Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[smooth]

If Satoshi had seen 1MB blocks as being absolutely critical to achieving the goals of the project, similar to the fixed distribution in terms of importance, why not act or write in a way that emphasized that? In fact, he acted and wrote as though the blocksize would absolutely be variable over the time vs technological capability curve. 

That's right, but 20 MB is way beyond the technological curve right now and for the next few years at least. It is premature.

Why did satoshi put the 1 MB cap in there in the first place? It was an "anti-spam" function, but why was it important to protect against this sort of spam?

Because the technological curve wasn't up to the task of operating a decentralized consensus system with >1 MB blocks and allowing spam beyond that point would be to allow a successful attack against the system. If it wasn't up to the task of >1 MB a few years ago, what makes anyone think it is up to the task of 20 MB now? It wasn't and it isn't.

b/c i just debunked the main spam attack the Blockstream devs have been scaring everyone with:

Looks like Gavin's plan to get the miners to join his coup d'état is not going so great, lol

http://cointelegraph.com/news/114481/chinese-exchanges-reject-gavin-andresens-20-mb-block-size-increase

LOL, this quote just cut the legs out from Blockstream's main objection to raising the block limit; that being the large block attack  on small miners supposedly facilitated by "superior"  bandwidth connections. Well, the largest miners in the world are telling us they have "inferior"  connections! Lol! What a bunch of amateurs.

“A very large block size would be problematic for miners because the network bandwidth between China, where the majority of mining is done, and rest of the world is heavily restricted. Important proposals like these need to factor in all of the nuances of the global landscape.”

Again you are missing the point. It isn't who are the largest miners today with 1 MB blocks, it is who would be the largest or only miners and node operators with 20 MB blocks.

[1500829029]

1500829029

[Zangelbert Bingledack]

b/c i just debunked the main spam attack the Blockstream devs have been scaring everyone with:

Looks like Gavin's plan to get the miners to join his coup d'état is not going so great, lol

http://cointelegraph.com/news/114481/chinese-exchanges-reject-gavin-andresens-20-mb-block-size-increase

LOL, this quote just cut the legs out from Blockstream's main objection to raising the block limit; that being the large block attack  on small miners supposedly facilitated by "superior"  bandwidth connections. Well, the largest miners in the world are telling us they have "inferior"  connections! Lol! What a bunch of amateurs.

“A very large block size would be problematic for miners because the network bandwidth between China, where the majority of mining is done, and rest of the world is heavily restricted. Important proposals like these need to factor in all of the nuances of the global landscape.”

They'll just switch to saying "well-connected miners will torment not-well-connected miners."

[cypherdoc]

If Satoshi had seen 1MB blocks as being absolutely critical to achieving the goals of the project, similar to the fixed distribution in terms of importance, why not act or write in a way that emphasized that? In fact, he acted and wrote as though the blocksize would absolutely be variable over the time vs technological capability curve. 

That's right, but 20 MB is way beyond the technological curve right now and for the next few years at least. It is premature.

Why did satoshi put the 1 MB cap in there in the first place? It was an "anti-spam" function, but why was it important to protect against this sort of spam?

Because the technological curve wasn't up to the task of operating a decentralized consensus system with >1 MB blocks and allowing spam beyond that point would be to allow a successful attack against the system. If it wasn't up to the task of >1 MB a few years ago, what makes anyone think it is up to the task of 20 MB now? It wasn't and it isn't.

b/c i just debunked the main spam attack the Blockstream devs have been scaring everyone with:

Looks like Gavin's plan to get the miners to join his coup d'état is not going so great, lol

http://cointelegraph.com/news/114481/chinese-exchanges-reject-gavin-andresens-20-mb-block-size-increase

LOL, this quote just cut the legs out from Blockstream's main objection to raising the block limit; that being the large block attack  on small miners supposedly facilitated by "superior"  bandwidth connections. Well, the largest miners in the world are telling us they have "inferior"  connections! Lol! What a bunch of amateurs.

“A very large block size would be problematic for miners because the network bandwidth between China, where the majority of mining is done, and rest of the world is heavily restricted. Important proposals like these need to factor in all of the nuances of the global landscape.”

Again you are missing the point. It isn't who are the largest miners today with 1 MB blocks, it is who would be the largest or only miners and node operators with 20 MB blocks.

and you're just creating FUD.

what evidence is there that there would be a shift in just who the large miners will be?  maybe there won't be any.  maybe there will be a shift so there are no large miners and everyone is equal.  what we do know now is that there won't be the immediate large miner, large block attack all you guys have been FUD'ing about.

[cypherdoc]

If Satoshi had seen 1MB blocks as being absolutely critical to achieving the goals of the project, similar to the fixed distribution in terms of importance, why not act or write in a way that emphasized that? In fact, he acted and wrote as though the blocksize would absolutely be variable over the time vs technological capability curve. 

That's right, but 20 MB is way beyond the technological curve right now and for the next few years at least. It is premature.

Why did satoshi put the 1 MB cap in there in the first place? It was an "anti-spam" function, but why was it important to protect against this sort of spam?

Because the technological curve wasn't up to the task of operating a decentralized consensus system with >1 MB blocks and allowing spam beyond that point would be to allow a successful attack against the system. If it wasn't up to the task of >1 MB a few years ago, what makes anyone think it is up to the task of 20 MB now? It wasn't and it isn't.

b/c i just debunked the main spam attack the Blockstream devs have been scaring everyone with:

Looks like Gavin's plan to get the miners to join his coup d'état is not going so great, lol

http://cointelegraph.com/news/114481/chinese-exchanges-reject-gavin-andresens-20-mb-block-size-increase

LOL, this quote just cut the legs out from Blockstream's main objection to raising the block limit; that being the large block attack  on small miners supposedly facilitated by "superior"  bandwidth connections. Well, the largest miners in the world are telling us they have "inferior"  connections! Lol! What a bunch of amateurs.

“A very large block size would be problematic for miners because the network bandwidth between China, where the majority of mining is done, and rest of the world is heavily restricted. Important proposals like these need to factor in all of the nuances of the global landscape.”

Again you are missing the point. It isn't who are the largest miners today with 1 MB blocks, it is who would be the largest or only miners and node operators with 20 MB blocks.

and you know what?  from the beginning, even before we found out about the large Chinese miners, i said this is a highly dubious attack that any such large miner should want to perform.  large blocks do not change the fact that miners will want first and foremost the block reward and should only continue to form the smallest, most efficiently propagating blocks they can so as not to be orphaned.  an attacker still risks losing their entire hardware investment by destroying the system in which they participate.  i've contended that the blonde in the Governing Dynamics video from John Nash is equivalent to either the the selfish or 51% miner attack.  they won't do it b/c all miners want to get laid.

[cypherdoc]

b/c i just debunked the main spam attack the Blockstream devs have been scaring everyone with:

Looks like Gavin's plan to get the miners to join his coup d'état is not going so great, lol

http://cointelegraph.com/news/114481/chinese-exchanges-reject-gavin-andresens-20-mb-block-size-increase

LOL, this quote just cut the legs out from Blockstream's main objection to raising the block limit; that being the large block attack  on small miners supposedly facilitated by "superior"  bandwidth connections. Well, the largest miners in the world are telling us they have "inferior"  connections! Lol! What a bunch of amateurs.

“A very large block size would be problematic for miners because the network bandwidth between China, where the majority of mining is done, and rest of the world is heavily restricted. Important proposals like these need to factor in all of the nuances of the global landscape.”

They'll just switch to saying "well-connected miners will torment not-well-connected miners."

so if better connections are no longer correlated with size, then the attack doesn't work b/c size was supposed to allow them to press their advantage in forming follow on blocks quickly before smaller miners could digest/process the large block attack.

[cypherdoc]

notice how none of the Blockstream devs come in to the thread on Reddit, where we know they hang out, to challenge me on this.  i'm sure they were there b/c i got plenty of downvotes as a result of the post which you can see me laugh at in a follow up post underneath:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/38os22/chinese_exchanges_reject_gavin_andresens_20_mb/crwqxai

[iCEBREAKER]

The Genesis Block mentions bailouts for TBTF banks.  It does not mention Visa or Paypal.

"banks" were used as a broad term to encompass Visa/Paypal

Satoshi actually used the term "financial institution" in the white paper.  He focusses heavily on the transactional aspects of Bitcoin (e.g., the Visa/Paypal angle):

Commerce on the Internet has come to rely almost exclusively on financial institutions serving as trusted third parties to process electronic payments. While the system works well enough for most transactions, it still suffers from the inherent weaknesses of the trust based model. Completely non-reversible transactions are not really possible, since financial institutions cannot avoid mediating disputes. The cost of mediation increases transaction costs, limiting the minimum practical transaction size and cutting off the possibility for small casual transactions, and there is a broader cost in the loss of ability to make non-reversible payments for non-reversible services.

There's actually no mention of central banks in the white paper whatsoever (although he does use the term "central authority" twice).  The only mention of gold is in Section 6:

The steady addition of a constant of amount of new coins is analogous to gold miners expending resources to add gold to circulation.

TL/DR: The white paper focusses more heavily on the transactional aspects of bitcoin than on its potential as a replacement for fiat currency/gold.  

Your dedication to the study of Lord Satoshi's Sacred Words is commendable.

Then hard money, anti-central authority (AKA BIS) aspects of Bitcoin follow a long tradition of bimetallism advocacy and hostility to fiat.

Central bank vs central authority in this context is a distinction without a difference.

I value Satoshi's apt 'gold coin' metaphor.  People traditionally use gold coins to store wealth and perhaps for major expenses.  Gold scales up nicely, from occasional retail use to constant commercial/institutional market churn and international settlement.

But we don't (even under a gold standard) directly use gold coins to buy coffee, pizza, and lottery tickets.  And neither should Bitcoin Core be expected to directly grace the palms of every neckbeard in every basement under every continent.  That was the right thing back in the early days.  Now it's time for Core to move from the suburban garage/basement to the financial district, where rent/sq/ft is much higher (IE not free thanks to mom).

Blockchain technology may someday leapfrog existing/centralized/specialized Visa-scale infrastructure, but it won't be anytime soon and it won't be accomplished by simply making the blocks bigger and bigger.

With its low tps and highly variant 10 minute average blocks, Bitcoin was clearly not designed for real-time point of sale.

If you want to fork Bitcoin into what gmax calls "yet another centralized payment rail" go right ahead.

But please don't try to gamble with everyone else's CoreCoins.  There is a good chance neither fork will survive MPEX's GavinCoin short.

[cypherdoc]

The Genesis Block mentions bailouts for TBTF banks.  It does not mention Visa or Paypal.

"banks" were used as a broad term to encompass Visa/Paypal

Satoshi actually used the term "financial institution" in the white paper.  He focusses heavily on the transactional aspects of Bitcoin (e.g., the Visa/Paypal angle):

Commerce on the Internet has come to rely almost exclusively on financial institutions serving as trusted third parties to process electronic payments. While the system works well enough for most transactions, it still suffers from the inherent weaknesses of the trust based model. Completely non-reversible transactions are not really possible, since financial institutions cannot avoid mediating disputes. The cost of mediation increases transaction costs, limiting the minimum practical transaction size and cutting off the possibility for small casual transactions, and there is a broader cost in the loss of ability to make non-reversible payments for non-reversible services.

There's actually no mention of central banks in the white paper whatsoever (although he does use the term "central authority" twice).  The only mention of gold is in Section 6:

The steady addition of a constant of amount of new coins is analogous to gold miners expending resources to add gold to circulation.

TL/DR: The white paper focusses more heavily on the transactional aspects of bitcoin than on its potential as a replacement for fiat currency/gold.  

Your dedication to the study of Lord Satoshi's Sacred Words is commendable.

Then hard money, anti-central authority (AKA BIS) aspects of Bitcoin follow a long tradition of bimetallism advocacy and hostility to fiat.

Central bank vs central authority in this context is a distinction without a difference.

I value Satoshi's apt 'gold coin' metaphor.  People traditionally use gold coins to store wealth and perhaps for major expenses.  Gold scales up nicely, from occasional retail use to constant commercial/institutional market churn and international settlement.

But we don't (even under a gold standard) directly use gold coins to buy coffee, pizza, and lottery tickets.  And neither should Bitcoin Core be expected to directly grace the palms of every neckbeard in every basement under every continent.  That was the right thing back in the early days.  Now it's time for Core to move from the suburban garage/basement to the financial district, where rent/sq/ft is much higher (IE not free thanks to mom).

Blockchain technology may someday leapfrog existing/centralized/specialized Visa-scale infrastructure, but it won't be anytime soon and it won't be accomplished by simply making the blocks bigger and bigger.

With its low tps and highly variant 10 minute average blocks, Bitcoin was clearly not designed for real-time point of sale.

If you want to fork Bitcoin into what gmax calls "yet another centralized payment rail" go right ahead.

But please don't try to gamble with everyone else's CoreCoins.  There is a good chance neither fork will survive MPEX's GavinCoin short.

those are big words, iCE.  i'm sure there is someone around who is bigger than him.

[Cconvert2G36]

If Satoshi had seen 1MB blocks as being absolutely critical to achieving the goals of the project, similar to the fixed distribution in terms of importance, why not act or write in a way that emphasized that? In fact, he acted and wrote as though the blocksize would absolutely be variable over the time vs technological capability curve. 

That's right, but 20 MB is way beyond the technological curve right now and for the next few years at least. It is premature.

Why did satoshi put the 1 MB cap in there in the first place? It was an "anti-spam" function, but why was it important to protect against this sort of spam?

Because the technological curve wasn't up to the task of operating a decentralized consensus system with >1 MB blocks and allowing spam beyond that point would be to allow a successful attack against the system. If it wasn't up to the task of >1 MB a few years ago, what makes anyone think it is up to the task of 20 MB now? It wasn't and it isn't.

One of the main tenets of successful bargaining, you don't start out with your final offer. Compromise doesn't magically begin at the optimal agreement.

It was easily guessed that such a suggestion would start a rift, that the ensuing debate would take a long time. And in any case, would not being implemented until mid 2016.

There's also the desire to give enough headroom to have plenty of time after it is implemented to discuss a more permanent solution.

[iCEBREAKER]

notice how none of the Blockstream devs come in to the thread on Reddit, where we know they hang out, to challenge me on this.  i'm sure they were there b/c i got plenty of downvotes as a result of the post which you can see me laugh at in a follow up post underneath:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/38os22/chinese_exchanges_reject_gavin_andresens_20_mb/crwqxai

That comment is at best unclear except for the content-free insults, and at worst incoherent and rambling in the frothy manner of a crank like Anonymint.

With its low tps and highly variant 10 minute average blocks, Bitcoin was clearly not designed for real-time point of sale.

If you want to fork Bitcoin into what gmax calls "yet another centralized payment rail" go right ahead.

But please don't try to gamble with everyone else's CoreCoins.  There is a good chance neither fork will survive MPEX's GavinCoin short.

those are big words, iCE.  i'm sure there is someone around who is bigger than him.

We've just this last week heard from several people who are bigger than MPEX, run the worlds largest mines/pools/exchanges in Asia, and do want GavinCoin implemented at this time nor in Gavin's sneaky, haughty, high-handed manner.

MPEX may have invented the GavinCoin Short, but it will be far from the only exchange using it to nuke the Gavinstas' trollfork from space.

[cypherdoc]

notice how none of the Blockstream devs come in to the thread on Reddit, where we know they hang out, to challenge me on this.  i'm sure they were there b/c i got plenty of downvotes as a result of the post which you can see me laugh at in a follow up post underneath:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/38os22/chinese_exchanges_reject_gavin_andresens_20_mb/crwqxai

That comment is at best unclear except for the content-free insults, and at worst incoherent and rambling in the frothy manner of a crank like Anonymint.

With its low tps and highly variant 10 minute average blocks, Bitcoin was clearly not designed for real-time point of sale.

If you want to fork Bitcoin into what gmax calls "yet another centralized payment rail" go right ahead.

But please don't try to gamble with everyone else's CoreCoins.  There is a good chance neither fork will survive MPEX's GavinCoin short.

those are big words, iCE.  i'm sure there is someone around who is bigger than him.

We've just this last week heard from several people who are bigger than MPEX, run the worlds largest mines/pools/exchanges in Asia, and do want GavinCoin implemented at this time nor in Gavin's sneaky, haughty, high-handed manner.

MPEX may have invented the GavinCoin Short, but it will be far from the only exchange using it to nuke the Gavinstas' trollfork from space.

the markets will go with the economic majority which is reflected in at least 3 polls of 75-95% Gavin support.  and from what i've read of the Chinese miners, they do agree with larger blocks, it's just a matter of degree.  i'm sure they will come along with whatever the economic majority decide.

and what do you care?  you're a Monero pimp.

[TPTB_need_war]

every attribute you seem to have, he seems to have.  every attribute he seems to have, you seem to have.

His left eye was losing vision. My right eye is 90% blinded. Whoops.

This is really comical. Are you under stress because of the court case? You are acting strange.

I suggested you get on Skype so you can see me on web cam. But you refused.

pm'd

Next day. I will sleep.

i'm not interested in talking.  one quick glance to verify you're not Armstrong.

I don't have Skype installed at this location. I have to travel to other location.

I believe you are interested in constructing evidence to build some civil suit against me.

lol, see i knew it.  all blow and no go.

I want to talk with you. I want to see you on cam also. I want to try to explain to you why you need to stop your Dunning Kruger presumptions.

But you don't want to talk. You just want to capture my image from the web cam.

You know why we programmers don't make 3000 BTC on defrauding our fellow community? Because we are enjoying too much the challenge of doing. And we see through such simpleton thought processes that you use to lure in naive investors to your trap. Thus we don't have the conscience to do what you do. I suppose your ignorance helps you manage your conscience.

Fuck man I told you 100 pages upthread that big blocks favor large centralized mining because of the equation that determines orphan rate says the orphan rate increases with the propagation delay. Then you retorted that IBLT resolves that, and I said yes but IBLT requires all miners to see all transactions and agree thus is centralization of the network bandwidth requirements.

Then you go over to Reddit and reargue the same nonsense that I had already explained to you is illogical. Then you write here that programmers use too much logic and not enough double-blind surveys.

Fuck man get off our lawn already!

[TPTB_need_war]

every attribute you seem to have, he seems to have.  every attribute he seems to have, you seem to have.

His left eye was losing vision. My right eye is 90% blinded. Whoops.

This is really comical. Are you under stress because of the court case? You are acting strange.

I suggested you get on Skype so you can see me on web cam. But you refused.

pm'd

Next day. I will sleep.

i'm not interested in talking.  one quick glance to verify you're not Armstrong.

I don't have Skype installed at this location. I have to travel to other location.

I believe you are interested in constructing evidence to build some civil suit against me.

"i need to sleep", whimper, whimper.  "i need to travel to another location", whimper, whimper.

ROFLMAO!   what a jackass.

Both are true. You are the jackass.

[TPTB_need_war]

"but he may construct a civil lawsuit against me", whimper, whimper.  "oh wait, i'm in the Phillipines!  or am i?", whimper, whimper.

I am also on a US citizen, not a permanent resident, and thus subject to passport cancellation and deportation.

[TPTB_need_war]

but i don't think you are a programmer.  i think you're Armstrong.

You are losing your sanity dude. It is really pitiful to watch you go on this delusional tirade. Me not a programmer, hahaha.

Btw, Armstrong is a very skilled programmer.

there you go again.

every attribute you seem to have, he seems to have.  every attribute he seems to have, you seem to have.

Martin Armstrong ' s  writing typically includes numerous spelling and grammatical errors that we don't see with Anonymint et AL.  MA'S speech and writing are patterned very much the same, while very unlike Anonymint's  consistent writing style.  I try not to stick my oar into this swirling pool of egos and  childish arguments but sometimes I guess I like to waste time too!

that's possible altho from what i recall those grammatical problems were confined to the time when he was in prison.  remember, he was beat up, probably malnourished, mentally ill, and who knows, maybe faking mistakes to make his condition appear worse for when he appealed.  

I also commit grammatical and spelling errors when I am in a rush. I have often said I am inside Armstrong's head because there are so many parallels in our abilities and experience. But he is in his mid to late 50s, and I am still 49 for a few more days. And he was a hedge fund manager for the Japanese postal fund and I have been a programmer except from 2006 to 2012 I was a silver investor as I dug down into the rabbit hole that September 11, 2001 forced me to wake up to. I was in my birth place New Orleans, LA on that infamous day because my eye surgeon was there.

Btw I called the top of the silver price within a few pennies. Ask former Hommel forum members such as rpietila (or he might have been gone by then).

I didn't start emailing Armstrong until 2012 or 2013. It was his call for gold to peak and decline from 2011 (which I didn't discover until 2012) and his call around August 2012 for the DJIA to continue its bull market heading eventually to potentially 39,000 that really struck me. He has since explained that the DJIA inverted to align with private assets (formerly aligned with public assets, i.e. sovereign bonds) and thus will have a correction before Oct 2015 and then head for those nosebleed levels in 2017 as private capital and the international dollar short heads back safe haven home.

[smooth]

but i don't think you are a programmer.  i think you're Armstrong.

You are losing your sanity dude. It is really pitiful to watch you go on this delusional tirade. Me not a programmer, hahaha.

Btw, Armstrong is a very skilled programmer.

there you go again.

every attribute you seem to have, he seems to have.  every attribute he seems to have, you seem to have.

Martin Armstrong ' s  writing typically includes numerous spelling and grammatical errors that we don't see with Anonymint et AL.  MA'S speech and writing are patterned very much the same, while very unlike Anonymint's  consistent writing style.  I try not to stick my oar into this swirling pool of egos and  childish arguments but sometimes I guess I like to waste time too!

that's possible altho from what i recall those grammatical problems were confined to the time when he was in prison.  remember, he was beat up, probably malnourished, mentally ill, and who knows, maybe faking mistakes to make his condition appear worse for when he appealed. 

Come on cypherdoc do you realize how silly you sound?

The main reason that TPTB's writings often resemble MA's is that he quotes and slightly paraphrases MA a lot.

[cypherdoc]

every attribute you seem to have, he seems to have.  every attribute he seems to have, you seem to have.

His left eye was losing vision. My right eye is 90% blinded. Whoops.

This is really comical. Are you under stress because of the court case? You are acting strange.

I suggested you get on Skype so you can see me on web cam. But you refused.

pm'd

Next day. I will sleep.

i'm not interested in talking.  one quick glance to verify you're not Armstrong.

I don't have Skype installed at this location. I have to travel to other location.

I believe you are interested in constructing evidence to build some civil suit against me.

lol, see i knew it.  all blow and no go.

I want to talk with you. I want to see you on cam also. I want to try to explain to you why you need to stop your Dunning Kruger presumptions.

But you don't want to talk. You just want to capture my image from the web cam.

i won't capture anything.  i just want to see if you're Armstrong.  you're the one who offered.

You know why we programmers don't make 3000 BTC on defrauding our fellow community? Because we are enjoying too much the challenge of doing. And we see through such simpleton thought processes that you use to lure in naive investors to your trap. Thus we don't have the conscience to do what you do. I suppose your ignorance helps you manage your conscience.

you have no details of the case so don't jump to any conclusions.  but of course, that's not your objective is it?  to be fair.

Fuck man I told you 100 pages upthread that big blocks favor large centralized mining because of the equation that determines orphan rate says the orphan rate increases with the propagation delay. Then you retorted that IBLT resolves that, and I said yes but IBLT requires all miners to see all transactions and agree thus is centralization of the network bandwidth requirements.

can you even construct a proper sentence?  and i said most miners have most tx's in their mempool which is why Gavin thinks it is likely to work.  i'm sure there is some work to be done along with testing but the concepts are the same.

Then you go over to Reddit and reargue the same nonsense that I had already explained to you is illogical. Then you write here that programmers use too much logic and not enough double-blind surveys.

Fuck man get off our lawn already!

do you even have a clue?  the Chinese miners are claiming their bandwidth connections are crap and have given pretty poor connectivity rates.  the miner making the claim was BTCGuild the #3 largest miner in the world.  he was making the claim that all Chinese miners have the same problem.  that includes the #1 and #2 miners Discus Fish and Antpool, both Chinese.  therefore, all 3 of the largest miners in the world cannot conduct the large miner, large block against small miner attack the Blockstream devs have been FUD'ing.  get it or are you retarded?

[TPTB_need_war]

from today.  TPTB and Armstrong think in lockstep about Summers:

We are simply drowning with people in charge who have no real world experience. According to the former US Treasury Secretary and Harvard economist Larry Summers “the world suffers from a savings surplus and therefore threatens to fall into a secular stagnation.” He looks at the world through fogged glasses – not even a rose colored pair. He claims that now for decades to come we will have to adjust accordingly to slower economic growth and increasing economic and social problems. The reason for this is that in some countries such as China and Germany, people saved too much, rather than consume or to invest. Therefore, they exported their savings abroad and thus led to an oversupply of savings, for there is no sufficient demand. Summers’ solution –  the cash-free economy.

http://armstrongeconomics.com/armstrong_economics_blog

He won't publish my "21 Inc" revelation. I emailed him 3 times.

He has published every allegation he knows about Summers except the above. He won't publish the 21 Inc story because it blows up his assertion that there are no powers-that-be coordinating a NWO outcome. Armstrong and I disagree on this. He thinks the NY Club banksters are isolated by China, Russia etc and that they are too dumb to coordinate the world and they only are controlling the USG so they can do risk-free trading. I have presented evidence to him that the global elite are complicit and playing us for fools with false flags (e.g. the Ukraine conflict, the Spratly Islands conflict, etc are manufactured conflicts) but he refuses to accept this. I explained to him that his database and model can't "see" this coordination because the global elite use compartmentalization and deception.

He reads my emails because in the past he posted a rebuttal blog post everytime I emailed him some criticism I wrote in the forum about him. Also a couple of years ago he emailed me back and forth a few times. But I've never spoken to him.

[TPTB_need_war]

Fuck man I told you 100 pages upthread that big blocks favor large centralized mining because of the equation that determines orphan rate says the orphan rate increases with the propagation delay. Then you retorted that IBLT resolves that, and I said yes but IBLT requires all miners to see all transactions and agree thus is centralization of the network bandwidth requirements.

can you even construct a proper sentence?  and i said most miners have most tx's in their mempool which is why Gavin thinks it is likely to work.  i'm sure there is some work to be done along with testing but the concepts are the same.

Again you are repeating the IBLT argument. Can't you see that!

Then you go over to Reddit and reargue the same nonsense that I had already explained to you is illogical. Then you write here that programmers use too much logic and not enough double-blind surveys.

Fuck man get off our lawn already!

do you even have a clue?  the Chinese miners are claiming their bandwidth connections are crap and have given pretty poor connectivity rates.  the miner making the claim was BTCGuild the #3 largest miner in the world.  he was making the claim that all Chinese miners have the same problem.  that includes the #1 and #2 miners Discus Fish and Antpool, both Chinese.  therefore, all 3 of the largest miners in the world cannot conduct the large miner, large block against small miner attack the Blockstream devs have been FUD'ing.  get it or are you retarded?

Your logic is so weak you can't see you didn't make a point. Do I have to spell out for you dunce?

[cypherdoc]

but i don't think you are a programmer.  i think you're Armstrong.

You are losing your sanity dude. It is really pitiful to watch you go on this delusional tirade. Me not a programmer, hahaha.

Btw, Armstrong is a very skilled programmer.

there you go again.

every attribute you seem to have, he seems to have.  every attribute he seems to have, you seem to have.

Martin Armstrong ' s  writing typically includes numerous spelling and grammatical errors that we don't see with Anonymint et AL.  MA'S speech and writing are patterned very much the same, while very unlike Anonymint's  consistent writing style.  I try not to stick my oar into this swirling pool of egos and  childish arguments but sometimes I guess I like to waste time too!

that's possible altho from what i recall those grammatical problems were confined to the time when he was in prison.  remember, he was beat up, probably malnourished, mentally ill, and who knows, maybe faking mistakes to make his condition appear worse for when he appealed. 

Come on cypherdoc do you realize how silly you sound?

The main reason that TPTB's writings often resemble MA's is that he quotes and slightly paraphrases MA a lot.

hmmm, when i paraphrase someone, especially if they have bad grammar, i try extra hard to make the paraphrase intelligible and clear.  i don't copy it.