Bitcoin Forum
December 10, 2016, 01:21:58 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 ... 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 1379 1380 1381 1382 ... 1560 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.  (Read 1807380 times)
rocks
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1153


View Profile
June 16, 2015, 05:01:02 PM
 #26621

I don't think the full node count would scale as far as 12m in the growth example above, but payment channels for node services would at least reverse the decline even when it becomes necessary to support that loading.

I agree.  

I've been thinking a lot about full node count lately, and I could also imagine a future where node count continues to decline but network decentralization actually improves.  

Let's imagine a distant future where:

  - Every major research university operates 1 full node on average (there's 108 in the US, 15 in Canada, and let's assume 150 elsewhere). That makes about 280 nodes.  

  - Every major bitcoin company in this "bitcoin future" and every mining pool operates a full node.  Assume another 280 nodes.  

  - Various branches of governments in most countries run a few nodes.  Assume 190 countries x 2 nodes = 380 nodes.

  - And a bunch of wealthy bitcoiners operate their own nodes.  Assume another 300 or so.
 
This gives a total of only ~1,240 nodes, but I think such a configuration would be more decentralized than the current state of the network.  
I'm not suggesting that this will actually happen, just pointing out that the network doesn't necessarily need hundreds of thousands of nodes.  

Fully agree, I was saying something along these lines in the earlier UTXO commit discussion where we might end up with only a small number of "archival" nodes that maintain a full history, while most nodes function as some form of pruned node. The reason this or your situation above works is you only need one honest node on the network to highlight and flag issues.

If some majority of full nodes (which is possible with a small node count) decide to collude and cheat, because of the way the blockchain is structured any single honest node has the ability to present irrefutable proof of such collusion to the public.

Again, this goes back to the fact that Bitcoin's decentralization is driven by the mining security process, not the node count (which can be influenced by Sybil attacks, mining cannot be influenced by Sybil attacks because it requires work). Even with 1 billion tps the mining situation looks similar to today. A large number of independent miners operating over stratum (<1kbps) connected to a small number of pools. If any pools collude, it only takes one honest node to highlight that and those pools would see their miners switch to honest pools. As long as the independent miner remains decentralized, Bitcoin is OK.

This is also why your O(nm) equation works. It is OK for the number of nodes m to decrease as needed bringing us back to O(n). The devs' arguments that you can't scale O(n^2) networks is correct, but this is showing they don't understand the network and Bitcoin's economics as well as they think.

Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1481332918
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481332918

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481332918
Reply with quote  #2

1481332918
Report to moderator
Adrian-x
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1330



View Profile
June 16, 2015, 05:02:35 PM
 #26622

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 Holiday,

I find myself thinking similar things, ultimately I'm for decentralization, and while I've been horrified by some of Mikes off the cuff ideas in the past, I am largely inspired by the ideas he has pushed through to fruition.

to me decentralization = more distributed, and having centralized control by a group of people no matter their track record is still centralization, Mike is not my first choice for a dictator, but I respect that he doesn't care to do what other people think he should do, but is going to do what he thinks is best that makes it easy to follow him, so long as we are going to the same place and easy to part ways when he decides to go somewhere strange.  

I may not agree with him on many issues despite that, decentralization of control is the future for Bitcoin. I'm happy with the understanding that running an XT node is not giving him the keys to Bitcoin but doing just the posit, distributing the control system.

imagine the worst case; he is lead core dev dictator and makes a pig headed wrong move with the code. 

just refuse to update or just fork him off.

That's the worst case, the first time you do it is the hardest, once we fork from Core, it'll be easier to do it again, next time there will be more options I hope, I don't expect the Core developers to stop developing.  

Thank me in Bits 12MwnzxtprG2mHm3rKdgi7NmJKCypsMMQw
justusranvier
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1400



View Profile WWW
June 16, 2015, 05:06:59 PM
 #26623

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 Holiday,

I find myself thinking similar things, ultimately I'm for decentralization, and while I've been horrified by some of Mikes off the cuff ideas in the past, I am largely inspired by the ideas he has pushed through to fruition.

to me decentralization = more distributed, and having centralized control by a group of people no matter their track record is still centralization, Mike is not my first choice for a dictator, but I respect that he doesn't care to do what other people think he should do, but is going to do what he thinks is best that makes it easy to follow him, so long as we are going to the same place it is easy to part ways when he decides to go somewhere strange.  

I may not agree with him on many issues despite that, decentralization of control is the future for Bitcoin. I'm happy with the understanding that running an XT node is not giving him the keys to Bitcoin but doing just the posit, distributing the control system.
The way to support development decentralization is to run nodes that are not Bitcoin Core or its derivatives (including XT)

Once Gavin (or someone) produces a firm proposal, then run libbitcoin or btcd nodes that have been patched to support it.
TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
June 16, 2015, 05:10:25 PM
 #26624

I don't think the full node count would scale as far as 12m in the growth example above, but payment channels for node services would at least reverse the decline even when it becomes necessary to support that loading.

I agree.  

I've been thinking a lot about full node count lately, and I could also imagine a future where node count continues to decline but network decentralization actually improves.  

Let's imagine a distant future where:

  - Every major research university operates 1 full node on average (there's 108 in the US, 15 in Canada, and let's assume 150 elsewhere). That makes about 280 nodes.  

  - Every major bitcoin company in this "bitcoin future" and every mining pool operates a full node.  Assume another 280 nodes.  

  - Various branches of governments in most countries run a few nodes.  Assume 190 countries x 2 nodes = 380 nodes.

  - And a bunch of wealthy bitcoiners operate their own nodes.  Assume another 300 or so.
 
This gives a total of only ~1,240 nodes, but I think such a configuration would be more decentralized than the current state of the network.  
I'm not suggesting that this will actually happen, just pointing out that the network doesn't necessarily need hundreds of thousands of nodes.  

Fully agree, I was saying something along these lines in the earlier UTXO commit discussion where we might end up with only a small number of "archival" nodes that maintain a full history, while most nodes function as some form of pruned node. The reason this or your situation above works is you only need one honest node on the network to highlight and flag issues.

If some majority of full nodes (which is possible with a small node count) decide to collude and cheat, because of the way the blockchain is structured any single honest node has the ability to present irrefutable proof of such collusion to the public.

Again, this goes back to the fact that Bitcoin's decentralization is driven by the mining security process, not the node count (which can be influenced by Sybil attacks, mining cannot be influenced by Sybil attacks because it requires work). Even with 1 billion tps the mining situation looks similar to today. A large number of independent miners operating over stratum (<1kbps) connected to a small number of pools. If any pools collude, it only takes one honest node to highlight that and those pools would see their miners switch to honest pools. As long as the independent miner remains decentralized, Bitcoin is OK.

This is also why your O(nm) equation works. It is OK for the number of nodes m to decrease as needed bringing us back to O(n). The devs' arguments that you can't scale O(n^2) networks is correct, but this is showing they don't understand the network and Bitcoin's economics as well as they think.

This is actually a very astute point in bold and I am surprised given the other dumb technical errors you made upthread.

However what you fail to grasp is that Bitcoin's protocol can be forked by 51% of the hashrate.

Those who don't follow, lose their BTC value in that chain. They could spend in another fork, but the Coinbase, Circle, and Paypal masses will stay on the coin managed by the elite. And they can 50% attack your minority fork too claiming it is rogue.

Now with pegged side chains, you could move your BTC value out of the main and into your minority fork. But it still doesn't protect your minority fork against 50% attack.

And you don't have a concentration of smaller miners. The mining is becoming more and more concentrated in larger ASIC farms (who won't want to risk destroying their hardware investment on some fight against TPTB to support a minority chain). And even the P2P network is becoming concentrated around larger hubs that thus have influence over the propagation delays.

cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
June 16, 2015, 05:10:49 PM
 #26625

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 Holiday,

I find myself thinking similar things, ultimately I'm for decentralization, and while I've been horrified by some of Mikes off the cuff ideas in the past, I am largely inspired by the ideas he has pushed through to fruition.

to me decentralization = more distributed, and having centralized control by a group of people no matter their track record is still centralization, Mike is not my first choice for a dictator, but I respect that he doesn't care to do what other people think he should do, but is going to do what he thinks is best that makes it easy to follow him, so long as we are going to the same place and easy to part ways when he decides to go somewhere strange.  

I may not agree with him on many issues despite that, decentralization of control is the future for Bitcoin. I'm happy with the understanding that running an XT node is not giving him the keys to Bitcoin but doing just the posit, distributing the control system.

imagine the worst case; he is lead core dev dictator and makes a pig headed wrong move with the code.  

just refuse to update or just fork him off.

That's the worst case, the first time you do it is the hardest, once we fork from Core, it'll be easier to do it again, next time there will be more options I hope, I don't expect the Core developers to stop developing.  

personally, if XT becomes a reality, i don't expect there to be a surviving Core for devs to dev on.  value will quickly be sucked out of Core and those devs left behind will become totally irrelevant with their careers shattered.  and that's b/c there has been enough of a discussion over this obvious 1MB obstruction that i'd think that there will be no for profits who will be willing to hitch their future to decision making by Blockstream.  esp true for Nasdaq and NYSE who want and need thousands of cheap, reliable tx's throughput on the MC, the most secure and apolitical one.

once this happens, Gavin and Mike will be happy to recruit a whole new core dev team to minimize the chances of such a huge disagreement happening once again.  everyone is for diversity but this hostage situation is way over the top and can't be tolerated.  



tvbcof
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 1988


View Profile
June 16, 2015, 05:11:17 PM
 #26626

...
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 keep weighing this as the most solid explanation for certain of cypherdoc's behaviors, but then I think back to the early days and various aspects of his person and back off.

The other day I ran across a very amusing situation where a shill was stone-cold busted due to a defect in Windows clipboard.  I allow for the possibility that the whole thing is a fabrication but I've seen no efforts put toward debunking it.  We have, however, known with high probability that multi-personna shill software has been around for some time and has been purchased by the U.S. govt among others.

Anyway, the presenter of a vid was musing about shills and wondered if some of them were not fairly ordinary people who got caught up in some legal trouble and offered the opportunity to have their problems go away by doing some shill work.  It dawned on me that the Bitcoin ecosystem is probably bursting at the seams with people who are 'flawed' in some way.  Especially as the tax seasons drift by.

Here's the vid which is an interesting watch:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sy4zlMkNnn4


Peter R
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 938



View Profile
June 16, 2015, 05:12:44 PM
 #26627

Sell at $320. Remember I told you all in May that rally was coming in June.
you say a lot of things.  A LOT of things.  You reply to yourself 20 times.  Your signal to noise ratio is frankly abysmally low.
it's zeroo.

His posts can be summarized with two bits of information:

00 = "The powers that be will enslave you all!"
01 = He makes a pessimistic comment that distracts from any progress currently being made in the thread
10 = He challenges someone to a boxing match
11 = "I am brilliant and will now leave this thread forever"


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…
You are forgetting propagation delay and the need for IBLT to deal with it...

Hey!  It looks like with my encoding scheme above we can implement an IBLT for your comments!!

Peter R upthread where we were discussing the 21 Inc economics it seemed you were open minded and rational.

Now you are acting like a shrill. Why?

I always respected you as being a engineer of some sorts (obvious sometimes from your use of math, etc). You of course must realize you've completely mischaracterized my posts. You don't like that I pointed out to you some potential game theory on IBLT and headroom in the block size. Okay. Why? You don't want to consider all the possibilities? You are premarried to a preferred conclusion. That is the antithesis of rationality.

Step back from the ledge...

Sorry to poke fun at you, but I couldn't resist.

I do believe that some of your comments contain interesting insight.  The most recent was your post here about how people who value their accomplishments more than their appraisal of their knowledge are often more pragmatic and balanced.  I had never thought about that, but think you might be right.  

However, here are some of my issues with your comments:

(a) you constantly make references to "TPTB" and attribute many events to conspiracy theories, without sufficient evidence.

(b) by posting voluminously on this thread in a way that distracts from the natural flow of conversation, I think you're being disrespectful.

(c) by constantly boasting about your intelligence and by making sexist and otherwise derogatory comments, you come across to me as both insecure and rude.

(d) by challenging people to fist fights, you're just being downright weird.

In summary, I think you are intelligent and have things to offer to the conversation, but I do wish you'd try to improve the delivery of your message.

Run Bitcoin Unlimited (www.bitcoinunlimited.info)
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
June 16, 2015, 05:17:52 PM
 #26628

...
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 keep weighing this as the most solid explanation for certain of cypherdoc's behaviors, but then I think back to the early days and various aspects of his person and back off.

The other day I ran across a very amusing situation where a shill was stone-cold busted due to a defect in Windows clipboard.  I allow for the possibility that the whole thing is a fabrication but I've seen no efforts put toward debunking it.  We have, however, known with high probability that multi-personna shill software has been around for some time and has been purchased by the U.S. govt among others.

Anyway, the presenter of a vid was musing about shills and wondered if some of them were not fairly ordinary people who got caught up in some legal trouble and offered the opportunity to have their problems go away by doing some shill work.  It dawned on me that the Bitcoin ecosystem is probably bursting at the seams with people who are 'flawed' in some way.  Especially as the tax seasons drift by.

Here's the vid which is an interesting watch:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sy4zlMkNnn4



after all we've been through i can't possibly believe that Yahoo TPTB_need_war has hoodwinked you into believing that Bitcoin is a tool for the real TPTB?  seriously?  b/c that is what you'd have to believe to think i am a shill for TPTB. 

of course i have an interest.  my coin (what little i have  Cheesy)
rocks
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1153


View Profile
June 16, 2015, 05:20:51 PM
 #26629

...
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 keep weighing this as the most solid explanation for certain of cypherdoc's behaviors, but then I think back to the early days and various aspects of his person and back off.

So someone who has spent the past 4-5 years promoting Bitcoin as a new form of sound money and trying to educate as many people about that as possible, is really a tool of the TPTB who would lose most of their power/influence under a true sound money system. Got it. I'll file that one right next to Satoshi is really the CIA.
Adrian-x
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1330



View Profile
June 16, 2015, 05:24:15 PM
 #26630

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 Holiday,

I find myself thinking similar things, ultimately I'm for decentralization, and while I've been horrified by some of Mikes off the cuff ideas in the past, I am largely inspired by the ideas he has pushed through to fruition.

to me decentralization = more distributed, and having centralized control by a group of people no matter their track record is still centralization, Mike is not my first choice for a dictator, but I respect that he doesn't care to do what other people think he should do, but is going to do what he thinks is best that makes it easy to follow him, so long as we are going to the same place and easy to part ways when he decides to go somewhere strange.  

I may not agree with him on many issues despite that, decentralization of control is the future for Bitcoin. I'm happy with the understanding that running an XT node is not giving him the keys to Bitcoin but doing just the posit, distributing the control system.

imagine the worst case; he is lead core dev dictator and makes a pig headed wrong move with the code.  

just refuse to update or just fork him off.

That's the worst case, the first time you do it is the hardest, once we fork from Core, it'll be easier to do it again, next time there will be more options I hope, I don't expect the Core developers to stop developing.  

personally, if XT becomes a reality, i don't expect there to be a surviving Core for devs to dev on.  value will quickly be sucked out of Core and those devs left behind will become totally irrelevant with their careers shattered.  and that's b/c there has been enough of a discussion over this obvious 1MB obstruction that i'd think that there will be no for profits who will be willing to hitch their future to decision making by Blockstream.  esp true for Nasdaq and NYSE who want and need thousands of cheap, reliable tx's throughput on the MC, the most secure and apolitical one.

once this happens, Gavin and Mike will be happy to recruit a whole new core dev team to minimize the chances of such a huge disagreement happening once again.  everyone is for diversity but this hostage situation is way over the top and can't be tolerated.  


I don't expect a competing Bitcoin fork, i think they will just eat some humble pie and include the 20MB patch and hop back on the MC and continue to develop SC much like Mike did with LightHouse.

@ Justus, thanks I will be sure to run alternate nodes.

Thank me in Bits 12MwnzxtprG2mHm3rKdgi7NmJKCypsMMQw
vokain
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1610


V.V.V.V.V.


View Profile
June 16, 2015, 05:28:26 PM
 #26631

...
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 keep weighing this as the most solid explanation for certain of cypherdoc's behaviors, but then I think back to the early days and various aspects of his person and back off.

So someone who has spent the past 4-5 years promoting Bitcoin as a new form of sound money and trying to educate as many people about that as possible, is really a tool of the TPTB who would lose most of their power/influence under a true sound money system. Got it. I'll file that one right next to Satoshi is really the CIA.

If Bitcoin's nonanonymous structure really turns out to be a tool the nefarious powers that be could employ to trace all economic transactions in say, a Revelations type of fashion, then it is certainly possible that those PTB employ said tool to advantage, and that anyone supporting such a tool is also a tool of said PTB, ignorantly or not.

...مكتوب
Escape the plutocrats’ zanpakutō, Flower in the Mirror, Moon on the Water: brave “the ascent which is rough and steep” (Plato).
tvbcof
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 1988


View Profile
June 16, 2015, 05:28:37 PM
 #26632


after all we've been through i can't possibly believe that Yahoo TPTB_need_war has hoodwinked you into believing that Bitcoin is a tool for the real TPTB?  seriously?  b/c that is what you'd have to believe to think i am a shill for TPTB.  

of course i have an interest.  my coin (what little i have  Cheesy)

Huh?  I entertained the hypothesis since before I bought my first BTC and have never discarded it.  It has been and continues to be a relatively weak hypothesis, but absolutely strong enough to keep around.

Bitcoin invented by TPTB does not preclude two of my significant hopes for the solution:

 1)  I can make some money off it.  [checked]

 2)  It can act as a spring-board for like but more robust ideas.

My mind does not work be believing something true or false.  It works by assigning probabilities to possibilities and adjusting them.  I didn't recognize how unusual this is until later in life.


TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
June 16, 2015, 05:33:27 PM
 #26633

(a) you constantly make references to "TPTB" and attribute many events to conspiracy theories, without sufficient evidence.

Don't expect an identifiable Jesus. It is a phenomenon that has been going on for a long time. Just open your eyes. Have you actually done any research for example on 9/11. It is absolutely impossible the government's official story. You should know that as an engineer even you are not a civil engineer just a little bit of research will convince you. But it goes on over and over in history much further back than that.

(b) by posting voluminously on this thread in a way that distracts from the natural flow of conversation, I think you're being disrespectful.

I have a lot to say. If everyone else posted more too, then it would balance out. I guess I just think too fast?

I agree the stereotypical engineer's creed and culture is whitepapers, equations, and results over talk. You in fact do limit your posts usually to analysis backed by data and/or equations. Kudos. But discussion is IMO another form of engineering. It is way I brainstorm ideas and bounce them off others.

I gave up a long time ago worrying about some civil level of discourse in public forums. If I tried to achieve that I would fail as has everyone else here.

Also I know repetition is important because ideas are lost in the thicket of people's preoccupations and attention spans.

All in all though, much better for my antagonists if I am here talking and not coding. So I should be taking your advice soon (but when I decide to and not when Cypherdoc thinks he has kicked me out)

(c) by constantly boasting about your intelligence and by making sexist and otherwise derogatory comments, you come across to me as both insecure and rude.

When I say someone else is making technological mistakes, that is not boasting about my intellect. That is pointing out they are making mistakes and over estimating their understanding of the issues.

I am sure I am not the smartest person in this thread. I had already stated Gmaxell is smarter than me in crypto-math. You can add Mixles to that list too, tvbcof is very smart, etc..

(d) by challenging people to fist fights, you're just being downright weird.

That was pretty lame. But I do come from an era and the Deep South where gentlemen settled their differences this way when it had devolved into ad hominem BS and then it was done (go drink a beer together bloodied).

It is weird for you perhaps because maybe you didn't grow up in my culture. You just don't go talking this way to each other (the way Cypherdoc does) where I come from without getting your ass kicked.

In southern gentleman's manner, you act like a gentleman and you are treated as one. Act like a savage and you are dealt with as one.

In summary, I think you are intelligent and have things to offer to the conversation, but I do wish you'd try to improve the delivery of your message.

There is so much noise here in this thread that I had to take some kind of medicine just to deal with enduring it. It is boring (redundant noise) as hell and just trying to liven it up so I don't fall asleep. And waiting for those morsels that make it all worth while.

Such as for example the posts from tvbcof and Mixles. Those paid for my ticket of admission here several times over.

TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
June 16, 2015, 05:40:45 PM
 #26634

I didn't recognize how unusual this is until later in life.

And that is why they don't understand when I post comments on both sides of an issue. I am weighing the probabilities.

And yes I am also not sure who invented Bitcoin.

But just step back for a moment and ask yourself who in the hell had the power to do 9/11?

And then you see the world differently than if you didn't think that power existed.

Then look at what is actually happening with Bitcoin.

TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
June 16, 2015, 05:46:12 PM
 #26635

once this happens, Gavin and Mike will be happy to recruit a whole new core dev team to minimize the chances of such a huge disagreement happening once again.  everyone is for diversity but this hostage situation is way over the top and can't be tolerated.  

Didn't you just write we could easily fork away from Gavinmike  Huh

Your posts don't have logical continuity.

cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
June 16, 2015, 05:48:25 PM
 #26636

once this happens, Gavin and Mike will be happy to recruit a whole new core dev team to minimize the chances of such a huge disagreement happening once again.  everyone is for diversity but this hostage situation is way over the top and can't be tolerated.  

Didn't you just write we could easily fork away from Gavinmike  Huh

Your posts don't have logical continuity.

my pt is that the community aka economic majority can fork away from any dev or group of devs that abuses its power.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
June 16, 2015, 05:50:39 PM
 #26637

I didn't recognize how unusual this is until later in life.

And that is why they don't understand when I post comments on both sides of an issue. I am weighing the probabilities.

And yes I am also not sure who invented Bitcoin.

But just step back for a moment and ask yourself who in the hell had the power to do 9/11?

And then you see the world differently than if you didn't think that power existed.

Then look at what is actually happening with Bitcoin.

your willingness to accept such deep conspiracy theory is bordering on psychotic.  i've skimmed that data and just don't believe it credible esp after having followed/lived it step by step with all the follow on consequences arising from it.  also the events leading up to it make perfect sense as well.
Adrian-x
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1330



View Profile
June 16, 2015, 05:54:52 PM
 #26638

...
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 keep weighing this as the most solid explanation for certain of cypherdoc's behaviors, but then I think back to the early days and various aspects of his person and back off.

So someone who has spent the past 4-5 years promoting Bitcoin as a new form of sound money and trying to educate as many people about that as possible, is really a tool of the TPTB who would lose most of their power/influence under a true sound money system. Got it. I'll file that one right next to Satoshi is really the CIA.

If Bitcoin's nonanonymous structure really turns out to be a tool the nefarious powers that be could employ to trace all economic transactions in say, a Revelations type of fashion, then it is certainly possible that those PTB employ said tool to advantage, and that anyone supporting such a tool is also a tool of said PTB, ignorantly or not.

fortunately TPTB are not 1 person, they are a decentralized group of infallible humans incapable of loving each other with eternal affection and equal intensity they may not even know they are TPTB, and then there is the second tears in the hierarchy.  If Bitcoin is a tool for TPTB, the worst case is some of us are implicitly involved and indirectly subverting power from within the existing PTB hierarchy or from a tear above, it is most likely we aren't agents but lucky individuals who have front row seats to battle between the extremely powerful and the very powerful.

Occam's razor, suggests that's probably not the case.  

Thank me in Bits 12MwnzxtprG2mHm3rKdgi7NmJKCypsMMQw
tvbcof
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 1988


View Profile
June 16, 2015, 06:47:11 PM
 #26639


I didn't recognize how unusual this is until later in life.

And that is why they don't understand when I post comments on both sides of an issue. I am weighing the probabilities.
...

your willingness to accept such deep conspiracy theory is bordering on psychotic.
...

'accept' and 'entertain the possibility' are two very different things.  If you are unwilling to entertain the possibility of anything which is a 'deep conspiracy' (or which is marketed as such to your satisfaction) then you will miss every one.  And it is kind of beyond question that such things have existed in the past and it is unlikely that they've gone extinct as I tap out this note.

Recently it was found that Federal agents infiltrated deeply into Silk Road to the extent that they were playing a part in it's operations (murder for hire and such.)  Not only that, but they had gone rouge and were stealing BTC for themselves.  This is to crazy for my own rather fertile mind to have entertained as a very plausible scenario.  But there it is.  A person who rejects such things as completely outside the realm of possibility because it is a 'conspiracy theory' is much more likely to end up making poor decisions and some who did will probably be cooling their heels in the pokey.

Of course it is a plausibly hypothesis that much of the information about the Silk Road goings-on is itself a fabrication to achieve certain psychological operations objectives, cover for various people, etc, etc.  My point is that if you limit your thinking you are at a dis-advantage in understanding our world.  If you are thinking to the limits of your potential it is not necessarily 'psychotic', and probably rarely so.

edit: slight

TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
June 16, 2015, 06:59:31 PM
 #26640

Beware I writing this while listening to "Born on the Bayou" by CCR.

(a) you constantly make references to "TPTB" and attribute many events to conspiracy theories, without sufficient evidence.

Don't expect an identifiable Jesus. It is a phenomenon that has been going on for a long time. Just open your eyes. Have you actually done any research for example on 9/11. It is absolutely impossible the government's official story. You should know that as an engineer even you are not a civil engineer just a little bit of research will convince you. But it goes on over and over in history much further back than that.

One of the reasons I write with such frustration is because I can not comprehend how any engineer can be ignorant of the fact that 9/11 was planned by a very powerful entity.

Ignorance of the scientific research (and I am not referring to the "UFO" disinformation sites) is not innocence. It is derelict of your duty as a citizen of this earth, one of humanity, and your natural instinct and social responsibility as an engineer and scientist to make sure you test all the facts of such a major event that has been used to foist totalitarianism all over the planet.

Any engineer that says "conspiracy theory" to me immediately goes on my "ignoramus sheep" irresponsible list.

I am a sheepdog. I am protecting society. Are you? If you are not, then you are in cohoots with the other side via at least via laziness.

Doctors take a Hippocratic oath to serve. As an engineer I always felt I took an implicit oath to serve and protect, especially when the issue is momentous.

Caution: the MP3 list has transitioned to "Time" by Pink Floyd... (my demeanor may change accordingly)


(d) by challenging people to fist fights, you're just being downright weird.

That was pretty lame. But I do come from an era and the Deep South where gentlemen settled their differences this way when it had devolved into ad hominem BS and then it was done (go drink a beer together bloodied).

It is weird for you perhaps because maybe you didn't grow up in my culture. You just don't go talking this way to each other (the way Cypherdoc does) where I come from without getting your ass kicked.

In southern gentleman's manner, you act like a gentleman and you are treated as one. Act like a savage and you are dealt with as one.

In summary, I think you are intelligent and have things to offer to the conversation, but I do wish you'd try to improve the delivery of your message.

There is so much noise here in this thread that I had to take some kind of medicine just to deal with enduring it. It is boring (redundant noise) as hell and just trying to liven it up so I don't fall asleep. And waiting for those morsels that make it all worth while.

Such as for example the posts from tvbcof and Mixles. Those paid for my ticket of admission here several times over.

Other factors in addition to the frustration mentioned above, include the fact that my entire life I had to release testosterone twice daily, else I was a tiger. But now with this M.S., I am often wallowing and struggling with fatigue and I can't keep my testosterone level. The mere unrelenting struggle of it is enough to wear down the patience of a human after 3 years of this daily shit. I had two good productive months in April and May where I went mostly silent and programmed a new social network, but then I came back and tried to do much and worked myself into an unbalanced physical health state. Well I just did 120 pushups, ran 2 kms in 8 mins, ran 4 x 150m sprints, and released that excess and again exonerated myself that I am making progress on my physical performance.

Other factors include my cultural influences such as how my mother related to me recently that living in Washington State has the disadvantage that she can't be standing on the street in New Orleans waiting for a Trolley car and the city bus stop, the door fly open, and the female bus driver yelling, "Hey darling, why are you standing there, you need to get in this bus".

We southerners are different from you northerners. We have an ethos about respect but also we LOVE TO TALK AND TALK AND TALK.

There are other factors such as I played American Football (with a helmet) competitively in both high school and college. Meaning I broke the legs and ribs of men much bigger than I am. Thus I don't like pussies who hide behind the internet. I am accustomed to go up against real men and may the strongest win. If Cypherdoc attempted that shit in our lockeroom, he would find himself tied butt naked to the bleachers. Lol, actually I can picture that.  Cheesy

Last  but probably not least my stepfather was 6'2" and 220 lbs when I was 12 years old and perhaps 5'2" and 110 lbs. I used to let him throw me down the stairs and bully me around. I was the nerd who relished letting others think they were tough. And then I took out my frustrations on the football field where very few could catch me because of my speed and agile body and when they did catch me, I would punish them with a forearm to the chest or a helmet into ribs.

I learned early on, hit or be hit. And I learned you never fail until you fail to get up.

And last I will say I was so fierce that the coach put tiny me on the offensive line! I was blocking guys twice my size and effectively. It was really weird. I think I am perhaps the only guy that small they ever put on the offensive line.

So yes I am proud of both my intellectual and my physical accomplishments. I fought for every thing in life.


And I am not about to stop now.

Pages: « 1 ... 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 1379 1380 1381 1382 ... 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!