Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[TPTB_need_war]

I now see full-node count as a red herring; the number of full nodes is dropping because we don't need that many full nodes (see my arguments above).  There's a huge gap between running bitcoin on a raspberry pie and "only the Googles of the world will be able to run bitcoin."  According to all my analysis, we are so far away from bitcoin being runnable by "a few mega corporations," that the "don't-increase-the-blocksize-because-centralization-arguments" come across as hyperbole to me.  

You are forgetting propagation delay and the need for IBLT to deal with it, which is a paradigm which will eventually hand a winner-take-all to the entities that can handle Visa volume on the block chain.

I believe before the big boys throw their transactions at Bitcoin, they want to make sure the paradigm is in place for them to capture it. Coinbase, Circle, Paypal, etc its all primed and ready to go after IBLT is implemented or large enough block size to handle the scale they want to throw at Bitcoin and force IBLT.

Mike Hearn and the Foundation appears to be captured by those big boys (TPTB).

Blockstream is attempting a rear guard and trying to not give them so much headroom all at once.

Or you might have two factions of the TPTB competing (since the end result if the same for as long as PoW is not fixed).

In any case, I don't really care. It is a morass and needs to be replaced by something that remains truly decentralized long-term.

you do realize the Foundation has been defunct for months now?

Or so you were lead to believe.

And the Rothschilds and Rockefellers also divested all their wealth too.

P.S. I am fairly certain Cypherdoc is a mouthpiece for TPTB. I posit he was purposely compromised by the HashFast offer to maintain his allegiance. This is their usual modus operandi. This is evident by his public role and other factors such as his denial of the fact that Bitcoin core is heading towards a centralized end game.

[cypherdoc]

I think I've heard all the arguments, but I still cannot understand the opposition to increasing the blocksize.

I don't have an (maybe I should say: a valid) opinion on the block size debate. I would prefer to err on the side of decentralization, but at this point I'm not even sure what that is. I think magic numbers are a poor solution (but I'm sure they are sometimes necessary).

I'm not afraid of forks, like most people seem to be. I think that everyone should be prepared for how they will deal with possible forks in the future.

What I do know is that after spending a lot of time reading about Bitcoin for the past several years, and getting a feel for some of the people involved, I would prefer to stay far, far away from anything that is related to Mike Hearn. For the life of me, I can't even understand why someone like him is interested in Bitcoin (unless it's to change it into something else entirely). I'm thankful that he has barely touched Bitcoin Core.

So I oppose BitcoinXT, but not necessarily a block size increase.

Disclaimer: I use Mycelium for convenience from time to time and do not know whether or not that is based on any of Hearn's BitcoinJ.

as long as Gavin remains as lead core dev, i'm ok with Hearn being a core dev. 

there was a thread on Reddit yesterday devoted to trashing Hearn that provided the obvious links to his controversial proposals in the past.  i was grateful for that as it allowed me to go back and review them.  no surprise, i was very vocal against his suggestion to redlist addresses while him being on the foundation board.  but then yesterday i read a little deeper and his "suggestion" to do that was in reaction to the Cryptolocker Bitcoin correlation that was prevalent at the time.  at least his heart was in the right place altho redlisting is still a terrible idea for fungibility.  i get that ppl think he is flippant about centralizing ideas and i would agree with that.  but at the same time, he clearly wants Bitcoin to succeed; and in a BIG way.  thus, i choose to look at him with a little bit more moderation than i have in the past.  he is terribly smart and it should be clear his refusal to participate in BIP's over the last couple years has been in reaction to having to deal with ppl like gmax.  i don't blame him. 

[cypherdoc]

I now see full-node count as a red herring; the number of full nodes is dropping because we don't need that many full nodes (see my arguments above).  There's a huge gap between running bitcoin on a raspberry pie and "only the Googles of the world will be able to run bitcoin."  According to all my analysis, we are so far away from bitcoin being runnable by "a few mega corporations," that the "don't-increase-the-blocksize-because-centralization-arguments" come across as hyperbole to me.  

You are forgetting propagation delay and the need for IBLT to deal with it, which is a paradigm which will eventually hand a winner-take-all to the entities that can handle Visa volume on the block chain.

I believe before the big boys throw their transactions at Bitcoin, they want to make sure the paradigm is in place for them to capture it. Coinbase, Circle, Paypal, etc its all primed and ready to go after IBLT is implemented or large enough block size to handle the scale they want to throw at Bitcoin and force IBLT.

Mike Hearn and the Foundation appears to be captured by those big boys (TPTB).

Blockstream is attempting a rear guard and trying to not give them so much headroom all at once.

Or you might have two factions of the TPTB competing (since the end result if the same for as long as PoW is not fixed).

In any case, I don't really care. It is a morass and needs to be replaced by something that remains truly decentralized long-term.

you do realize the Foundation has been defunct for months now?

Or so you were lead to believe.

And the Rothschilds and Rockefellers also divested all their wealth too.

P.S. I am fairly certain Cypherdoc is a mouthpiece for TPTB. I posit he was purposely compromised by the HashFast offer to maintain his allegiance. This is their usual modus operandi. This is evident by his public role and other factors such as his denial of the fact that Bitcoin core is heading towards a centralized end game.

i am in agreement to talk with you on video Skype.  what's your handle?

[TPTB_need_war]

no surprise, i was very vocal against his suggestion to redlist addresses while him being on the foundation board.  but then yesterday i read a little deeper and his "suggestion" to do that was in reaction to the Cryptolocker Bitcoin correlation that was prevalent at the time.  at least his heart was in the right place... 

Spoken in the true Hegelian dialectic paradigm of good car salesman and bad car salesman, i.e. build a crisis to offer a less worst option. I have a neurobiologist researcher analyzing everyone's posts in this thread and giving me analysis of their behavior. Creepy? No just rational.

Here is the equation I use to model the effect on the Hegelian dialectic paradigm.

...

The independent minded people you see in Colorado will jump to comply with NWO directives for as long as they can keep their lifestyles 90% intact.

Let me show you my equation for the slow burn:

0.90 ^ n

Where n = the duration of the slow burn and ^ is the exponentiation operator.

Humans comply to keep 90%. Rinse and repeat.

[cypherdoc]

check out of the gold collapse

I told you all upthread there would likely be a bounce this June in both gold and BTC but the final lows are still coming.

I continue (via Armstrong) to predict every price move. Yet I (and he) get no acknowledgement.

What a shame! The feet of the prophets are to be kissed!

Has it ever been any different?

What you have to remember about this thread is that if all the egos were laid end to end....


...no-one would be in the least bit surprised.

TRUE. One huge egotrip in this thread. It should be locked and forgotten about.
But BTC is dropping and gold will climb, so at the very least it should have it's title changed.

sorry, Gold collapsing, Bitcoin UP.

[cypherdoc]

I now see full-node count as a red herring; the number of full nodes is dropping because we don't need that many full nodes (see my arguments above).  There's a huge gap between running bitcoin on a raspberry pie and "only the Googles of the world will be able to run bitcoin."  According to all my analysis, we are so far away from bitcoin being runnable by "a few mega corporations," that the "don't-increase-the-blocksize-because-centralization-arguments" come across as hyperbole to me.  

You are forgetting propagation delay and the need for IBLT to deal with it, which is a paradigm which will eventually hand a winner-take-all to the entities that can handle Visa volume on the block chain.

I believe before the big boys throw their transactions at Bitcoin, they want to make sure the paradigm is in place for them to capture it. Coinbase, Circle, Paypal, etc its all primed and ready to go after IBLT is implemented or large enough block size to handle the scale they want to throw at Bitcoin and force IBLT.

Mike Hearn and the Foundation appears to be captured by those big boys (TPTB).

Blockstream is attempting a rear guard and trying to not give them so much headroom all at once.

Or you might have two factions of the TPTB competing (since the end result if the same for as long as PoW is not fixed).

In any case, I don't really care. It is a morass and needs to be replaced by something that remains truly decentralized long-term.

you do realize the Foundation has been defunct for months now?

Or so you were lead to believe.

And the Rothschilds and Rockefellers also divested all their wealth too.

P.S. I am fairly certain Cypherdoc is a mouthpiece for TPTB. I posit he was purposely compromised by the HashFast offer to maintain his allegiance. This is their usual modus operandi. This is evident by his public role and other factors such as his denial of the fact that Bitcoin core is heading towards a centralized end game.

i am in agreement to talk with you on video Skype.  what's your handle?

yoohoo, TPTB_need_war, yoohoo.

[cypherdoc]

$DJI up a measly +38 while the $DJT down -73.

simply more divergence.  not good.

[cypherdoc]

[sickpig]

http://www.8btc.com/blocksize-increase-2

Courtesy of google translator:

Beijing June 11, 2015, five Chinese mine pool jointly organized the "mine pool Technology Seminar" at the National Convention Center participating F2pool.com, BW.com, BTCChina, Huobi.com, Antpool.com five mine pool cell technology for ore-depth discussions and reached consensus on the expansion part of the block. They agreed that capacity is needed Bitcoin block size; in ensuring the premise of unified Bitcoin network intends in the next period of time to accept the size does not exceed 8MB (8,000,000Bytes) blocks.

edit: just found out there's already a thread in the speculation section https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1091170.0

[cypherdoc]

I now see full-node count as a red herring; the number of full nodes is dropping because we don't need that many full nodes (see my arguments above).  There's a huge gap between running bitcoin on a raspberry pie and "only the Googles of the world will be able to run bitcoin."  According to all my analysis, we are so far away from bitcoin being runnable by "a few mega corporations," that the "don't-increase-the-blocksize-because-centralization-arguments" come across as hyperbole to me.  

You are forgetting propagation delay and the need for IBLT to deal with it, which is a paradigm which will eventually hand a winner-take-all to the entities that can handle Visa volume on the block chain.

I believe before the big boys throw their transactions at Bitcoin, they want to make sure the paradigm is in place for them to capture it. Coinbase, Circle, Paypal, etc its all primed and ready to go after IBLT is implemented or large enough block size to handle the scale they want to throw at Bitcoin and force IBLT.

Mike Hearn and the Foundation appears to be captured by those big boys (TPTB).

Blockstream is attempting a rear guard and trying to not give them so much headroom all at once.

Or you might have two factions of the TPTB competing (since the end result if the same for as long as PoW is not fixed).

In any case, I don't really care. It is a morass and needs to be replaced by something that remains truly decentralized long-term.

you do realize the Foundation has been defunct for months now?

Or so you were lead to believe.

And the Rothschilds and Rockefellers also divested all their wealth too.

P.S. I am fairly certain Cypherdoc is a mouthpiece for TPTB. I posit he was purposely compromised by the HashFast offer to maintain his allegiance. This is their usual modus operandi. This is evident by his public role and other factors such as his denial of the fact that Bitcoin core is heading towards a centralized end game.

i am in agreement to talk with you on video Skype.  what's your handle?

yoohoo, TPTB_need_war, yoohoo.

yoohoo, TPTB_need_war, yoohoo.

hooohoooohoooo.

[Peter R]

I now see full-node count as a red herring; the number of full nodes is dropping because we don't need that many full nodes (see my arguments above).  There's a huge gap between running bitcoin on a raspberry pie and "only the Googles of the world will be able to run bitcoin."  According to all my analysis, we are so far away from bitcoin being runnable by "a few mega corporations," that the "don't-increase-the-blocksize-because-centralization-arguments" come across as hyperbole to me.  

You are forgetting propagation delay and the need for IBLT to deal with it, which is a paradigm which will eventually hand a winner-take-all to the entities that can handle Visa volume on the block chain.

I believe before the big boys throw their transactions at Bitcoin, they want to make sure the paradigm is in place for them to capture it. Coinbase, Circle, Paypal, etc its all primed and ready to go after IBLT is implemented or large enough block size to handle the scale they want to throw at Bitcoin and force IBLT.

Mike Hearn and the Foundation appears to be captured by those big boys (TPTB).

Blockstream is attempting a rear guard and trying to not give them so much headroom all at once.

Or you might have two factions of the TPTB competing (since the end result if the same for as long as PoW is not fixed).

In any case, I don't really care. It is a morass and needs to be replaced by something that remains truly decentralized long-term.

you do realize the Foundation has been defunct for months now?

Or so you were lead to believe.

And the Rothschilds and Rockefellers also divested all their wealth too.

P.S. I am fairly certain Cypherdoc is a mouthpiece for TPTB. I posit he was purposely compromised by the HashFast offer to maintain his allegiance. This is their usual modus operandi. This is evident by his public role and other factors such as his denial of the fact that Bitcoin core is heading towards a centralized end game.

i am in agreement to talk with you on video Skype.  what's your handle?

yoohoo, TPTB_need_war, yoohoo.

yoohoo, TPTB_need_war, yoohoo.

hooohoooohoooo.

Lol I just realized that you probably can't run bitcoin on a raspberry pie 

[cypherdoc]

I now see full-node count as a red herring; the number of full nodes is dropping because we don't need that many full nodes (see my arguments above).  There's a huge gap between running bitcoin on a raspberry pie and "only the Googles of the world will be able to run bitcoin."  According to all my analysis, we are so far away from bitcoin being runnable by "a few mega corporations," that the "don't-increase-the-blocksize-because-centralization-arguments" come across as hyperbole to me.  

You are forgetting propagation delay and the need for IBLT to deal with it, which is a paradigm which will eventually hand a winner-take-all to the entities that can handle Visa volume on the block chain.

I believe before the big boys throw their transactions at Bitcoin, they want to make sure the paradigm is in place for them to capture it. Coinbase, Circle, Paypal, etc its all primed and ready to go after IBLT is implemented or large enough block size to handle the scale they want to throw at Bitcoin and force IBLT.

Mike Hearn and the Foundation appears to be captured by those big boys (TPTB).

Blockstream is attempting a rear guard and trying to not give them so much headroom all at once.

Or you might have two factions of the TPTB competing (since the end result if the same for as long as PoW is not fixed).

In any case, I don't really care. It is a morass and needs to be replaced by something that remains truly decentralized long-term.

you do realize the Foundation has been defunct for months now?

Or so you were lead to believe.

And the Rothschilds and Rockefellers also divested all their wealth too.

P.S. I am fairly certain Cypherdoc is a mouthpiece for TPTB. I posit he was purposely compromised by the HashFast offer to maintain his allegiance. This is their usual modus operandi. This is evident by his public role and other factors such as his denial of the fact that Bitcoin core is heading towards a centralized end game.

i am in agreement to talk with you on video Skype.  what's your handle?

yoohoo, TPTB_need_war, yoohoo.

yoohoo, TPTB_need_war, yoohoo.

hooohoooohoooo.

Lol I just realized that you probably can't run bitcoin on a raspberry pie  

how many hoos can a yahoo like TPTB_need_war hoo?

answer:  zeroo

[cypherdoc]

wow, that shut his ass up quick didn't it? 

anyone who shills so hard for Martin Armstrong so much, who writes so poorly as Martin Armstrong so much (probably using spellchecker and grammar check), and who argues against Bitcoin as Martin Armstrong so much, probably is Martin Armstrong.

of course i could be entirely wrong.  which is why i'm perfectly fine to video Skype with TPTB_need_war.
 

[cypherdoc]

wow, that shut his ass up quick didn't it?  

anyone who shills so hard for Martin Armstrong so much, who writes so poorly as Martin Armstrong so much (probably using spellchecker and grammar check), and who argues against Bitcoin as Martin Armstrong so much, probably is Martin Armstrong.

of course i could be entirely wrong.  which is why i'm perfectly fine to video Skype with TPTB_need_war.
 

and, yahoo TPTB_need_war, if you are Martin Armstrong, don't you dare try to get a sit in for yahoo TPTB_need_war  because i will quiz that kid up the wazoo, you yahoo, on the massive content of what you've spammed in this thread which the poor kid would have no hope or understanding of that history.

[illodin]

Are you on the manic phase currently?

I thought you had him on ignore btw. 

[cypherdoc]

Are you on the manic phase currently?

I thought you had him on ignore btw. 

took him off obviously.

otoh, you should consider i have him trapped in a corner.  but i'm happy to be proven wrong.  all he has to do is video Skype.

[cypherdoc]

Are you on the manic phase currently?

I thought you had him on ignore btw.  

since you're so quick to defend him, defend his assertions that he was never going to return to this thread.  and how about his manic phase where he clogs up entire thread pages on end?

[TPTB_need_war]

i have him trapped in a corner

Lol. Yes he does. That corner in his mind.

[cypherdoc]

i have him trapped in a corner

Lol. Yes he does. That corner in his mind.

Skype address please 

[cypherdoc]

Big Bitcoin breakout underway.