Bitcoin Forum
November 18, 2017, 07:01:32 AM *
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 ... 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 1383 1384 1385 1386 1387 1388 1389 ... 1558 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.  (Read 2008804 times)
Nagato
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 150



View Profile WWW
June 18, 2015, 05:04:06 AM
 #26761

Oleganza arguing with me that Bitcoin has already achieved gold status and can do so w/o more scaling.  c'mon, i don't even argue that.  i say it is in the process of doing so:

https://twitter.com/oleganza/status/611298778667220992

The reason the Gold bug's dream is never realized, despite the fact that all of the monetary abuses they predicted came true, is simply because gold is not directly used in day to day transactions. If something is not used in day to day transactions, it is not viewed as money.

CBs have gotten away with their abuses simply because they outlawed real money alternatives to fiat for long enough that the public lost memory of the very existence of alternatives to CB money. Everyone sees the dollar/euro/pound/yen as money because they use them every day, so no one runs away from these mechanisms no matter how they are abused. What would they run to?

The only way to make something else be viewed as money, is if it is used as money in day to day transactions. Using something and knowing others will accept it a basic requirement here. Gold lost that usage which is why it has not come back.

This is what is so frustrating about those blocking the blocksize increase. If people can't use bitcoin directly, the entire project is doomed to a fate worse than gold.

Yes you bring up an important point.
A currency that is not used day to day, has no mindshare which results in low liquidity, which tarnishes it's attractiveness as a store of value. Yet gold has tremendous value despite it's lack of use as a medium of exchange. This has to do with it's scarcity and immunity to control from any actor. Bitcoin tries to emulate the immunity to control property by being decentralised.

It is important to remember that Bitcoin the currency can function off the blockchain in numerous ways. Just as every USD transaction does not occur on the Fed's ledger, all bitcoin txns do not need to be on the blockchain. It is extremely wasteful to do so in a decentralised system where every node has to download/store & verify every txn.
This is already true with many web wallets(Coinbase), exchanges, changetip, etc...
Yet all these services promote the use of Bitcoin the currency and make it useful.

Even at 7 tps, bitcoin already has more actual txns than gold has today.
Im not saying that the anti-20MBers are against any increase in blocksize, i think we all agree it will need to be raised. We are merely concerned with more efficient use of the blockchain where it is used more for settlement while other trustless offchain solutions are developed and offload frequent and small txns off the blockchain.

Raising the blocksize too fast and too soon will disincentivise the creation of these trustless offchain solutions and risk centralising bitcoin txn validation. At a certain point where only a small number of entities can validate txns, bitcoin becomes centralised, regulated, controlled. And without decentralisation, there is no point to bitcoin, we might as well use a standard database and trust someone.

1510988492
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1510988492

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1510988492
Reply with quote  #2

1510988492
Report to moderator
1510988492
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1510988492

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1510988492
Reply with quote  #2

1510988492
Report to moderator
A blockchain platform for effective freelancing
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1510988492
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1510988492

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1510988492
Reply with quote  #2

1510988492
Report to moderator
1510988492
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1510988492

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1510988492
Reply with quote  #2

1510988492
Report to moderator
1510988492
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1510988492

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1510988492
Reply with quote  #2

1510988492
Report to moderator
79b79aa8d5047da6d3XX
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 192

◕_◕


View Profile
June 18, 2015, 05:24:26 AM
 #26762

We are merely concerned with more efficient use of the blockchain where it is used more for settlement while other trustless offchain solutions are developed and offload frequent and small txns off the blockchain.

Raising the blocksize too fast and too soon will disincentivise the creation of these trustless offchain solutions and risk centralising bitcoin txn validation.
why? because those who stand to profit from the creation of offchain (or off mainchain) solutions won't expect to realize as much profit, or to realize it as quickly? and why should that be of any concern to me?
TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
June 18, 2015, 06:33:03 AM
 #26763

...
Btw, in my coin's design the miners can not be paid with transaction fees that originate from prior balances because this is a source of censorship of transactions (even if the inputs are blinded by a mix because one blacklisted input in the mix could cause censorship of the entire mix). My design is 100% censorship free (no heuristic arguments, rather 100% provable).

Shit I am giving away too much of my design. I better STFU.

You will end up buying my coin if I create it, because it will blow your fucking mind or I mean to say the design will make your jaw drop to the floor and you will say, "I must buy this".

If your design is half as good as what I've been working on, I just might do that Smiley

Seriously, if I might be so bold as to suggest that you throw your ideas out there, some of them might be picked up and even enhanced in ways you don't initially imagine.  That has happened to me over the years.  If you don't get credit or money for them, so what?  Speaking only for myself these things are quite secondary.  If you are consumed with fame and fortune and what-not it cannot help but detract from your ability to focus on other things.  I suppose it could be argued that fame and fortune might spur one to work harder, but I'll bet that in most cases working harder is actually counter-productive to doing quality work in certain important ways.

I believe the only way to build an innovative ecosystem for ALL OF US (remember I want to put anonymity and remove the master-servant model on the entire internet, not just cryptocoins) that won't just be subsumed into Bitcoin's venture capital model, is to get a jumpstart in ecosystem momentum. I don't believe that jumpstart can be accomplished by giving your ideas away for free such that either venture capitalists can fund an Inverse Commons of open source to have the ideas implemented in their Bitcoin ecosystem or the capital interested in your design gets squandered on copycoin pumps that waste the capital and don't build out a competitive, innovative ecosystem.

In other words, I think open source Inverse Commons works very well, but it also falls prey at the start to the chicken-or-egg dilemma when trying to compete with an ecosystem that has turned us geeks into dogs who chase our own tail (working for the enemy to enslave us).

Also my design will be enhanced by releasing it as a working system, because my design makes the consensus network orthogonal to the transaction model, so innovation can continue on even though the consensus network design is already perfected and locked into stone on auto-pilot. Avoiding this entire problem we are seeing now with Bitcoin needing ongoing changes in order to scale.

I was lucky to arrive at a design which is quite simple and which is so important that by itself (without all the other complexity that make Bitcoin) it can I estimate drive much capital into a coin (and especially if that capital is being allocated in a way that inspires many people). And I estimate this is simple enough for a very small group to realistically accomplish.

In short, society rewards more capital to those who prove they know how to allocate capital for the greatest good. For me to throw away the opportunity to prove that I am great allocator of capital, is to say that I am just engineer and not an iconoclast, maverick, trailblazing magnate. I should endeavor to discover whether my early signs of being a potential  iconoclast, maverick, trailblazing magnate were timing, luck, aliasing error, or ruminations (incubation) of my true potential.

Edit: give away half-baked designs, those which are incomplete in terms of what the market will buy, or those which require more resources than you can bear to bring to market. To give away the golden egg is to assert the golden goose is dead. I am not dead yet.

Edit#2: as in all things one must weigh the probabilities. Thus it is also possible someone like myself might sell such a design, choosing to take the least risky route to compensation. Taking into account the factors that I am 50 and sick with a severe progressive illness (Multiple Sclerosis), and have nearly no assets to retire on. And am entirely unwilling to return to any Western country to work.

Edit#3: implicit in what I wrote above is the assumption that some percent of us are not happy about the future of the internet, Bitcoin, and the world on its current trajectory. Some of us want a decentralized internet, and not one owned by a few large fascist corporations. Some of us don't believe that Bitcoin won't end up with the same fate that the internet has. In short, some percent of us do believe a slide into an NWO is underway and we need a different trajectory. Additionally some of us think a micropayments coin could accumulate network effects exponentially faster Bitcoin and afaik the Lightning Networks (LN) on Bitcoin proposal won't enable the same N^2 network effects because it is not a decentralized model.

TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
June 18, 2015, 07:06:38 AM
 #26764

If you brake your leg or your neck, you should consult a quack instead of a university trained doctor of the establishment.

When the funding for tenured professors comes from the establishment which does not want truth to be explored on a particular issue (e.g. anthropogenic global warming aka man-made climate change lie that was foisted on the establishment and which 9,000 PhDs were signatories against but even that never made the news), then science within the establishment does not exist on that issue.

When some of those established engineers and professors decide instead to fund their collaboration, this is then debunked as non-science because it didn't take place within the monolith of the establishment's controlled funding model.

Logical indeed.

From my research into vaccines I am sure that 90% of 'trained' doctors have very little knowledge of how the various parts of our immune systems interact and how the ecology of diseases themselves actually work.  They are trained to 'know' what the pharmaceutical industry wants them to know and nothing more though some of them will, thankfully, not stop there.

For example that the medications they prescribe for Multiple Sclerosis are more painful than the disease and have very low efficacy. And they are not aware that 70% of the immune system resides in the digestive system and that good bacteria are essential to its proper functioning.

Now that I look back on my history, it is clear I induced this disease by destroying the good bacteria in my digestive system. Short of fecal transplants (which cured one very severely disabled M.S. patient), I have a long road of eating fermented foods ahead of me to claw back to where I was before.

TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
June 18, 2015, 07:21:35 AM
 #26765

We are merely concerned with more efficient use of the blockchain where it is used more for settlement while other trustless offchain solutions are developed and offload frequent and small txns off the blockchain.

Raising the blocksize too fast and too soon will disincentivise the creation of these trustless offchain solutions and risk centralising bitcoin txn validation.
why? because those who stand to profit from the creation of offchain (or off mainchain) solutions won't expect to realize as much profit, or to realize it as quickly? and why should that be of any concern to me?

I agree. If that is all the side chains can offer is relief from an artificially accelerated squeeze on Bitcoin's scaling problem, then they are not appealing.

Zarathustra
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1022



View Profile
June 18, 2015, 07:49:18 AM
 #26766

If you brake your leg or your neck, you should consult a quack instead of a university trained doctor of the establishment.

When the funding for tenured professors comes from the establishment which does not want truth to be explored on a particular issue (e.g. anthropogenic global warming aka man-made climate change lie that was foisted on the establishment and which 9,000 PhDs were signatories against but even that never made the news), then science within the establishment does not exist on that issue.

When some of those established engineers and professors decide instead to fund their collaboration, this is then debunked as non-science because it didn't take place within the monolith of the establishment's controlled funding model.

Logical indeed.



I know the anthropocentric logic of the quacks and truthers: taking CO2 out of the ground and put it into the athmosphere and the ocean doesn't change the climate of the athmosphere and the ocean.

Logical indeed.
Erdogan
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 812


View Profile
June 18, 2015, 09:00:09 AM
 #26767

I want scaling, but there is a physical limit somewhere.

Physical cash has limits to lowest practical transaction size, and number of transactions practical per person per day, but not on the total number.

Therefore we need payment services. I see this as no problem at all. They are centralized and therefore a target for the state, but they can operate on bitcoin the money unit, they can be smaller, they can be located in one country and used in another. The cards can have private keys, trezor like, no keypress for small transactions. The cards need not be tied to personal identity. The service companies can standardize terminals and protocols. They can contract that cards can be used on other companies' terminals. Vendors can have a long list of accepted cards. If you come to an area where your card does not work, aquire a new card and fill it up. Cards can be personal and owned by the user, the user makes a deal with with a payment system which then becomes a confidence supplier.

We already have a bunch of such companies, it is only to sit back and wait for the development towards perfection. If I am not satisfied with the progress I can engage in the business myself.

The possibilities are endless. But we need a solid base with the highest transaction rate that is physically possible.

tvbcof
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2324


View Profile
June 18, 2015, 09:02:13 AM
 #26768


I know the anthropocentric logic of the quacks and truthers: taking CO2 out of the ground and put it into the athmosphere and the ocean doesn't change the climate of the athmosphere and the ocean.

Logical indeed.

Alas, that's mostly a fraud as well.  Until I actually buckled down and started to actually studied things about a year ago I felt about the same as you seem to, but I never took a stand until I got around to doing so.  It is perfectly logical that liberating many million years worth of sequestered carbon in several hundred could cause a lot of problems.  When one actually looks at and analyzes the numbers it is actually pretty far-fetched.

A vastly more plausible explanation is that (what is currently being called) 'climate change' is a cash cow for many parties and a way to promote ''social justice' for others, and a way to assert control over citizens for a hierarchical ring above the more mundane of the adherents.

Edit:  I might also add that over the past several decades we have had models based on theories about how CO2 can effect the atmosphere.  And we have observations.  The models have proven badly wrong.  In science, when a hypothesis and observation don't match, the hypothesis needs to be rejected or at least significantly altered.  Yes, models can be incorrectly implemented and so on, but it's getting pretty bad by this point.  My hypothesis about the 'socio-economic' causes is holding up well as the climate 'scientists' and politicians circle the wagons and put their heads in the sand.

An alternate theory which is (currently) rather unknown (and extraordinarily unpopular by those who are aware of it) is that global temps drive atmospheric CO2 concentrations rather than the other way around.


TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
June 18, 2015, 09:02:54 AM
 #26769

If you brake your leg or your neck, you should consult a quack instead of a university trained doctor of the establishment.

When the funding for tenured professors comes from the establishment which does not want truth to be explored on a particular issue (e.g. anthropogenic global warming aka man-made climate change lie that was foisted on the establishment and which 9,000 PhDs were signatories against but even that never made the news), then science within the establishment does not exist on that issue.

When some of those established engineers and professors decide instead to fund their collaboration, this is then debunked as non-science because it didn't take place within the monolith of the establishment's controlled funding model.

Logical indeed.



I know the anthropocentric logic of the quacks and truthers: taking CO2 out of the ground and put it into the athmosphere and the ocean doesn't change the climate of the athmosphere and the ocean.

Logical indeed.

Wow you just proved you are an idiot (or presumptuous which is the same thing). Do some research on the science. I did. And so did 9,000 PhDs.

Lazy people love to boast and we who are not lazy realize you are idiots. That is why you get the NWO enslavement that you deserve.

TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
June 18, 2015, 09:33:01 AM
 #26770

An alternate theory which is (currently) rather unknown (and extraordinarily unpopular by those who are aware of it) is that global temps drive atmospheric CO2 concentrations rather than the other way around.

Al Whore...




Duke University Disagrees with Global Warming

Quote
Duke University has parted from the other universities who benefit from collecting money to further global warming theories. Duke has done what I have argued, they conducted a study based on 1,000 years of temperature records. They analyzed the whole thing and compared it to the most severe emissions scenarios by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). What they discovered is simply that global warming has not happened as fast as expected. The research claims that natural variability in surface temperatures over the course of a decade can account for increases and dips in warming rates. Hence, this is not a man-made trend.

Unfortunately, everything we have input into our computer warned that we were turning back down toward colder weather – not warming. On this score, Duke University seems to be far more objective than those seeking to create propaganda for global warming that the government can use as the excuse to raise taxes.



University of Washington Paper States Plainly that there has been no appreciable attention paid to Cyclical Analysis of Weather

Quote
The introduction to a University of Washington paper is right on point. It warns that there has been way too little investigation into the natural cyclical trends within the climate. The arrogance of assuming we have the power in our hands to change the entire environment within a few decades is absurd. The assumption that the weather has changed must be connected to man is the same stupid assumption that all illness is introduced externally so you have to bleed the patient to get it out. If they died, the theory is not wrong, the patient was not bled soon enough. The environmental global warming crowd has not investigated anything to do with the natural cyclical environment in which we live.

The University of Washington report states:

Quote
Although the dramatic climate disruptions of the last glacial period have received considerable attention, relatively little has been directed toward climate variability in the Holocene (11,500 cal yr B.P. to the present). Examination of ~50 globally distributed paleoclimate records reveals as many as six periods of significant rapid climate change during the time periods 9000–8000, 6000–5000, 4200–3800, 3500–2500, 1200–1000, and 600–150 cal yr B.P. Most of the climate change events in these globally distributed records are characterized by polar cooling, tropical aridity, and major atmospheric circulation changes, although in the most recent interval (600–150 cal yr B.P.), polar cooling was accompanied by increased moisture in some parts of the tropics. Several intervals coincide with major disruptions of civilization, illustrating the human significance of Holocene climate variability.



Scientists Caught Again Faking Global Warming Data

Quote
An investigation of the raw data recording temperature, has revealed that once again these academics are manipulating the data to keep billions of dollars flowing into their hands. No matter how many times they are caught, government will not change course because they want to believe in global warming to justify higher taxes. Al Gore even went the Davos to pitch once again for higher taxes to stop global warming he declares is the number one crisis in the world. He too, never heard of cycles.

An audit of their data shows they are adjusting the numbers to convert declining temperatures into rising temperatures using averaging. These people belong seriously in prison for harming the lives of everyone so deliberately and dishonestly. No one will address the evidence of solar cycles discovered from ice core samples. These manipulating academics are out to ruin society by constantly putting forth altered data for the analysis. The original data from which they derive their fake numbers has been seriously altered which has been exposed by simple audits. Far from any rise in temperatures to support global warming, the fact remains that there is more ice now than before and temperatures unadjusted for have declined over the past 65 years by a full degree.

I have mentioned before I attended the National press Conference dinner in Washington where Bill Clinton spoke. I went with my friend Dick Fox who was Chairman of Temple University to which I was an adviser. So whoever made up the seating arrangement stuck the two of us with all the environmental group heads. Dick engaged them and they assumed they were in friendly territory. Dick got them to admit that the REAL agenda was to stop population growth using environmental laws and scare-tactics. Dick finally asked – Whose grandchild are you trying to prevent from being born? Yours or mine?

I just have no time for those who use laws against the people for personal gain. This crowd claims this is “climate change” as if there are no cycles whatsoever. How did the earth warm up after Ice Ages? This is really too much. It is like looking at the Dow for 3 months and assuming it always goes simply higher. All of this nonsense is to stop population growth. That is their ultimate goal. They just won’t admit the truth publicly


Global Warming Being Exposed as a Fraud

Quote

Global Warming seems to be in the same category with gold in the hands of the promoters – bedtime stories for children. Seven years ago former US Vice-President Al Gore’s warned everyone that the Arctic ice would be gone by now. Obama even wanted a commission to see if we could build a machine to reverse what does not exist. Talk about a typical government job. Indeed, these people build bridges when there is not even a river or gully to cross.

The British press seem to be more honest than American, especially after Snowden. In fact, The British Daily Mail is reporting that not only was this forecast of Al Gore dead WRONG, the ice cap has actually expanded for a second year in row covering 1.7million square kilometres MORE than 2 years ago and it is also thicker!

The satellite images were taken from University of Illinois’s Cryosphere project that shows the ice has become even more concentrated. Yet they want to regulate cow farting. Honestly, if politicians actually believe this nonsense is debatable. Whatever the issue seems to be will only be a concern if there is more tax revenue to be justified. They will not outlaw smoking because they get tax revenues yet under the same theory they should ban it if this was about public concern.

Global Warming has been a fantastic excuse to raise taxes and now regulate cow farting in Europe. How about eliminating all the hot air created by worthless government programs? If we eliminated career politicians and voted from our laptops on every initiative, think of all the limousines that would not be driving them around and special plane flights for their vacations.


Man Made Climate Change is a Fraud

Quote
Now, John Coleman, who co-founded the Weather Channel, has lambasted these corrupt academics by insisting the theory of man-made climate change was no longer scientifically credible. These academics I suspect are really just fraud artists.

Eisenhower in his Farewell Speech warned about academics with respect to the military establishment. “The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present – and is gravely to be regarded.”

Coleman has publicly stated that there is ‘little evidence’ for rising global temperatures outside of normal cyclical variations that are a ‘natural phenomenon’ within a developing eco-system.

Let’s start an investigation of all the academics who have taken billions of dollars to create a bogus theory and follow the money trail. I think a lot of people belong in prison for what they have done to the entire world on this absurd issue.


Global Warming Crowd Want More Money to Study of all Things – the 4 Seasons

Quote
Well Putin must have figured a way to send the cold Siberian Winds over the top of the globe through Canada and all the way down into Florida where it fell to even 30 degrees in Clearwater. Since man can alter weather by turning on his cars, clearly Putin must have turned every car, truck, and tank on in Siberia to send this much cold over the top trying to freeze Obama in his tracks.

Well for sure in the world of reality, this winter has produced the coldest in several decades and there is now far more ice at the North Pole than when Al Gore began claiming there was Global Warming. These clowns never heard of the White Earth effect yet they have the audacity to call themselves scientists.

I have never seen such a bunch of losers when it comes to research and analysis. This is like When Genius Failed and they created models that would make them a fortune but only back-tested to 1971. Long-Term Capital Management collapsed on that one. Trends within the economy unfold over hundreds of years and weather as well. To study a few decades back and proclaim you discovered Global Warming is amazingly stupid. The problem, they have degrees with no practical real world experience and as such they get billions of dollars to study the most ridiculous theories. Well at least they probably toast the stupid taxpayers who fund this nonsense.


The Ice Age Cometh

Quote
This is the picture the corrupt scientists have been using to get their hands on billions of dollars. We do not know where this photo was even taken. Nevertheless, they have used this to launch their campaign. There are many theories on both sides. All I know is rather simple. The sun is a thermodynamic system. It beats the same as your heart. Between peak and minimum is about 300 years. Why would man have migrated from warmer climates to colder if they could not grow crops? I would have gone the other way. Just maybe, they moved north when it was warm and they tried running for the sun when the ice came.

The famous cave drawings of Tadrart Acacus are form a mountain range in the Sahara desert of western Libya. The area is known for its rock paintings dating from 12,000 BC to 100 AD. The paintings reflect the changing environment of the Sahara desert which used to have a much wetter climate. Nine thousand years ago the surroundings were green with lakes and forests and with large herds of wild animals as demonstrated by rock paintings at Tadrart Aracus of animals such as giraffes, elephants and ostriches.

The climate has changed for thousands of years. This much is basic history and requires no billion dollar study to see if we caused it by somehow using time travel to export our effects back in time. Instead of wasting all this effort to try to support government raising taxes on people to prevent “Global Warming” or “Climate Change”, it might be better spent informing people we are going back into a cooling period and there will be wild swings back and forth for the next 25 years. It snowed here on Friday and the back 60 degrees for Saturday.

It certainly seems that Obama may argue for tax increases to stop Global Warming where we will see the sea rise, but he is not so concerned since he is buying a house on the beach in Hawaii. The only theory I subscribe to is government will lie, cheat, steal, and start wars, whatever is necessary, to profit and retain power. The rest is simply nature and learn to live with the cycle.





http://armstrongeconomics.com/research/climate-change

Quote
Clearly, the most significant factor driving the weather is the energy output of the sun and that means our entire universe is part of the cycle. The work of Sallie Baliunas is highly important in understanding the long-term interaction between weather and the economy. As I have stated previously, she gave a presentation at the Foundation for the Study of Cycles which was quite enlightening. Her conclusion to her June 5th, 2001 review at the George C. Marshall Institute, Washington, D.C. stated bluntly:

Baliunas-Sallie TextSummary and Conclusions

“The climate record shows that the global warming of 1°F observed over the last 100 years is not unusual.  Global temperature changes of this magnitude have occurred frequently in the past and are a result of natural factors in climate change.

But is it possible that the particular temperature increase observed in the last 100 years is the result of carbon dioxide produced by human activities?  The scientific evidence clearly indicates that this is not the case.

All climate studies agree that if the one-degree global warming was produced by an increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, the additional CO2 first warms the atmosphere, and the warmed atmosphere, in turn, warms the earth’s surface.  However, measurements of atmospheric temperatures made by instruments lofted in satellites and balloons show that no warming has occurred in the atmosphere in the last 50 years.  This is just the period in which human made carbon dioxide has been pouring into the atmosphere and according to the climate studies, the resultant atmospheric warming should be clearly evident.

The absence of atmospheric warming proves that the warming of the earth’s surface observed in the last 100 years cannot be due to an increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere caused by human activities.  The recent global warming must be the result of natural factors in climate change.”


Global Warming Fascist Movement & Academic Welfare

Quote
Winston Churchill said that “History is written by the victors.” That is so true even among Establishment Academics. Anyone who thinks that Global Warming is really caused by man is naive to say the least. This is a political agenda to raise taxes by politicians and to reduce population growth among academics. What these people have done is the same as taking the equivalent of 5 trading days and pronounced that the stock market is in a perpetual bull cycle. Starting with the introduction of automobiles since 1920 and claiming this has altered the entire weather system of millions of years with no investigation into cyclical weather cycles over millennium (Ice Ages), is just bogus analysis no different from trying to judge the future of the stock market for decades by the last 5 days. The Establishment Academics are blackmailing anyone who disagrees with them. This is nothing new for academia – they do this all the time in every field – suppress new knowledge.

Global Warming is all about money and raising taxes for politicians to pay for their pensions and support all their illegitimate children. Among academics, this is a religion, but they are also just corrupt socialists. Money pours into academia to create bogus studies to support the theory of Global Warming for taxing power as well as other agendas. So, Establishment Academics line up like those in the inner city on welfare check day to get their welfare checks to put out studies on all sorts of things with a predetermined conclusion. There is no “think tank” in Washington that really thinks. They all have a biased agenda if it is weather, archaeology, religion, history, all the way to economics and politics.

The Establishment Academics are becoming just fascist Marxists hell-bent on manipulating society for personal gain and power. Establishment Academics are notoriously against free speech for they always threaten and black-list anyone who disagrees with them. The famous Swedish climatologist Lennart Bengtsson joined a group that is skeptical about Global Warming. He was intimidated by Establishment Academics until he was forced to resign.

huygensThe man who discovered cycles and stated that light moved in waves rather than a straight line was Christiaan Huygens (1629-1695). However, because he was a Dutch mathematician, astronomer, and a physicist, who took an opposite position to Isaac Newton (1642-1727), he was ignored by academics because he was arguing against the establishment just like the anti-Global Warming establishment today. It took Albert Einstein (1879–1955) to look at Huygens’ work and accept that his discovery was correct and contrary to Newton. Huygens’ discovery was fundamental, yet largely ignored by Establishment Academics. Einstein himself was trying to move the establishment so he had no problem reviewing Huygens’s work.

Establishment Academics act very much like Stalin, but with less blood,  who executed Kondratieff because he said communism would fail. Establishment Academics do not like to be criticized in the least. They teach theory as fact and that is very dangerous. All the studies show the Establishment Academics reject intelligent creative minds.

Studies at the University of Chicago and the University of Minnesota have found that teachers smile on children with high IQs and frown upon those with creative minds. Intelligent but uncreative students accept conformity, never rebel, and complete their assignments with dispatch and to perfection. The creative child, on the other hand, is manipulative, imaginative, and intuitive. He is likely to harass the teacher. He is regarded as wild, naughty, silly, undependable, lacking in seriousness or even promise. His behavior is distracting; he doesn’t seem to be trying; he gives unique answers to banal questions, touching off laughter among the other children. E. Paul Torrance of Minnesota found that 70 percent of pupils rated high in creativity were rejected by teachers picking a special class for the intellectually gifted. The Goertzels concluded that a Stanford study of genius, under which teachers selected bright children, would have excluded Churchill, Edison, Picasso, and Mark Twain just to mention a few.

...

Global Warming is another hidden agenda. The politicians are eager to climb on board not to save the world, but to raise taxes. The academics are driven by the money so they can sit in their rooms collect welfare checks for totally worthless nonsense.

Sure pollution is bad. We need to breathe etc. Moving to electric buses in cities is great. But the nonsense that man can change the weather cycles. They never heard of Ice Ages or explained how did the world warm up to end them without mankind?  They have changed their tone after the coldest winter in 35 years. First it was just a “pause” implying a cycle. Now they boldly state it is part of the global warming process to swing back and forth. They are now trying desperately to change the name of their cause to “Climate Change” because Global Warming implies only getting warmer.

 

They never heard of the White Earth affect nor did they ever account for the Year Without a Summer – 1816 that was set in motion by the 1815 eruption of the famous volcano Mount Tambora, in the Dutch East Indies (Indonesia), which was the largest known eruption in over 1,300 years. That event hurled so much ash into the atmosphere it blocked much of the sun. That caused massive food shortages as crops failed. All the cars on the planet could drive for more than 500 years and not create such an event.

There is a huge difference from pollution that makes it an unpleasant place to live and something caused by man who in less than 100 years can alter the course of weather that has always been cyclical, not linear, for millions of years. It is the Establishment Academics that refuse to look at the business cycle and foster government control of society and manipulation to achieve political goals.

Zarathustra
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1022



View Profile
June 18, 2015, 10:58:52 AM
 #26771

If you brake your leg or your neck, you should consult a quack instead of a university trained doctor of the establishment.

When the funding for tenured professors comes from the establishment which does not want truth to be explored on a particular issue (e.g. anthropogenic global warming aka man-made climate change lie that was foisted on the establishment and which 9,000 PhDs were signatories against but even that never made the news), then science within the establishment does not exist on that issue.

When some of those established engineers and professors decide instead to fund their collaboration, this is then debunked as non-science because it didn't take place within the monolith of the establishment's controlled funding model.

Logical indeed.



I know the anthropocentric logic of the quacks and truthers: taking CO2 out of the ground and put it into the athmosphere and the ocean doesn't change the climate of the athmosphere and the ocean.

Logical indeed.

Wow you just proved you are an idiot (or presumptuous which is the same thing). Do some research on the science. I did. And so did 9,000 PhDs.

Lazy people love to boast and we who are not lazy realize you are idiots. That is why you get the NWO enslavement that you deserve.

It's you who is the idiot. Not an idiot for example is Nassim Taleb:

Climate Change.

I am hyper-conservative ecologically (meaning super-Green). My position on the climate is to avoid releasing pollutants in the atmosphere, on the basis of ignorance, regardless of current expert opinion
.............

We have polluted for years, causing much damage to the environment, while the scientists currently making these complicated forecasting models were not sticking their necks out and trying to stop us from building these risks (they resemble those "risk experts" in the economic domain who fight the previous war) --these are the ones now trying to impose the solutions on us. But the skepticism about models that I propose does not lead to the same conclusions as the ones endorsed by anti-environmentalists, pro-market fundamentalists, quite the contrary: we need to be hyper-conservationists ecologically, super-Green, since we do not know what we are harming with now. That's the sound policy under ignorance and epistemic opacity. To those who say "we have no proof that we are harming nature", a sound response is "we have no proof that we are not harming nature either" --the burden of the proof is not on the ecological conservationist, but on someone disrupting an old system.


http://www.blackswanreport.com/blog/2010/01/opacity-3/
NewLiberty
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1162


Gresham's Lawyer


View Profile WWW
June 18, 2015, 11:11:52 AM
 #26772

If you brake your leg or your neck, you should consult a quack instead of a university trained doctor of the establishment.

When the funding for tenured professors comes from the establishment which does not want truth to be explored on a particular issue (e.g. anthropogenic global warming aka man-made climate change lie that was foisted on the establishment and which 9,000 PhDs were signatories against but even that never made the news), then science within the establishment does not exist on that issue.

When some of those established engineers and professors decide instead to fund their collaboration, this is then debunked as non-science because it didn't take place within the monolith of the establishment's controlled funding model.

Logical indeed.



I know the anthropocentric logic of the quacks and truthers: taking CO2 out of the ground and put it into the athmosphere and the ocean doesn't change the climate of the athmosphere and the ocean.

Logical indeed.

Wow you just proved you are an idiot (or presumptuous which is the same thing). Do some research on the science. I did. And so did 9,000 PhDs.

Lazy people love to boast and we who are not lazy realize you are idiots. That is why you get the NWO enslavement that you deserve.

It's you who is the idiot. Not an idiot for example is Nassim Taleb:

Climate Change.

I am hyper-conservative ecologically (meaning super-Green). My position on the climate is to avoid releasing pollutants in the atmosphere, on the basis of ignorance, regardless of current expert opinion
.............

We have polluted for years, causing much damage to the environment, while the scientists currently making these complicated forecasting models were not sticking their necks out and trying to stop us from building these risks (they resemble those "risk experts" in the economic domain who fight the previous war) --these are the ones now trying to impose the solutions on us. But the skepticism about models that I propose does not lead to the same conclusions as the ones endorsed by anti-environmentalists, pro-market fundamentalists, quite the contrary: we need to be hyper-conservationists ecologically, super-Green, since we do not know what we are harming with now. That's the sound policy under ignorance and epistemic opacity. To those who say "we have no proof that we are harming nature", a sound response is "we have no proof that we are not harming nature either" --the burden of the proof is not on the ecological conservationist, but on someone disrupting an old system.


http://www.blackswanreport.com/blog/2010/01/opacity-3/

The assumption of either position for or against as absolute, is anti-science.
Science is the process of questioning the 'experts' and testing.  
It is when we stop questioning, that science ends.

In this case you are both more right than wrong.  
Climate change science is useful for statists to increase authority and that questioning this scientifically is discouraged (TPTB's point).  
Avoiding pollution and waste is the key to sustainability, and so it is prudent to avoid it (Zarathustra's point).
Where you are both wrong is in recognising that these points are not necessarily in conflict.

FREE MONEY1 Bitcoin for Silver and Gold NewLibertyDollar.com and now BITCOIN SPECIE (silver 1 ozt) shows value by QR
Bulk premiums as low as .0012 BTC "BETTER, MORE COLLECTIBLE, AND CHEAPER THAN SILVER EAGLES" 1Free of Government
Zarathustra
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1022



View Profile
June 18, 2015, 11:20:18 AM
 #26773


Wow you just proved you are an idiot (or presumptuous which is the same thing). Do some research on the science. I did. And so did 9,000 PhDs.

Lazy people love to boast and we who are not lazy realize you are idiots. That is why you get the NWO enslavement that you deserve.

Wow! 9000 quacks who find themselves in opposition to physical logic, against 9 Million who don't ...
Zarathustra
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1022



View Profile
June 18, 2015, 11:32:48 AM
 #26774


The assumption of either position for or against as absolute, is anti-science.
Science is the process of questioning the 'experts' and testing.  
It is when we stop questioning, that science ends.

In this case you are both more right than wrong.  


An absolute position against unknown anthropogenic experiments with the ocean and the atmosphere is not anti-science. The position, that changing the composition of the ocean and the atmosphere doesn't change the climate in the ocean and the atmosphere is not only anti-science; it is a super-hyper-idiotic position.
NewLiberty
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1162


Gresham's Lawyer


View Profile WWW
June 18, 2015, 12:20:54 PM
 #26775


The assumption of either position for or against as absolute, is anti-science.
Science is the process of questioning the 'experts' and testing.  
It is when we stop questioning, that science ends.

In this case you are both more right than wrong.  


An absolute position against unknown anthropogenic experiments with the ocean and the atmosphere is not anti-science. The position, that changing the composition of the ocean and the atmosphere doesn't change the climate in the ocean and the atmosphere is not only anti-science; it is a super-hyper-idiotic position.

When you stop questioning, you stop learning.
The people that think they know everything can learn nothing.  They assume they know the answers before the experiment.

You seek to stop waste, good for you.  You also like to argue.   Maybe that is also a waste, of your time, especially when you argue with people that aren't even arguing with you.

FREE MONEY1 Bitcoin for Silver and Gold NewLibertyDollar.com and now BITCOIN SPECIE (silver 1 ozt) shows value by QR
Bulk premiums as low as .0012 BTC "BETTER, MORE COLLECTIBLE, AND CHEAPER THAN SILVER EAGLES" 1Free of Government
TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
June 18, 2015, 12:30:02 PM
 #26776

I want scaling, but there is a physical limit somewhere.

Physical cash has limits to lowest practical transaction size, and number of transactions practical per person per day, but not on the total number.

Therefore we need payment services. I see this as no problem at all. They are centralized and therefore a target for the state, but they can operate on bitcoin the money unit, they can be smaller, they can be located in one country and used in another. The cards can have private keys, trezor like, no keypress for small transactions. The cards need not be tied to personal identity. The service companies can standardize terminals and protocols. They can contract that cards can be used on other companies' terminals. Vendors can have a long list of accepted cards. If you come to an area where your card does not work, aquire a new card and fill it up. Cards can be personal and owned by the user, the user makes a deal with with a payment system which then becomes a confidence supplier.

We already have a bunch of such companies, it is only to sit back and wait for the development towards perfection. If I am not satisfied with the progress I can engage in the business myself.

The possibilities are endless. But we need a solid base with the highest transaction rate that is physically possible.

Competing payment services not transacting on the block chain means no fungibility of units between payment services, which means users can't pay to anyone anytime.

The internet and rise of global trade in knowledge means you can no longer draw national corrals around trade.

Also I had explained in 2013, this kills network effects because each user is no longer a potential network connection to another.

This is why I know only my design can scale the network effects.

I do not view Bitcoin as much of a threat. The only thing that compete with me is a pegged BTC side chain.

TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
June 18, 2015, 12:34:16 PM
 #26777

If you brake your leg or your neck, you should consult a quack instead of a university trained doctor of the establishment.

When the funding for tenured professors comes from the establishment which does not want truth to be explored on a particular issue (e.g. anthropogenic global warming aka man-made climate change lie that was foisted on the establishment and which 9,000 PhDs were signatories against but even that never made the news), then science within the establishment does not exist on that issue.

When some of those established engineers and professors decide instead to fund their collaboration, this is then debunked as non-science because it didn't take place within the monolith of the establishment's controlled funding model.

Logical indeed.



I know the anthropocentric logic of the quacks and truthers: taking CO2 out of the ground and put it into the athmosphere and the ocean doesn't change the climate of the athmosphere and the ocean.

Logical indeed.

Wow you just proved you are an idiot (or presumptuous which is the same thing). Do some research on the science. I did. And so did 9,000 PhDs.

Lazy people love to boast and we who are not lazy realize you are idiots. That is why you get the NWO enslavement that you deserve.

It's you who is the idiot. Not an idiot for example is Nassim Taleb:

Climate Change.

I am hyper-conservative ecologically (meaning super-Green). My position on the climate is to avoid releasing pollutants in the atmosphere, on the basis of ignorance, regardless of current expert opinion
.............

We have polluted for years, causing much damage to the environment, while the scientists currently making these complicated forecasting models were not sticking their necks out and trying to stop us from building these risks (they resemble those "risk experts" in the economic domain who fight the previous war) --these are the ones now trying to impose the solutions on us. But the skepticism about models that I propose does not lead to the same conclusions as the ones endorsed by anti-environmentalists, pro-market fundamentalists, quite the contrary: we need to be hyper-conservationists ecologically, super-Green, since we do not know what we are harming with now. That's the sound policy under ignorance and epistemic opacity. To those who say "we have no proof that we are harming nature", a sound response is "we have no proof that we are not harming nature either" --the burden of the proof is not on the ecological conservationist, but on someone disrupting an old system.


http://www.blackswanreport.com/blog/2010/01/opacity-3/

The assumption of either position for or against as absolute, is anti-science.
Science is the process of questioning the 'experts' and testing.  
It is when we stop questioning, that science ends.

In this case you are both more right than wrong.  
Climate change science is useful for statists to increase authority and that questioning this scientifically is discouraged (TPTB's point).  
Avoiding pollution and waste is the key to sustainability, and so it is prudent to avoid it (Zarathustra's point).
Where you are both wrong is in recognising that these points are not necessarily in conflict.

Learn the difference between climate and environment. A dictionary can be helpful.

I was 100% correct as usual. And I didn't even present the unarguable physical science arguments that compelled me to my position on CLIMATE.

I never said a damn thing about environment. It will be rare to catch me in a category error. Yeah shitting in your backyard environment is really smart. And no one here was conflating CLIMATE with generally adverse affects to the environment such as heavy metal or bromides contamination of the fish and soils. Putting fluoride in our water which competes for the same receptors sites in the body as a necessary nutrient iodine is really smart.

Both I and Armstrong were making that distinction between climate and environment long ago.

And you are incorrect to assume that Zaradude was arguing about environment. He is not. He doesn't have a clue about making such a distinction (nor much of anything else ... I've been arguing with him for years now ...) and certainly isn't limiting his arguments to the environment.

The reason humans can't impact the CLIMATE with CO2 is because our release of CO2 is miniscule in comparison to the CO2 absorbed and released by for example the oceans due to changes in the sea temperature due to the Sun. Even volcanos release C02 faster than humans can (not sure if they release more CO2 overall over any long period but make sure you include the undersea volcanos if you try to calculate this and include all the ones we don't know exist). That Taleb didn't apparently distinguish C02 as not being a pollutant, shows that he doesn't know how to apply his Black Swan and Anti-fragility math to the real world. The risk for the Black Swan w.r.t. to C02 is the assumption that taxing carbon can't cause a massive collapse in both the economy via the concomitant corruption. Taleb should realize which side of the argument is centralized meddling in a large scale system preventing anti-fragility.

P.S. I am not angry at you, hehe, I am just making drama with my words for the fun of it.

cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
June 18, 2015, 12:45:13 PM
 #26778

awemany continuing to pound on /u/nullc

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3a5f1v/mike_hearn_on_those_who_want_all_scaling_to_be/csaku38
TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
June 18, 2015, 12:50:38 PM
 #26779


Wow you just proved you are an idiot (or presumptuous which is the same thing). Do some research on the science. I did. And so did 9,000 PhDs.

Lazy people love to boast and we who are not lazy realize you are idiots. That is why you get the NWO enslavement that you deserve.

Wow! 9000 quacks who find themselves in opposition to physical logic, against 9 Million who don't ...

Wow! 9000 people (with PhDs) who are capable of pressing the keys on a calculator and who are not so beholden to their paycheck or otherwise too lazy, to actually do some calculations and form a scientific conclusion that is unarguable.

Or at least 9000 people who argue that the junk "science" on human climate change is worse than not compelling, and it is better to err on the side of caution instead of foisting carbon taxes on utility companies which for example has lead to Obama closing down utilities so his buddies could rake in more profits either as competitors or via extortion.

When the USA, Germany, etc are experiencing massive brownouts in the coming years, you can thank yourself.

Of course, you will at the time prefer to delude yourself and blame the collapse on the complexity of modern society or some other hairbrained  argument which is why all you fools are headed into the NWO outcome and there is nothing I can do to save you from yourself. Those of us who are wise, will fork away from you and create a glorious untrackable knowledge age economy.

thezerg
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1246


View Profile
June 18, 2015, 01:23:54 PM
 #26780

Check out the linear buy ramp on bitfinex.  Anyone think a whale is accumulating?

http://www.bitcoinity.org/markets/bitfinex/USD
Pages: « 1 ... 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 1383 1384 1385 1386 1387 1388 1389 ... 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!