Bitcoin Forum
December 11, 2016, 10:21:08 AM *
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 ... 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 1331 1332 1333 1334 1335 1336 1337 ... 1560 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.  (Read 1808594 times)
TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
June 06, 2015, 02:19:21 PM
 #25721

The majority of the masses will use the winner-take-all, Fascist side chain. Checkmate.

You don't win against TPTB by playing their game. They are the masters of the Logic of Collective Action.

Edit: the only defense is as I wrote upthread; remove the 50% attack from mining. It is critical that we redesign crypto-currency.

The specific damage I think the cartel would do with a 50% attack on the Core side chain is to require KYC identification on all transactions. I don't think they would risk politically to shut off all transactions on the Core side chain and because that would set the precedent of making BTC non-fungible which would retard their aims with Bitcoin.

They key problem in Bitcoin's PoW is there is no criteria by which the evil 50% can differentiated from good nodes which don't attempt to censor the transactions. My design is able to make this distinction and filter the 50% attack from the network by way of a clever paradigm shift proxy and afaics there is no way to game the filter.

1481451668
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481451668

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481451668
Reply with quote  #2

1481451668
Report to moderator
1481451668
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481451668

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481451668
Reply with quote  #2

1481451668
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1481451668
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481451668

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481451668
Reply with quote  #2

1481451668
Report to moderator
Erdogan
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 714



View Profile
June 06, 2015, 02:40:29 PM
 #25722

Micropayments are nice, and the prospect of micropayments have created many business ideas.


The fact is that we don't have micropayments in the fiat realm. If someone wants to dispute that, here is the reasoning: With a credit card, the minimum is practically a few dollars. With more effective debit card systems costing about a fifth of a dollar per transaction, the practical minimum is maybe five dollars. Some shops might want to take a loss and sell less, but that is not viable for all the trades in a business. You can not buy electric power by the kWh, and not gas by the BTU. When measured, it is added up and paid by the month or whatever the custumers prefer and the business can supply.

With base money, the actual fiat paper rectangles and the token coins, there is also limit to how small a transaction can be, due to the cost of handling the money. That is one of the reasons you buy twenty cigarettes and not one, (the other reason is that handling cigarettes one by one is also impractical and therefore costly, but lets focus on the money management costs). Another example is bus tickets, cards of 20 or so is more practical than paying for each ride.

So we don't have microtransactions neither in bitcoin nor in the fiat realm. But what we have with bitcoin, is lower cost for certain types of small transactions. So with bitcoin, we can go some small steps toward microtransactions, but not all the way. This might be temporary, but it works now, and just like alpacca socks, gambling, and narcotics, it is a vector for bitcoin to expand.

So we don't have it, but we have progress, so why complain? It looks like obsession to me.
TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
June 06, 2015, 02:57:34 PM
 #25723

So we don't have it, but we have progress, so why complain? It looks like obsession to me.

Micropayments is (in theory) an orders-of-magnitude larger GDP economy in the future and thus it will (at an exponential rate) subsume any design that can't do it.

The greatest failing of the human race is to misunderstand the exponential function. Humans view exponential change as virtually linear nominal change until suddenly at the end game, the compounding suddenly appears to be waterfall nominal change and the humans are deer-in-the-headlights dazed and confused.

Erdogan
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 714



View Profile
June 06, 2015, 03:00:44 PM
 #25724

So we don't have it, but we have progress, so why complain? It looks like obsession to me.

Micropayments is (in theory) an orders-of-magnitude larger GDP economy in the future and thus it will (at an exponential rate) subsume any design that can't do it.

If someone invents it, I am all for it, just like flying cars. Bitcoin is already invented, and I want to use it because it is advantageous.
TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
June 06, 2015, 03:06:19 PM
 #25725

Another more mathematical way of stating the Logic of Collective Action which I summarized as participants being more self-interested than aligned for the optimization of the public good.

https://blog.ethereum.org/2014/11/25/proof-stake-learned-love-weak-subjectivity/

Quote from: Vitalik Buterin
Unfortunately, altruism-prime cannot be relied on exclusively, because the value of coins arising from protocol integrity is a public good and will thus be undersupplied (eg. if there are 1000 stakeholders, and each of their activity has a 1% chance of being “pivotal” in contributing to a successful attack that will knock coin value down to zero, then each stakeholder will accept a bribe equal to only 1% of their holdings).

Example:

https://blog.ethereum.org/2015/01/28/p-epsilon-attack/

Quote from: Vitalik Buterin
call the “main” chain A and the attacker’s new double-spend fork B. By default, everyone expects A to win. However, the attacker credibly commits to paying out 25.01 BTC to everyone who mines on B if B ends up losing. Hence, the payoff matrix becomes:

You mine on A   You mine on B
Others mine on A   25   25.01
Others mine on B   0   25

Thus, mining on B is a dominant strategy regardless of one’s epistemic beliefs, and so everyone mines on B, and so the attacker wins and pays out nothing at all. Particularly, note that in proof of work we do not have deposits, so the level of bribe required is proportional only to the mining reward multiplied by the fork length, not the capital cost of 51% of all mining equipment. Hence, from a cryptoeconomic security standpoint, one can in some sense say that proof of work has virtually no cryptoeconomic security margin at all (if you are tired of opponents of proof of stake pointing you to this article by Andrew Poelstra, feel free to link them here in response). If one is genuinely uncomfortable with the weak subjectivity condition of pure proof of stake, then it follows that the correct solution may perhaps be to augment proof of work with hybrid proof of stake by adding security deposits and double-voting-penalties to mining.

Of course, in practice, proof of work has survived despite this flaw, and indeed it may continue to survive for a long time still; it may just be the case that there’s a high enough degree of altruism that attackers are not actually 100% convinced that they will succeed – but then, if we are allowed to rely on altruism, naive proof of stake works fine too. Hence, Schelling schemes too may well simply end up working in practice, even if they are not perfectly sound in theory.

In Nov. 2009 (years before I got interested cryptography) I corrected one of the incorrect answers on Google's IQ test on an analogous observation:

http://unheresy.com/Essence%20of%20Genius.html

Quote from: myself
You're the captain of a pirate ship...

The answer given above is incorrect. If you offer all the booty to 51% of the crew, one of them might get motivated to vote against your proposal because they have nothing to lose if your proposal wins (and they might want to try their luck at another proposal that offers them more). Contemplate that deeply! Whereas, the correct answer is to propose that anyone who votes NO will not share in the booty. TADA!

TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
June 06, 2015, 03:44:54 PM
 #25726

Proof-of-Work vs. Proof-of-Stake

Extending from my prior post, the bolded portion is an unnecessary assumption (i.e. a weaker assumption is also valid):

https://download.wpsoftware.net/bitcoin/pos.pdf#page=7

Quote from: Andrew Poelstra
We further claim that a majority of the network is working on producing a DMMS which extends
the true history. An elegant reason that this is true is given by Vitalik Buterin in [But15]: since the
reward transaction is only recognized if its block occurs in the true history
, a Nash equilibrium for
each miner is to go along with the majority6.

The arguments made against Bitcoin succumbing to malfeasance is that the participants are self-interested in the value of the network and this interest in the public good is not undersupplied (because total or massive losses in value are possible). If that assumption is true, the participants would also align with the longest chain even if they weren't paid (note I make no claim about whether participants would mine for free, which can be considered orthogonally to my point), because the alternative is no consensus and loss of network value. Moreover, the latter assumption claim is more easily supported than the former, because it is always an immediate causal event whereas the former could be an obscured causality.

Thus in the prior post I quoted from where Vitalik has refuted Andrew's arguments, and yet Andrew (and apparently Gregory Maxwell as well) still didn't get it. So you still think Maxwell is the supreme expert? He makes mistakes too. He is not omniscient.

Quote from: Andrew Poelstra
6In that same blog post, Buterin says “if you are tired of opponents of proof of stake pointing you to this article[Poe14b]
by Andrew Poelstra, feel free to link them here in response”. It is not clear what he means by this; he did not, there or
anywhere, refute that paper’s claim that you cannot produce consensus except by consuming an external resource.

What part of "subjective condition" did Andrew (and Maxwell) not understand? Vitalik demonstrated an example whereby PoW suffers an analogous requirement for assumptions of mutual incentive for optimization of the public good as PoS does. Andrew is trying to argue that PoS is self-referential thus can never be absolute proof. But Vitalik shows by example that PoW is conditioned on subjectivity also.

The subjectivity claim against PoW may be weaker than against some variants of PoS (e.g. one-time spend addresses with check points), but the devil is in the details. PoW requires checkpoints to guard against 50+% attacks too. Checkpoints are a form of social trust (aka "assumptions of mutual incentive for optimization of the public good"), subjective (SPV-like) trust model which Maxwell alluded to.

Quote from: Vitalik Buterin
Objective: a new node coming onto the network with no knowledge except (i) the protocol definition and (ii) the set of all blocks and other “important” messages that have been published can independently come to the exact same conclusion as the rest of the network on the current state.

Weakly subjective: a new node coming onto the network with no knowledge except (i) the protocol definition, (ii) the set of all blocks and other “important” messages that have been published and (iii) a state from less than N blocks ago that is known to be valid can independently come to the exact same conclusion as the rest of the network on the current state, unless there is an attacker that permanently has more than X percent control over the consensus set.

The main argument I had against Proof-of-Stake since my 2013 debates with Etlase2 was the entropy of the randomization function. I still have to look at how that is done in variants and see if my former criticism still applies.

P.S. Andrew's paper and Vitalik's blog are both excellent for raising clarity on the issue and much appreciated.


Edit: Ah I see my long-standing reservation against PoS has remained true thus far:

https://blog.ethereum.org/2014/11/25/proof-stake-learned-love-weak-subjectivity/#comment-1730404390

Quote from: Stephan Tual
Random contract execution and random hash functions every x nonces both proved flawed after some research. The plan is to use a variant of Hashimoto for v1.

Zangelbert Bingledack
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1022


View Profile
June 06, 2015, 05:26:02 PM
 #25727

Two can play: https://disqus.com/home/discussion/ethereumproject/the_p_epsilon_attack/#comment-2028779600

Quote from: Google
You're the captain of a pirate ship, and your crew gets to vote on how the gold is divided up. If fewer than half of the pirates agree with you, you die. How do you recommend apportioning the gold in such a way that you get a good share of the booty, but still survive?

Answer: You divide the booty evenly between the top 51% of the crew.

I read this puzzle as intending that only the captain can put a proposal to a vote (and he only gets one shot; presumably it's something like a perfect equal split among the crew if the captain gets voted down and killed*), in which case Google's original answer is right since each winning pirate does stand to lose if they vote no.

*Even if we instead assume that any pirate is allowed to make a counterproposal after the captain is dead, a pirate could just propose voting down the captain and the loot being divided among a different 51% set that includes him (the pirates in the overlap group should side with counterproposal, since they get slightly more loot without the captain around anymore). Of course then another pirate will do that with 52%, knowing his proposition will win. Then 53%, etc. until they end up at an even split among 100% of the crew as the winning proposition by vote count. So assuming the crew is rational they will vote yes if they luck out and make it into the 51%. So either way it seems Google has it right. The "no-voters don't get the loot" proviso is unnecessary, unless maybe we are not assuming rational pirates. (And in fact, this shows you can keep nearly half the loot (assuming you have a decent-sized crew), giving 51% of the crew the other half plus a tiny bit more, which is a bit more than they get if they vote you down. So Google's answer is also too low.)

Too many ways to read it, though, so it's basically indeterminate/underspecified as far as I'm concerned. I think it's called an "IQ test" to obscure the real purpose, that it's way for them to see your thought process during an interview. It's perhaps intentional that everyone will add in their own assumptions, or maybe even harp on the need to specify assumptions, or about the how killing the captain or having 49% be jealous would leave them in worse shape. Each of these kinds of reactions gives useful information to the hirers.
TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
June 06, 2015, 07:19:52 PM
 #25728

Two can play: https://disqus.com/home/discussion/ethereumproject/the_p_epsilon_attack/#comment-2028779600

Quote from: Google
You're the captain of a pirate ship, and your crew gets to vote on how the gold is divided up. If fewer than half of the pirates agree with you, you die. How do you recommend apportioning the gold in such a way that you get a good share of the booty, but still survive?

Answer: You divide the booty evenly between the top 51% of the crew.

I read this puzzle as intending that only the captain can put a proposal to a vote (and he only gets one shot; presumably it's something like a perfect equal split among the crew if the captain gets voted down and killed*), in which case Google's original answer is right since each winning pirate does stand to lose if they vote no.

*Even if we instead assume that any pirate is allowed to make a counterproposal after the captain is dead, a pirate could just propose voting down the captain and the loot being divided among a different 51% set that includes him (the pirates in the overlap group should side with counterproposal, since they get slightly more loot without the captain around anymore). Of course then another pirate will do that with 52%, knowing his proposition will win. Then 53%, etc. until they end up at an even split among 100% of the crew as the winning proposition by vote count. So assuming the crew is rational they will vote yes if they luck out and make it into the 51%. So either way it seems Google has it right. The "no-voters don't get the loot" proviso is unnecessary, unless maybe we are not assuming rational pirates. (And in fact, this shows you can keep nearly half the loot (assuming you have a decent-sized crew), giving 51% of the crew the other half plus a tiny bit more, which is a bit more than they get if they vote you down. So Google's answer is also too low.)

Too many ways to read it, though, so it's basically indeterminate/underspecified as far as I'm concerned. I think it's called an "IQ test" to obscure the real purpose, that it's way for them to see your thought process during an interview. It's perhaps intentional that everyone will add in their own assumptions, or maybe even harp on the need to specify assumptions, or about the how killing the captain or having 49% be jealous would leave them in worse shape. Each of these kinds of reactions gives useful information to the hirers.

If the captain is offering the booty to only the top 51%, the other 49% will vote against him for sure. If more than 1% of the top 51% decide to try their luck at getting more after the captain is eliminated, then the captain dies. That is not very good odds for the captain (more probable than a coin toss the captain dies). Someone in the 51% may be smart enough to realize that making proposals where death is the result of a No consensus means the odds of getting more loot by continually voting No on each iteration of proposals is going to eliminate the competition for the sharing of the loot (even if there is only one iteration). And that person votes No but doesn't get enough support from the other 51%, he still gets his share of the loot.

Whereas, if the captain says that anyone who votes No does not get a share of the loot, then 100% of the pirates have to weigh the odds that 50% of the others won't vote Yes (a coin toss probability they lose out on the loot, thus much less than a coin toss probability that they risk it and the captain dies).

You speculate about what happens about after the captain dies, but that is not necessary to determine the ratio of the probabilities of the two answers. Since what happens after the captain dies is unspecified, then the odds of just 1% of those in the 51% speculating on the potential to get a better deal is not as good of odds for the captain as my answer.

Clearly my answer was correct on the probabilities in all possible interpretations. However I can't fathom how to access the comparison between my answer and a proposal to share amongst say the top 75% (and it also depends on what % the captain himself constitutes, i.e. the group size) and I think the question is underspecified for that type of proposal for other reasons such as the expectation of the pirates. Thus my answer was the only sure one that was superior to the one Google provided. Thus it is the only unambiguous correct answer.

macsga
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1386


Strange, yet attractive.


View Profile
June 06, 2015, 07:38:13 PM
 #25729

The cartel has always worked in long time frames (decades and even generations) and relatively small investments such as a few $billion here and there (given their $3+ trillion Black Budget fund admitted by former defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld and documented in numerous other ways hence) to wipe out a resistance in order to usher in the $300+ trillion wealth grap in the NWO. Come on, you guys are not even bacteria on a flea's ass.

Why do human's have such myopia with conceptualizing relative size?

I was pointed here by a answer of yours to a friend's post. Since then I've been incessantly reading your posts and -man- it's been a wonderful drawing of sane thoughts so far (still have a lot to read - but not currently have the time, will definitely will, though). I quoted the above lines from you because I utterly think it's one of the most important quotes one can read on this forum / thread.

Perspective. That's what we humans as species lack of. Only a handful of people have it and it's not because of their excessive IQ over the rest, but because of their plane of view. Take for example an ant. It works with its colleagues while a drop of water falls right beside it. Under no circumstances this ant could be certain if a rainfall is coming or this was a drop of water from a leaf. Another ant which is on the top of a hill can certainly be more accurate.

Critical mass is also a thing. Our physis implies that the smarter is the most resilient throughout the years. Take for example the ice age; there were many stronger races than ours (ie:homo sapiens) yet; we survived because of our adapting capabilities AND team work. The direct connection of those towards the years to come is based on the very same capabilities as species. Not everybody has to make the choice. A critical few though, that will form the critical mass, will definitely will have to.

Thanks again for your great posts. I'll be diving in again, sooner than later. Smiley

stereotype
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1344



View Profile
June 06, 2015, 07:50:01 PM
 #25730

The cartel has always worked in long time frames (decades and even generations) and relatively small investments such as a few $billion here and there (given their $3+ trillion Black Budget fund admitted by former defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld and documented in numerous other ways hence) to wipe out a resistance in order to usher in the $300+ trillion wealth grap in the NWO. Come on, you guys are not even bacteria on a flea's ass.

Why do human's have such myopia with conceptualizing relative size?

I was pointed here by a answer of yours to a friend's post. Since then I've been incessantly reading your posts and -man- it's been a wonderful drawing of sane thoughts so far (still have a lot to read - but not currently have the time, will definitely will, though). I quoted the above lines from you because I utterly think it's one of the most important quotes one can read on this forum / thread.

Perspective. That's what we humans as species lack of. Only a handful of people have it and it's not because of their excessive IQ over the rest, but because of their plane of view. Take for example an ant. It works with its colleagues while a drop of water falls right beside it. Under no circumstances this ant could be certain if a rainfall is coming or this was a drop of water from a leaf. Another ant which is on the top of a hill can certainly be more accurate.

Critical mass is also a thing. Our physis implies that the smarter is the most resilient throughout the years. Take for example the ice age; there were many stronger races than ours (ie:homo sapiens) yet; we survived because of our adapting capabilities AND team work. The direct connection of those towards the years to come is based on the very same capabilities as species. Not everybody has to make the choice. A critical few though, that will form the critical mass, will definitely will have to.

Thanks again for your great posts. I'll be diving in again, sooner than later. Smiley
If thats not reverse psychology, then i have definitely lost the plot.
macsga
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1386


Strange, yet attractive.


View Profile
June 06, 2015, 08:22:21 PM
 #25731

If thats not reverse psychology, then i have definitely lost the plot.

I do use reverse psychology with certain colleagues who are contrarians to even their own thoughts. I assure you this is not the case. Not every time stereotypes do conform with our inner thoughts, nevertheless, one's prospect could be different, on a debatable subject from the opponent's one; yet still, the essence of both musings could actually formulate the same idea. Think about it.

majamalu
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1652



View Profile WWW
June 06, 2015, 08:42:29 PM
 #25732

Innovation and experimentation are great. But let me tell you just one thing that I hope the incredibly smart people reading this thread will note: Satoshi's creation is not perfect -- none is nor will be -- ; I think it's better to think about it as the spark that ignites the spontaneous order around it.

In order to overcome the network effect of money you need a completely new paradigm; nobody will adopt a system that in the eyes of some expert maybe better than Bitcoin in some way ("but who knows").

This fire is almost a miracle (a few years ago nobody thought it was possible). Take advantage of it.

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

Activity: 420


View Profile
June 06, 2015, 08:50:59 PM
 #25733

In order to overcome the network effect of money you need a completely new paradigm; nobody will adopt a system that in the eyes of some expert maybe better than Bitcoin in some way ("but who knows").

Bitcoin can't scale. There is no need to convince any one in order to prove which is better. Mine (or similar redesign) will scale and Bitcoin won't. The one that can scale will continue growing, the one that can't will peak and decay.

I also agree with you there must be an entirely different and powerful impetus to drive interest. I believe I have that figured out also.

Some will argue that BTC (as differentiated from Bitcoin Core) can scale with side chains, but scaling requires decentralization. That was the entire point of my posts about End-to-end Principle and Principle of Least Power (internet wouldn't scale nor attain network effects without those key attributes). Side chains won't be decentralized because TPTB are going to move the masses into the Fascist side chain then 50% attack the other decentralized side chains. TPTB will in effect insure Bitcoin can't scale.

If you try to argue TPTB can't do this for sure, then I refer you to my watertight upthread logic.

If you try to argue TPTB don't exist or don't intend to do this, then I have no rebuttal other than  Roll Eyes

P.S. there has been some abuse of the term 'network effects'. Network scaling and network effects were conflated by Cypherdoc and I went along with it, because it is a close enough conceptualization any way.


Edit: Here ares the scaling problems that top-down control creates:

Not even a mention of Bitcoin in the article, but I think still worth a read anyway.
The First Battle In The Mobile Payments War Is Over


Bitcoin is both a Trojan horse to drive consolidation of fragmented system, yet it too will be consolidated into top-down control.

Apologies I am very sleepy so not articulating clearly as I could.

majamalu
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1652



View Profile WWW
June 06, 2015, 09:08:55 PM
 #25734


If you try to argue TPTB don't exist or don't intend to do this, then I have no rebuttal other than  Roll Eyes


They don't exist as the monolithic self conscious entity that you picture.

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

Activity: 420


View Profile
June 06, 2015, 09:11:17 PM
 #25735


If you try to argue TPTB don't exist or don't intend to do this, then I have no rebuttal other than  Roll Eyes


They don't exist as the monolithic self conscious entity that you picture.

You may be compartmentalized or we have the same stance. Once you have cross-correlated as much information as I have, you begin to see the patterns and they are indeed coordinated towards a NWO.

They aren't in control in the sense that they have no choice but to do the coordination and evil that the natural system demands. It is also not natural for we humans to wilt and not create seepage and prevent them from driving humanity into extinction.

And they are not perfectly coordinated. There is competition and seepage within their ranks too. And it is not perfectly pyramidal structure either. It is complex and not monolithic. I never pictured that you alleged. The overall outcome is that certain results fit the economic demand of the natural system. I comment on those coming result where they naturally align.

sidhujag
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1302


View Profile
June 06, 2015, 09:38:41 PM
 #25736

Trying to find order within chaos is a sure path to insanity(even if some of it is true)
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
June 06, 2015, 09:40:49 PM
 #25737

i'm pretty sure TPTB_need_war and Anonymint is more than one person.  probably a group of technologists sent here to disrupt Bitcoin.  maybe from NSA or banks?  Wink the level of expertise would suggest as much given the threat level Bitcoin presents.  here's why:

he doesn't seem to sleep, in a nutshell.  

how many of you have been astounded by the incessant, seemingly around the clock posting of TPTB_need_war?  not only that, but the length and the ability to self reference his own posts going back weeks, if not more.  hell, i'm around here all the time and i can't do that.  the ability to respond to just about every single one of our posts in excruciating detail.  there are times when his posts alone take up entire pages w/o anyone else ever intervening.  even at nights.  there is a never ending energy and persistence that suggests this is well more than one person.  

here are a series of 24 h postings graphs gotten from the forum's posting stats from the top 10 posters in frequency, including myself.  all human.  to start, let's look at a known bot, the infamous Chart Buddy that posts round the clock in the Wall Observer thread.  it looks as you would expect with consistent hour by hour postings:



now let's go thru the humans from #1 poster Phinnaeus Gage.  



here's me



here's Balthazar.



here's D&T:



here's hilariousandco:



here's Adam:


here's smoothie:



here's Amph:



here's Come-from-Beyond:



note how all the humans above have 4-6 hr sleeping periods.  some deeper than others.  i'll admit that i for one will roll over in bed in the middle of the night to check the news and post occasionally with my Android accounting for some activity during those times.  apparently i'm not alone amongst the top posters as others can be seen to do the same.  that's how you get to be a top poster i guess!  Tongue

now for the intersting 2 charts of our beloved Sybil friends TPTB_needs_war and Anonymint.  TPTB_needs_war has already admitted that his was the Anonymint account.  perhaps their argument about Sybil nodes subconsciously derives from them deceiving us all by using multiple posters for a single acct?  living what they preach i'd say:

here's TPTB_need_war.  you might argue that he's got 2 hours there where the chart dips as possibly relating to sleep.  i don't think so.  the dip interval is only 1 hour and is abrupt unlike seen best in the smoothly sloped sleeping intervals in Balthazar's, smoothie's, and hilariousandco's charts.  really, all our single human charts if you can visually wrap them around themselves:



here's Anonymint.  here, it's even more striking.  i remember thinking he was a gvt agent when watching his early debates with gmax back in 2013.  he sounded like a gvt shill then, and he does now.  this is also, btw, why i don't think gmax is tied to the gvt.  why would he waste his time arguing with one if he was one himself?  doesn't excuse his Blockstream connection though which is arguably worse:



to top it all off, there is an inconsistency that i'm detecting in the message probably related to the different human technologists who alternate on his account.  one of them was saying that Bitcoin is likely to become widespread, taking over the world, then only to get hit with the dreaded Digital Kill Switch as the financial elite destroy all our wealth while they send the world into the 4th Turning of Great Depression and Despair.  now the tone and message has changed to that of Bitcoin not being built properly to gain any widespread usage or traction. the argument has become that Bitcoin can't scale. well, if it can't scale then how can it take over the world so they can hit the Digital Kill Switch?

i have a strong nose for bullshit and i think this is one of those times.  i think the above evidence is strong and warn you to take heed.
macsga
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1386


Strange, yet attractive.


View Profile
June 06, 2015, 09:43:03 PM
 #25738

You may be compartmentalized or we have the same stance. Once you have cross-correlated as much information as I have, you begin to see the patterns and they are indeed coordinated towards a NWO.

They aren't in control in the sense that they have no choice but to do the coordination and evil that the natural system demands. It is also not natural for we humans to wilt and not create seepage and prevent them from driving humanity into extinction.

And they are not perfectly coordinated. There is competition and seepage within their ranks too. And it is not perfectly pyramidal structure either. It is complex and not monolithic. I never pictured that you alleged. The overall outcome is that certain results fit the economic demand of the natural system. I comment on those coming result where they naturally align.

Sounds like the perfect sci fi scenario; reminds me of the "Illuminati" from Dan Brown. Seriously now; (and for the sake of discussion, I'll be the devil's advocate) don't you think the other scenario would've been more dramatic and disastrous? (ie: there are no PTB); Imagine the ship driving itself alone... Plus as a second argument, couldn't it be possible that they don't want our (human) extinction since we're both into the same boat?

What I do believe, is that they're no different like you and me. The only difference is that they have A LOT of money (thus nearly infinite power) but also infinite responsibilities. Driving THE ship requires knowledge and sometimes difficult decisions are ought to be made. Some strong hands are better than no hands at all. Speaking of which; do you think that (in the case Crypto succeeds) there are people among us with the required gear to run the planet and become TNPTB?

TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
June 06, 2015, 09:51:58 PM
 #25739

You may be compartmentalized or we have the same stance. Once you have cross-correlated as much information as I have, you begin to see the patterns and they are indeed coordinated towards a NWO.

They aren't in control in the sense that they have no choice but to do the coordination and evil that the natural system demands. It is also not natural for we humans to wilt and not create seepage and prevent them from driving humanity into extinction.

And they are not perfectly coordinated. There is competition and seepage within their ranks too. And it is not perfectly pyramidal structure either. It is complex and not monolithic. I never pictured that you alleged. The overall outcome is that certain results fit the economic demand of the natural system. I comment on those coming result where they naturally align.

Sounds like the perfect sci fi scenario; reminds me of the "Illuminati" from Dan Brown. Seriously now; (and for the sake of discussion, I'll be the devil's advocate) don't you think the other scenario would've been more dramatic and disastrous? (ie: there are no PTB); Imagine the ship driving itself alone... Plus as a second argument, couldn't it be possible that they don't want our (human) extinction since we're both into the same boat?

What I do believe, is that they're no different like you and me. The only difference is that they have A LOT of money (thus nearly infinite power) but also infinite responsibilities. Driving THE ship requires knowledge and sometimes difficult decisions are ought to be made. Some strong hands are better than no hands at all. Speaking of which; do you think that (in the case Crypto succeeds) there are people among us with the required gear to run the planet and become TNPTB?

In essence there are no PTB because they aren't driving the ship. As you say, they have infinite responsibilities and don't have much choice in their actions. And if we don't decentralize well, some of us could end up with too many responsibilities. I (we) need decentralization so I (we) can retire soon Wink

Cypherdoc Iwe love you now. You just did meus the biggest favor. Seriously. You gave meus the perfect alibi. Thank you heaps.

Edit: one of their natural fit responsibilities (within the Logic of Collective Action) is to exploit the technological flaws in Bitcoin. if they don't, another group will, i.e. the power vacuum forces them to align in cartels to assert their power.

vokain
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1610


V.V.V.V.V.


View Profile
June 06, 2015, 09:52:52 PM
 #25740

The light from LCD screens can influence circadian rhythm/melatonin regulation.

"What do your BitcoinTalk statistics say about your sleep schedule?"
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=49247;sa=statPanel

It appears I generally/naturally have a biphasic sleep cycle, aka the siesta sleep schedule  Cool
I am no slave to a 9-5 society!

...مكتوب
Escape the plutocrats’ zanpakutō, Flower in the Mirror, Moon on the Water: brave “the ascent which is rough and steep” (Plato).
Pages: « 1 ... 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 1331 1332 1333 1334 1335 1336 1337 ... 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!