

Here he said there would probably always be nodes willing to process for free after debasement ends. He did not elaborate on why:

http://www.mail-archive.com/cryptography@metzdowd.com/msg10142.html

Another reason to centralize mining is the communication overhead, which I implied in my prior post where I said Satoshi was discussing the 100GB bandwidth.

TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
June 05, 2015, 01:45:30 PM
 #25593

Basis for my comments about Gregory Maxwell also derives from this interaction (wherein surprisingly I made the same judgement that I stated in this thread about his personality) and also the interaction the On the Longest Chain Rule and CoinJoin threads.

cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
June 05, 2015, 01:55:22 PM
 #25594

plenty of bad news for non-Bitcoiners this morning:



i've been warning you.  Gold collapsing, Bitcoin soon UP:



breaking to new lows.  leading:



and if you don't believe a small miner, here's a large gold miner about to hit new lows:

ssmc2
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 840


View Profile
June 05, 2015, 02:00:58 PM
 #25595

Ripple ftw! Hahaaaaa  Grin

http://www.afr.com/brand/chanticleer/cbas-crypto-currency-move-the-tip-of-the-iceberg-20150602-ghee7i

edit:

Wright says the issue with Ripple is that it is a traditional trust model.

"If they are all working well, you can trust them. The problem is that no system is as secure as Ripple would like to have us believe.

"Ripple is in effect an IOU, the trouble is that this IOU can be misused. You can send things you cannot possibly have. For instance, it is possible to send a ripple IOU for 100 million Bitcoin. The problem is that there will never be more than 21 million Bitcoin."

"So, Ripple is using a lack of awareness of what they really are to fool others into the belief that they are a distributed network and Blockchain-based system."
phoenix1
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 784



View Profile
June 05, 2015, 02:01:25 PM
 #25596

Lol! I almost poked you an hour ago to ask why we had not had our market report after the NFP moves!
Bonds taking a real pounding too ...

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

Activity: 1764



View Profile
June 05, 2015, 02:03:52 PM
 #25597

The Jaws of Death are closing on gold and the Dow (large red arrow).  Bitcoin will benefit:

cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
June 05, 2015, 02:39:24 PM
 #25598

The imposible monero>btc seems more plausible as time goes on

nope.  with Monero wallowing at near all-time lows relative to BTC and way down at #13 in the cryptocurrency mkts, it's no wonder iCELatte and his buddies have decided to come into this thread and try to take advantage of the 20MB controversy.  it's a shameless move yet quite expected from these altscam guys.  too bad it's not going to work:

-

I have been reading this thread since early 2013, it is one of the little gems this forum has left. I respect your thoughts and what you have contributed. Until now I have refrained from commenting on/about anything monero in the little posts i make here, since there's an altsection for that.

But what you're doing now is playing the exact same card that all the bitcoin sceptics are pulling to illegitimatize btc, which imo is a weak one. Bitcoin provided a mental exercise when it appeared on the scene. You've been able to make it to the other side and are one of the most forward thinking guys ion this subject(esp if compared to the rest of the world). There are a lot of viable arguments against alts or monero but the stance you've been taking is of the same sturdiness of the bitcoin-'haters' and have resulted in fallacies based on price.

Maybe that is because of the monero-proponents here who sort of force you into this position. But don't become like the btc-haters who arn't willing to at least try out other perspectives on the matter. You resorted into the same kind of tactics as the old status quo you once battled.

You've been getting a lot of shit here lately in all the debates. And although you are used to getting shit about these topics it almost seems that lately you're losing it a little. Call me a troll/newb/insignifact whatever. The paragraph i started with was genuine.

i appreciate the feedback.  i've already taken these types of thoughts into consideration.

thezerg once accused me of being a dinorsaur with regards to innovation in Bitcoin, which you kinda are above.  i don't think that's true.  this whole debate is consistent with my long held belief that all innovation should occur on the mainchain.  if Bitcoin fails to do that as an open source project similar to linux, which was supposedly the great promise it made imo, then the whole concept of cryptocurrencies has failed and we'll just go back to fiat for the next hundred years.  this whole movement of Gavin to go to XT, if necessary, is innovation on the mainchain as i see it.  he's simply going to upgrade the software to accept bigger blocks.  and that's a good thing.  if anything, the dinosaurs and fear mongerers are the one's wanting to keep Bitcoin artificially restrained.  enough about that.

as far as Monero is concerned, it is a completely new altcoin with a different signature scheme.  to be honest, it is so far off my radar and so insignificant of an alt that i hadn't paid much attention to it.  i still don't really care to understand how it works b/c i don't think it will go anywhere.  could be wrong.  i've always said i'd welcome more privacy in Bitcoin and it's possible Monero does that.  i know there was a big technical issue months back but can't remember what it was.  maybe someone could clarify.  but that's beside the point.  it is NOT innovating on top of Bitcoin which i quite frankly see as a problem for it.  it is not leveraging upon the huge network effect already achieved by Bitcoin.  does that necessarily mean it will fail?  no.  but i think we get one chance with this b/c the implications are so huge.  if Bitcoin fails, they all fail.  if it's not improved upon or upgraded, it will fail.  if we all don't stick together as a group, it will fail.  if that means the economic majority has to fork off and shed the likes of the Blockstream cabal, we have a chance.  the more i think about it, the better i like the idea of getting rid of gmax and luke.  i think they're toxic.  yeah, gmax is a brilliant cryptographer but he can't be trusted with the keys or to run a company.  he's a KNOWN Bitcoin bear and posts an XMR donation address.  that's his prerogative but i think a core dev should be all out pushing and working on Bitcoin like Gavin does to advance the project forward.  shedding those guys would be a good thing.

everything i say is said in the context of the broader markets.  we're probably heading into the next recession and in that environment i believer altcoins will be slaughtered.  if Bitcoin can hang on, or even thrive, as a safe haven alternative, a major shift in finance may be upon us.  Bitcoin has already survived an unbelievable 6 yrs and next yr we will halve.  the way all the charts have lined up, it's just a matter of time before we start the next advance to end Bitcoin's longest Bear.  this hasn't even been the greatest Bear, imo, which was from 32 to 1.98 in 2011.  that is a great sign.  i've always said that the majority of ppl investing in cryptocurrencies will lose money.  this is definitely playing out and includes Bitcoiners who bought high.  it also includes full node operators and miners, btw, and accounts for the decrease in their numbers too.  but that will easily reverse with new adoption and the next price rise.

Bitcoin is like threading a needle; it needs to stay private enough to prevent all out war with TPTB.  so far so good.  is Monero in that category?  i doubt it but i'm not saying it won't possibly find a niche with the iCELatte's of the world.  oh, btw, it took me a while to figure out what his agenda was with him coming in here and pretending to be all concerned about Bitcoin when his real agenda was to diss it and pump Monero.  even smooth, who offers up decent stuff, was confusing me a while back before i found out he was a Monero core dev.  i couldn't figure out why when i got skeptical about altcoins he'd always quickly negate anything i had to say on that.  also when we got to talking about the 49%-51% attacks against Bitcoin he was posting highly frequently against Bitcoin.  that's ok, he's smart and is entitled to his opinion.  but it was never clear until someone mentioned his Monero connection what was happening.  i like to focus on what ppl's motivations are, that should be clear.  i won't let that cloud my judgment however.  i really think Bitcoin is on the right path, even if it has to fork to XT.  to me, that would just mean a much easier path forward with a new group of devs.  then the market can be free of financial conflicts of interest from the likes of Blockstream.  i've heard enough complaints about how big players like Nasdaq won't entrust large amounts of money to a monetary system controlled by an unknown, anarchistic leaning group of new leaders.  i wouldn't either if i didn't fully understand the system.  that's why i would be willing to migrate to XT if need be.  how would it be for Gavin to initiate growth to 20x at least for Bitcoin?  not bad at all i'd say.  we will overcome the technical constraints, if there really are some.  the financial incentives to find a solution will be so great at that point that full node growth is bound to happen, bandwidth providers will be happy to accept more traffic and will be financially incentivized to find solutions, and Wall St will then jump in with both feet.  and if we need to, we'll just pair the block size back temporarily until a real solution is found.  Monero can't even be a part of all that b/c the big players won't be allowed to play.

we will thread the needle b/c we can guide it to be so.
_mr_e
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 815



View Profile
June 05, 2015, 02:51:34 PM
 #25599

The imposible monero>btc seems more plausible as time goes on

nope.  with Monero wallowing at near all-time lows relative to BTC and way down at #13 in the cryptocurrency mkts, it's no wonder iCELatte and his buddies have decided to come into this thread and try to take advantage of the 20MB controversy.  it's a shameless move yet quite expected from these altscam guys.  too bad it's not going to work:

-

I have been reading this thread since early 2013, it is one of the little gems this forum has left. I respect your thoughts and what you have contributed. Until now I have refrained from commenting on/about anything monero in the little posts i make here, since there's an altsection for that.

But what you're doing now is playing the exact same card that all the bitcoin sceptics are pulling to illegitimatize btc, which imo is a weak one. Bitcoin provided a mental exercise when it appeared on the scene. You've been able to make it to the other side and are one of the most forward thinking guys ion this subject(esp if compared to the rest of the world). There are a lot of viable arguments against alts or monero but the stance you've been taking is of the same sturdiness of the bitcoin-'haters' and have resulted in fallacies based on price.

Maybe that is because of the monero-proponents here who sort of force you into this position. But don't become like the btc-haters who arn't willing to at least try out other perspectives on the matter. You resorted into the same kind of tactics as the old status quo you once battled.

You've been getting a lot of shit here lately in all the debates. And although you are used to getting shit about these topics it almost seems that lately you're losing it a little. Call me a troll/newb/insignifact whatever. The paragraph i started with was genuine.

i appreciate the feedback.  i've already taken these types of thoughts into consideration.

thezerg once accused me of being a dinorsaur with regards to innovation in Bitcoin, which you kinda are above.  i don't think that's true.  this whole debate is consistent with my long held belief that all innovation should occur on the mainchain.  if Bitcoin fails to do that as an open source project similar to linux, which was supposedly the great promise it made imo, then the whole concept of cryptocurrencies has failed and we'll just go back to fiat for the next hundred years.  this whole movement of Gavin to go to XT, if necessary, is innovation on the mainchain as i see it.  he's simply going to upgrade the software to accept bigger blocks.  and that's a good thing.  if anything, the dinosaurs and fear mongerers are the one's wanting to keep Bitcoin artificially restrained.  enough about that.

as far as Monero is concerned, it is a completely new altcoin with a different signature scheme.  to be honest, it is so far off my radar and so insignificant of an alt that i hadn't paid much attention to it.  i still don't really care to understand how it works b/c i don't think it will go anywhere.  could be wrong.  i've always said i'd welcome more privacy in Bitcoin and it's possible Monero does that.  i know there was a big technical issue months back but can't remember what it was.  maybe someone could clarify.  but that's beside the point.  it is NOT innovating on top of Bitcoin which i quite frankly see as a problem for it.  it is not leveraging upon the huge network effect already achieved by Bitcoin.  does that necessarily mean it will fail?  no.  but i think we get one chance with this b/c the implications are so huge.  if Bitcoin fails, they all fail.  if it's not improved upon or upgraded, it will fail.  if we all don't stick together as a group, it will fail.  if that means the economic majority has to fork off and shed the likes of the Blockstream cabal, we have a chance.  the more i think about it, the better i like the idea of getting rid of gmax and luke.  i think they're toxic.  yeah, gmax is a brilliant cryptographer but he can't be trusted with the keys or to run a company.  he's a KNOWN Bitcoin bear and posts an XMR donation address.  that's his prerogative but i think a core dev should be all out pushing and working on Bitcoin like Gavin does to advance the project forward.  shedding those guys would be a good thing.

everything i say is said in the context of the broader markets.  we're probably heading into the next recession and in that environment i believer altcoins will be slaughtered.  if Bitcoin can hang on, or even thrive, as a safe haven alternative, a major shift in finance may be upon us.  Bitcoin has already survived an unbelievable 6 yrs and next yr we will halve.  the way all the charts have lined up, it's just a matter of time before we start the next advance to end Bitcoin's longest Bear.  this hasn't even been the greatest Bear, imo, which was from 32 to 1.98 in 2011.  that is a great sign.  i've always said that the majority of ppl investing in cryptocurrencies will lose money.  this is definitely playing out and includes Bitcoiners who bought high.  it also includes full node operators and miners, btw, and accounts for the decrease in their numbers too.  but that will easily reverse with new adoption and the next price rise.

Bitcoin is like threading a needle; it needs to stay private enough to prevent all out war with TPTB.  so far so good.  is Monero in that category?  i doubt it but i'm not saying it won't possibly find a niche with the iCELatte's of the world.  oh, btw, it took me a while to figure out what his agenda was with him coming in here and pretending to be all concerned about Bitcoin when his real agenda was to diss it and pump Monero.  even smooth, who offers up decent stuff, was confusing me a while back before i found out he was a Monero core dev.  i couldn't figure out why when i got skeptical about altcoins he'd always quickly negate anything i had to say on that.  also when we got to talking about the 49%-51% attacks against Bitcoin he was posting highly frequently against Bitcoin.  that's ok, he's smart and is entitled to his opinion.  but it was never clear until someone mentioned his Monero connection what was happening.  i like to focus on what ppl's motivations are, that should be clear.  i won't let that cloud my judgment however.  i really think Bitcoin is on the right path, even if it has to fork to XT.  to me, that would just mean a much easier path forward with a new group of devs.  then the market can be free of financial conflicts of interest from the likes of Blockstream.  i've heard enough complaints about how big players like Nasdaq won't entrust large amounts of money to a monetary system controlled by an unknown, anarchistic leaning group of new leaders.  i wouldn't either if i didn't fully understand the system.  that's why i would be willing to migrate to XT if need be.  how would it be for Gavin to initiate growth to 20x at least for Bitcoin?  not bad at all i'd say.  we will overcome the technical constraints, if there really are some.  the financial incentives to find a solution will be so great at that point that full node growth is bound to happen, bandwidth providers will be happy to accept more traffic and will be financially incentivized to find solutions, and Wall St will then jump in with both feet.  and if we need to, we'll just pair the block size back temporarily until a real solution is found.  Monero can't even be a part of all that b/c the big players won't be allowed to play.

we will thread the needle b/c we can guide it to be so.


Just to note, my connection with pumping Nxt/Supernet is because I truly believe it will grow to be a platform that will enhance and compliment Bitcoin, never would I want it to replace it. I do not believe Nxt is set up to function as a global currency and store of value due to the way it's designed. I do however believe it's feature set, which soon Bitcoin will be able to use without even holding any Nxt, will only serve to enable new Bitcoin functionality - which is still #1 in my books. It doesn't have to happen on the main chain to be useful, a couple differant chains will be very healthy "competition" spuring new innovations. Crypto is still very small and there is plenty of room for experimentation and growth. I agree that you need to remain a little more open and don't just shut things down without actually digging in to them, since that is the attitude all bitcoin/crypto haters hold to their detriment.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
June 05, 2015, 02:58:53 PM
 #25600

The imposible monero>btc seems more plausible as time goes on

nope.  with Monero wallowing at near all-time lows relative to BTC and way down at #13 in the cryptocurrency mkts, it's no wonder iCELatte and his buddies have decided to come into this thread and try to take advantage of the 20MB controversy.  it's a shameless move yet quite expected from these altscam guys.  too bad it's not going to work:

-

I have been reading this thread since early 2013, it is one of the little gems this forum has left. I respect your thoughts and what you have contributed. Until now I have refrained from commenting on/about anything monero in the little posts i make here, since there's an altsection for that.

But what you're doing now is playing the exact same card that all the bitcoin sceptics are pulling to illegitimatize btc, which imo is a weak one. Bitcoin provided a mental exercise when it appeared on the scene. You've been able to make it to the other side and are one of the most forward thinking guys ion this subject(esp if compared to the rest of the world). There are a lot of viable arguments against alts or monero but the stance you've been taking is of the same sturdiness of the bitcoin-'haters' and have resulted in fallacies based on price.

Maybe that is because of the monero-proponents here who sort of force you into this position. But don't become like the btc-haters who arn't willing to at least try out other perspectives on the matter. You resorted into the same kind of tactics as the old status quo you once battled.

You've been getting a lot of shit here lately in all the debates. And although you are used to getting shit about these topics it almost seems that lately you're losing it a little. Call me a troll/newb/insignifact whatever. The paragraph i started with was genuine.

i appreciate the feedback.  i've already taken these types of thoughts into consideration.

thezerg once accused me of being a dinorsaur with regards to innovation in Bitcoin, which you kinda are above.  i don't think that's true.  this whole debate is consistent with my long held belief that all innovation should occur on the mainchain.  if Bitcoin fails to do that as an open source project similar to linux, which was supposedly the great promise it made imo, then the whole concept of cryptocurrencies has failed and we'll just go back to fiat for the next hundred years.  this whole movement of Gavin to go to XT, if necessary, is innovation on the mainchain as i see it.  he's simply going to upgrade the software to accept bigger blocks.  and that's a good thing.  if anything, the dinosaurs and fear mongerers are the one's wanting to keep Bitcoin artificially restrained.  enough about that.

as far as Monero is concerned, it is a completely new altcoin with a different signature scheme.  to be honest, it is so far off my radar and so insignificant of an alt that i hadn't paid much attention to it.  i still don't really care to understand how it works b/c i don't think it will go anywhere.  could be wrong.  i've always said i'd welcome more privacy in Bitcoin and it's possible Monero does that.  i know there was a big technical issue months back but can't remember what it was.  maybe someone could clarify.  but that's beside the point.  it is NOT innovating on top of Bitcoin which i quite frankly see as a problem for it.  it is not leveraging upon the huge network effect already achieved by Bitcoin.  does that necessarily mean it will fail?  no.  but i think we get one chance with this b/c the implications are so huge.  if Bitcoin fails, they all fail.  if it's not improved upon or upgraded, it will fail.  if we all don't stick together as a group, it will fail.  if that means the economic majority has to fork off and shed the likes of the Blockstream cabal, we have a chance.  the more i think about it, the better i like the idea of getting rid of gmax and luke.  i think they're toxic.  yeah, gmax is a brilliant cryptographer but he can't be trusted with the keys or to run a company.  he's a KNOWN Bitcoin bear and posts an XMR donation address.  that's his prerogative but i think a core dev should be all out pushing and working on Bitcoin like Gavin does to advance the project forward.  shedding those guys would be a good thing.

everything i say is said in the context of the broader markets.  we're probably heading into the next recession and in that environment i believer altcoins will be slaughtered.  if Bitcoin can hang on, or even thrive, as a safe haven alternative, a major shift in finance may be upon us.  Bitcoin has already survived an unbelievable 6 yrs and next yr we will halve.  the way all the charts have lined up, it's just a matter of time before we start the next advance to end Bitcoin's longest Bear.  this hasn't even been the greatest Bear, imo, which was from 32 to 1.98 in 2011.  that is a great sign.  i've always said that the majority of ppl investing in cryptocurrencies will lose money.  this is definitely playing out and includes Bitcoiners who bought high.  it also includes full node operators and miners, btw, and accounts for the decrease in their numbers too.  but that will easily reverse with new adoption and the next price rise.

Bitcoin is like threading a needle; it needs to stay private enough to prevent all out war with TPTB.  so far so good.  is Monero in that category?  i doubt it but i'm not saying it won't possibly find a niche with the iCELatte's of the world.  oh, btw, it took me a while to figure out what his agenda was with him coming in here and pretending to be all concerned about Bitcoin when his real agenda was to diss it and pump Monero.  even smooth, who offers up decent stuff, was confusing me a while back before i found out he was a Monero core dev.  i couldn't figure out why when i got skeptical about altcoins he'd always quickly negate anything i had to say on that.  also when we got to talking about the 49%-51% attacks against Bitcoin he was posting highly frequently against Bitcoin.  that's ok, he's smart and is entitled to his opinion.  but it was never clear until someone mentioned his Monero connection what was happening.  i like to focus on what ppl's motivations are, that should be clear.  i won't let that cloud my judgment however.  i really think Bitcoin is on the right path, even if it has to fork to XT.  to me, that would just mean a much easier path forward with a new group of devs.  then the market can be free of financial conflicts of interest from the likes of Blockstream.  i've heard enough complaints about how big players like Nasdaq won't entrust large amounts of money to a monetary system controlled by an unknown, anarchistic leaning group of new leaders.  i wouldn't either if i didn't fully understand the system.  that's why i would be willing to migrate to XT if need be.  how would it be for Gavin to initiate growth to 20x at least for Bitcoin?  not bad at all i'd say.  we will overcome the technical constraints, if there really are some.  the financial incentives to find a solution will be so great at that point that full node growth is bound to happen, bandwidth providers will be happy to accept more traffic and will be financially incentivized to find solutions, and Wall St will then jump in with both feet.  and if we need to, we'll just pair the block size back temporarily until a real solution is found.  Monero can't even be a part of all that b/c the big players won't be allowed to play.

we will thread the needle b/c we can guide it to be so.


Just to note, my connection with pumping Nxt/Supernet is because I truly believe it will grow to be a platform that will enhance and compliment Bitcoin, never would I want it to replace it. I do not believe Nxt is set up to function as a global currency and store of value due to the way it's designed. I do however believe it's feature set, which soon Bitcoin will be able to use without even holding any Nxt, will only serve to enable new Bitcoin functionality - which is still #1 in my books. It doesn't have to happen on the main chain to be useful, a couple differant chains will be very healthy "competition" spuring new innovations. Crypto is still very small and there is plenty of room for experimentation and growth. I agree that you need to remain a little more open and don't just shut things down without actually digging in to them, since that is the attitude all bitcoin/crypto haters hold to their detriment.

while i agree with the "digging in" part, i've taken a somewhat opposite approach.  and that is to dig into Bitcoin so deep that you understand it so well that any competing altcoin would really have to stand out to attract my attention and time to dig into it.  granted my "understanding" fits neatly into my mental framework of how i look at the world so that is where disagreement btwn individuals will occur.  i think of myself being so right so far so i'm going to stick with it until something jumps out at me.  and it hasn't been Monero.
Pages: « 1 ... 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 1330 ... 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!