Bitcoin Forum
November 20, 2017, 12:42:51 PM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.15.1  [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 ... 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 1338 1339 1340 1341 1342 1343 1344 1345 1346 1347 1348 1349 1350 1351 1352 1353 1354 1355 1356 1357 1358 1359 1360 1361 1362 1363 1364 1365 1366 1367 1368 1369 1370 1371 1372 1373 1374 1375 1376 1377 1378 ... 1558 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.  (Read 2009962 times)
TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
June 16, 2015, 08:11:59 AM
 #26541

and now this.  i really think it's a power play by the devs to keep control.  marcus said it flat out.  they want control.

This does appear to be a power struggle between the Bitcoin Foundation and the "core developers".

It appears that the Foundation side has decided that the "core developers" are dispensable and that they are gaining too much leverage which is dangerous given their business conflict-of-interest with Blockstream.

All of this is indicative of the fact that Bitcoin is not yet on auto-pilot and is not decentralized. It is rather a power struggle of vested interests.

It doesn't matter which direction this power play goes because the writing in already on the wall as to the overall outcome of Bitcoin core sinking into a morass and either a subsumption or orthogonal alternative via pegged side chains will eventually emerge.

This is why I have suggested to Gregory that they just give up the control and march on. Their tech can't be controlled by Bitcoin core, so they should just ignore this power struggle and focus on where their inherit power is implicit.

Any way, none of it matters to my work (not even the timing of the viability of pegged side chains). I can carry on where my power is implicit.


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.

Astute separation-of-concerns.


The other thing I don't understand is why people focus on the network overhead rather than the overhead to run a single node.  As far as I can see, this should always be roughly O(n).  

Its hard to scare people when you talk about O(n) costs per node.

Scary only if you want anyone in the world to be able to directly participate in mining consensus.

If you don't care about some centralization due to the regulatory oversight (an example of an out-of-band incentive that obviates the assumption of a Nash equilibrium) that can placed on those who can meet much higher minimum resource requirements, then sure go on your merry way. Regulatory capture is incestuous.

But don't even begin to dream about on-the-block-chain micropayments with any semblance of decentralization.

1511181771
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1511181771

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1511181771
Reply with quote  #2

1511181771
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1511181771
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1511181771

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1511181771
Reply with quote  #2

1511181771
Report to moderator
TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
June 16, 2015, 08:41:19 AM
 #26542

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.

Zarathustra
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1036



View Profile
June 16, 2015, 09:25:22 AM
 #26543

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!
nanobrain
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 980


Dumb broad


View Profile
June 16, 2015, 12:27:35 PM
 #26544

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.

nothing to see here
freakying99
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 430


Pythagoras and Plato are my brothers.


View Profile
June 16, 2015, 12:36:47 PM
 #26545

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.
Zarathustra
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1036



View Profile
June 16, 2015, 01:00:28 PM
 #26546

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.


No. A clever writer with charisma (cypherdoc) and hence some more clever thinkers in this thread. A few stalkers are realising it but can't lure them into their own threads. That is the reason why they are here and not elsewhere.
Torque
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 1260



View Profile
June 16, 2015, 01:49:29 PM
 #26547

Meanwhile in other news:

http://www.wsj.com/articles/bank-of-china-becomes-first-chinese-bank-to-help-set-gold-price-1434453559

Great, now China is set to get in on the Gold price fixing (fraud).  Is this good news?
sidhujag
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1638


View Profile
June 16, 2015, 01:51:03 PM
 #26548

Meanwhile in other news:

http://www.wsj.com/articles/bank-of-china-becomes-first-chinese-bank-to-help-set-gold-price-1434453559

Great, now China is set to get in on the Gold price fixing fraud.
That was a no brainer.. Jpm basically left the game and moved onto something else.. What that is who knows.

★☆★Syscoin - Decentralized Marketplace and Multisig Platform
Pay with Bitcoin, ZCash and many more
For more visit Syscoin.org  ★☆★
TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
June 16, 2015, 02:00:54 PM
 #26549

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!

He is still pissed off because I don't buy into his "we are going back to cavemen" theory of economics.


Careful. Notice those rises are getting smaller, so expect to break $250, yet still expect to break down again to lower lows < $155.

Why? Because it is not yet time for the bottom. Remember private assets won't be ready for prime time until after Oct 2015 according to Armstrong's model.

There will be a massive surge into safe haven assets as Greece defaults or exits. Initially this will drive up gold (and thus Bitcoin), but as the liquidity contagion ignites as of October, then people have to sell their most liquid assets, e.g. gold. This is what happened in 2007-2008, where silver made a high at $21 in early 2008, then dumped into the shitter < $9. It is slightly different now because silver peaked in 2011 and has already declined significantly. So we are just looking for the final capitulation.


Draw a line from along the bottom of the start of the rally back in Oct 2013 (starting on the bottom of the candlestick below the X in EXANTE and through the bottom of the tiny pink or the green candlestick at the end of Sept last before the big rise) with the recent bounce to $300ish hugging the bottom of the line, i.e. we had broken down below that long-term trend line and thus it has become resistance. We could rise back up to that long-term trend line which is approximately $320ish right now and rising.

If we break significantly above that (e.g. $400), then the bottom is behind us and the long-term trend line becomes support.

Edit: we are now in the negative emotions paradigm below the trend line; whereas since Oct 2013, we had been in the positive emotions paradigm until we broke down through the long-term trend line at the end of 2014 (when oil collapsed). Emotions won't shift that quickly, there will need to be capitulation and some fundamental change in the markets. So the rally now is a trap for those who hope against their purchases > $400.



TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
June 16, 2015, 02:03:43 PM
 #26550

No. A clever writer with charisma (cypherdoc) and hence some more clever thinkers in this thread. A few stalkers are realising it but can't lure them into their own threads. That is the reason why they are here and not elsewhere.

I know how to play that game but I don't waste my time on small potatoes. I am here to change the world, not just for my own personal enrichment (and this will become very clear).

If you only had any clue as to the major coup I have achieved (in the back channels) due to my brief participation in this thread.

I made it very clear I came to thread to propose my solution to this problem and find investors and collaborators (in short an anonymous group). And wow did I!

Soon you will know...

Peter R
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1064



View Profile
June 16, 2015, 02:07:18 PM
 #26551

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.

Thanks for commenting, Holliday.  I've always valued your opinion.  

Yes, what exactly does it mean for bitcoin to be decentralized?  In my opinion, the more people using and holding Bitcoin, the more robust the network becomes.  For this reason, we should try our best to allow bitcoin to grow.  DeathAndTaxes also explains here how absurdly small 1MB is in any sort of success case for bitcoin, and how permanently keeping the 1MB restriction would actually be centralizing.  

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. 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 "only a few mega corporations," that the "don't-increase-the-blocksize-because-centralization-arguments" come across as hyperbole to me.  

Run Bitcoin Unlimited (www.bitcoinunlimited.info)
TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
June 16, 2015, 02:17:10 PM
 #26552

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.

cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
June 16, 2015, 02:19:41 PM
 #26553

Meanwhile in other news:

http://www.wsj.com/articles/bank-of-china-becomes-first-chinese-bank-to-help-set-gold-price-1434453559

Great, now China is set to get in on the Gold price fixing (fraud).  Is this good news?

the mere fact that it can be set indicates there's a problem there.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
June 16, 2015, 02:21:34 PM
 #26554

Meanwhile in other news:

http://www.wsj.com/articles/bank-of-china-becomes-first-chinese-bank-to-help-set-gold-price-1434453559

Great, now China is set to get in on the Gold price fixing fraud.
That was a no brainer.. Jpm basically left the game and moved onto something else.. What that is who knows.

with China snarfing up all the world's gold and the US on the brink of disaster with it's 44 yr history of fiat debasement while now at the zero bound and with Blythe Master's pumping Bitcoin, one could be surprised what JPM decides to go after.

and that actually would be a good thing.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
June 16, 2015, 02:28:15 PM
 #26555

with all this talk about the advantages of Matt Corallo's relay network inferring onto large miners, one of the first things i'm going to do when i get around to it is to hook up a bunch of full nodes to said relay network which, imo, will help negate any latency large blocks might infer to large miners trying to exploit a large block attack by choking full nodes and small miners.

essentially, the way i understand it, is that the relay network is a form of IBLT which limits the need for tx propgation to one.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
June 16, 2015, 02:29:45 PM
 #26556

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?
TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
June 16, 2015, 02:33:36 PM
 #26557

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
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
June 16, 2015, 02:38:27 PM
 #26558

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
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
June 16, 2015, 02:40:13 PM
 #26559

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
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
June 16, 2015, 02:44:30 PM
 #26560

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.

Pages: « 1 ... 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 1338 1339 1340 1341 1342 1343 1344 1345 1346 1347 1348 1349 1350 1351 1352 1353 1354 1355 1356 1357 1358 1359 1360 1361 1362 1363 1364 1365 1366 1367 1368 1369 1370 1371 1372 1373 1374 1375 1376 1377 1378 ... 1558 »
  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!