Bitcoin Forum
December 10, 2016, 05:10:55 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 ... 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 1390 ... 1560 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.  (Read 1807506 times)
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
June 18, 2015, 01:00:09 AM
 #26781

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.

right, i'm trying to point out to him that Bitcoin has a much higher bar to leap to become digital gold.  that's b/c it can't be coddled, displayed, shown off, polished, etc. Think back to that time when you first sent BTC to yourself, most likely.  the amazement when it appeared on the other device and then counting down confirmations.  now imagine the little African kid getting an unconfirmed tx that gets stuck from filled blocks.  he will drop Bitcoin right then and there and go back to going down holes for hunks of gold.  we should want all those kids and the entire mining industry to drop what their doing and convert to digital gold right now.  only then will Bitcoin be secure and decentralized.

who will resist gvt censorships more?  gmax or the little African?  gmax would rollover in an instant, i guarantee you that.  he would have to as CEO of Blockstream.  not only that, he doesn't have the strength of conviction to resist.  hell, i don't, living here in the US.
1481346655
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481346655

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481346655
Reply with quote  #2

1481346655
Report to moderator
1481346655
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481346655

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481346655
Reply with quote  #2

1481346655
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
justusranvier
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1400



View Profile WWW
June 18, 2015, 01:04:50 AM
 #26782

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?
As long as central banks have existed their activities have been subsidized via (government-provided) monolopy and via taxation.

Almost from the moment people stopped using gold coins and switched to gold IOUs for their daily transactions, gold has been a government welfare program.

There's no such thing as a free market reserve currency. To obtain what the crypto goldbugs want they'll need national governments to take control of most of the Bitcoins in circulation and use their taxing capabilities to support the price.
solex
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1078


100 satoshis -> ISO code


View Profile
June 18, 2015, 01:05:55 AM
 #26783

The is no mempool limit right?

Only by the addressable memory on each node, which varies. It would take a phenomenal number of unconfirmed tx to break nodes, but maybe enough of them would happen if wallets keep sending tx for thousands of frustrated BTC holders who are trying to get coins onto the exchanges as the price falls way below any TA support.

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

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3a0qfn/another_reason_why_we_need_to_raise_the_blocksize/cs8rqjn

Oleganza is nuts if he thinks that $100 tx fees would ever be normal. How could Bitcoin keep any market share in that situation if another crypto-coin had 10x the volume and fees of about $1? How could Bitcoin keep any semblance of "digital gold" in that environment? (leaving aside the definition of it).

There is another reason why Bitcoin should not be allowed to hit a network-wide hard limit at any time, and ironically, for a trust-less system, it is trust in the system as a whole.
All users of Bitcoin have to trust that the trust-less network works and is viable. It has proved this over 6.5 years. That trust is hard-earned. Think about a relationship or a business partner, it takes years to earn trust, but that trust can be squandered over one serious event. If a partner cheats after years of loyalty, then how many years does it take to regain trust in that person again? Never?
Same with bitcoin, because: money.
A loss of trust just once is a scar for life.

79b79aa8d5047da6d3XX
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 178

◕_◕


View Profile
June 18, 2015, 01:07:09 AM
 #26784

Link to World Bank report on preparedness against cyberattacks targeting CBs and other financial institutions:

http://www.mediafire.com/view/vq30p298b8kwksm/Cyber_Security_Paper_May_2015.pdf

TL;DR: 1) not prepared 2) strengthening security will be difficult and costly; sr. management is clueless.

[If you don't trust the FTP service or my pdf, but need to read the report, you may go to
http://www.worldbank.org/en/events/2015/05/18/cyber-preparedness-seminar
and email the listed contact for a copy; it has not been posted yet].
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
June 18, 2015, 01:18:47 AM
 #26785

even guys like Michael Goldstein and Pierre Rochard from Nakamoto Institute don't seem to understand that Bitcoin has not gained the network effect yet to ascend to that of true Digital Gold.  they think we're done.  how disappointing.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
June 18, 2015, 01:27:29 AM
 #26786

thank goodness Bitpay gets it:

""User adoption is the most important success factor for BitPay. Bitcore and Copay provide infrastructure that people can use to build new services and tools that ultimately increase Bitcoin adoption. The more Bitcoin users there are, the more valuable BitPay's business services become."

https://www.zapchain.com/a/l/bitpay-ceo-bitcoin-will-secure-almost-all-electronic-payments-in-5-years/4ImQSvTBx0
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
June 18, 2015, 01:39:21 AM
 #26787

thank goodness Bitpay gets it:

""User adoption is the most important success factor for BitPay. Bitcore and Copay provide infrastructure that people can use to build new services and tools that ultimately increase Bitcoin adoption. The more Bitcoin users there are, the more valuable BitPay's business services become."

https://www.zapchain.com/a/l/bitpay-ceo-bitcoin-will-secure-almost-all-electronic-payments-in-5-years/4ImQSvTBx0

another way to phrase where we are in the adoption cycle is that Bitcoin today is composed mostly of hodlers.  the money velocity is low b/c everyone currently involved is looking for the inevitable price ramps.  that's ok as long as we keep onboarding new users as we head towards 2140 when the issuance curve levels off and price stability has a chance to be achieved.  until then, user growth is paramount to dampen the inevitable bubble crashes and grow the user base towards worldwide adoption.  only then will Bitcoin be secure due to the ultimate in decentralization down to the poorest 3rd world user who won't give a shit about gvt coercion and who will primarily care about the reliable payment network that Bitcoin can provide for him to buy a loaf of bread.  money velocity will then have matched the SOV function.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
June 18, 2015, 03:22:37 AM
 #26788

great post on Big O notation by awemany on Reddit:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3a5f1v/mike_hearn_on_those_who_want_all_scaling_to_be/csa5grv

Ok. Lets say you are going to a party on new years eve. At 0:00, you go and greet and wish the best for next year to everyone who is around you. Because it is customs, everyone else does the same. Lets further assume that you are in a single room with everyone else, and for the greetings to happen orderly, only one person can greet another person at any single time.
Now, doing a greeting takes time, lets say d seconds.
For a party with 10 people, you'd greet 9 others. Assuming each greeting takes a second, and everyone else would do the same, so there would be 10 people each greeting 9 people, 10 x 9 == 90 greetings, taking just 1.5 minutes.
Now assume you are going to a bigger party instead, with 100 guests.
Naively, you might assume something along the lines of: 'Ok, ten greeting each takes 1.5min, so 100 must take 15min.'.
But at the party with 100 guests, one hundred people are greeting 99 other guests each, so a total of 9900 greetings. And that takes 2h 45min.
Whoops!
The reason being, of course, that for n guests, it takes
d * n * (n-1)
seconds to do the greetings. And the term n * (n-1) becomes big rather quickly!
So this process of doing new years greetings is something that clearly doesn't really work for large crowds. If you'd train everyone who goes to the party to talk really, really quickly (reducing d), you might get the greetings done within the assumed 15min. But then, this process would still break if you'd go to a crowd of a thousand.
Computer science people would say it is an algorithm that scales rather badly. They say it is in O ( n ^ 2 ).
Now, clearly, d * n * (n-1) is not the same as n * n for almost all choices of t and n.
But for very large n, n * (n-1) gets very close to just n ^ 2. And the factor t, the time it takes to shout the greeting, isn't really affecting so much the problem that at some large crowd size, it becomes infeasible to use the above greeting algorithm.
And this is captured in O( n ^ 2 ). It only gives you the overall, rough behaviour of a scheme or algorithm, without the unnecessary details. Consider that algorithms on a computer can be very complex, and there can be many such factors and weird numbers in front of the n2 part. This so called big O notation requires some more (but still relatively simple) math of which the specifics are not relevant to you as a 5 year old. But you can read more on Wikipedia, for example.
Ok. So now lets turn to the topic of Bitcoin, or rather the topic of its scalability.
The Bitcoin network consists of a set of nodes that send messages to each other to inform each other about new transactions to process. For Bitcoin to work as proper money, the whole network has to somehow agree on what transactions have been done, and which have not.
There is now of course a lot of complexity and thought into the specifics on how this all works, but what is interesting in the context of this discussion is that somehow, all full nodes need to learn about all transactions from all other full nodes.
And here we can go back to the above picture of the party on new year's eve.
Imagine a Bitcoin full node is a party guest, and greeting means passing a transaction on to others.
If Bitcoin would work like the party, all n nodes would announce a new transaction (the greeting), to everyone else.
As the CS guy says: This is O(n 2 ), this doesn't scale.
But the problem is, that this is the wrong picture of the Bitcoin network.
In the equivalent picture from above, a Bitcoin full node would make a greeting (forward a transaction) to every single other node in the network.
And I think you can see the problem here: There is no party going on among the full nodes (they are not sentient yet), and they do not care whether they receive the SAME transaction from every other node personally. Rather, they just care about somehow receiving it at all.
And so, the Bitcoin network has been designed in an more efficient manner. Basically, a transaction is gossiped across the network. If a node hears a valid transaction, it just forwards it to whatever other neighboring, connected node has not seen it yet.
And if you now think about it, a network of full nodes that are all somehow connected just needs 'n gossipings' to get a message to everyone in the village.
That is O(n) behavior, and that is an algorithm that scales a lot better. That's linear behavior.
Now, and this might not be exactly ELI5 anymore, the situation is of course more complex. Because full nodes are not the same as users in Bitcoin, one actually needs to introduce another variable describing the number of users in the network (let that be u) and the number of transactions a typical user makes in a given period of time, let that be t.
Could it be that somehow, the load on the network, the number of transactions to push around, is something that grows too fast with more users joining, or with the number of transactions going up?
It can be assumed that every one of the u users wants to make a certain average number of transactions per day, t, and so the number of transactions going into the Bitcoin network scales like O(u * t).
The total number of transaction transmissions in the network then are in O(n * u * t), because, as we discussed above, every full node sees every transaction.
If you assume that every user just has to have a node under his desk, it is n == u, and so, the scaling of the whole Bitcoin network would be O(u ^ 2 * t), which is quadratic, CS guy doesn't like it, doesn't scale, forget it!
But wait a bit! First of all, the metric that we used here was for the whole network. In the context of the blocksize debate, some people worry about decentralization, and have some (unstated, vague and ill-defined, one might add) idea on how many full nodes there ought to be in the network. They argue that a full node might become too expensive to run in a non-scaling Bitcoin network. The metric, though, that every user would use to decide whether to run a node or not, is not in O(u ^ 2 * t), the whole network, it is rather the load per node, which is in O(u * t).
And secondly, but equally important, the idea that every user is going to run a full node is not the state of and has never been the vision for Bitcoin. Satoshi himself said and proposed that most users are going to use SPV (simplified payment verification) wallets, which are very thin clients interacting with the network, and not full nodes.
Finally, a thing should be said about the number of transactions t. There is this thing called Metcalfe's law, that states that the value of a network with u users goes like O(u ^ 2), as each user can connect to each other in the network.
If this would accurately describe the total number of transactions in the network, Bitcoin would be not scalable, as full network transactions would go like O(n * u ^ 2) and per node as O(u ^ 2). That would not be scalable.
Now, it is certainly to be expected that with a larger network, a user might do more Bitcoin transactions, as the network has more utility to him/her. He might shift more of the usual cash or banking transactions to Bitcoin, as soon as the Bitcoin network allows him to do so. In any case, he's not going to interact with all u users, just because they are there!
But it can reasonably be expected that there is (on average) a certain number of banking and cash transactions a user wants to make per day, overall, and if Bitcoin would take over all those transactions, it would still level out at some point. Technically, this would be O(1) in the final state.
However we are not there yet and, certainly, some growth is indeed to be expected with a growing Bitcoin user base. In here, Metcalfe's law is discussed in the context of the first dotcom boom. In there, an argument is made that the value of a network with u users rather grows like O(u log u) than O(u ^ 2). Assuming that this growth in value reflects fully in the actual transaction rate, the growth in transactions per node on the Bitcoin network would then also be O(u log u), which is benign, and scalable.
Interestingly, it should be noted that in that paper, they argue against Metcalfe's law as being too optimistic of the growth in value of a network.
Ironically, here we have people now trying to stop Bitcoin because it might grow too much, it might be too successful!
Does this EILYA5 to you sufficiently?
Phew. I think this is actually pretty comprehensive. /u/mike_hearn, feel free to make/mix this into a blog post, if you think it helps.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
June 18, 2015, 04:38:50 AM
 #26789

read this article.  is also helpful:

http://www.cse.unr.edu/~yuksem/teaching/nae/reading/2006-briscoe-metcalfes.pdf
Nagato
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 150



View Profile WWW
June 18, 2015, 05:04:06 AM
 #26790

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.

79b79aa8d5047da6d3XX
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 178

◕_◕


View Profile
June 18, 2015, 05:24:26 AM
 #26791

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
 #26792

...
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
 #26793

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
 #26794

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: 938


View Profile
June 18, 2015, 07:49:18 AM
 #26795

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.

"Staat nenne ich's, wo alle Gifttrinker sind, Gute und Schlimme: Staat, wo alle sich selber verlieren, Gute und Schlimme:
Staat, wo der langsame Selbstmord aller – »das Leben« heisst."
Erdogan
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 714



View Profile
June 18, 2015, 09:00:09 AM
 #26796

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: 1988


View Profile
June 18, 2015, 09:02:13 AM
 #26797


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
 #26798

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
 #26799

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: 938


View Profile
June 18, 2015, 10:58:52 AM
 #26800

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/

"Staat nenne ich's, wo alle Gifttrinker sind, Gute und Schlimme: Staat, wo alle sich selber verlieren, Gute und Schlimme:
Staat, wo der langsame Selbstmord aller – »das Leben« heisst."
Pages: « 1 ... 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 1390 ... 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!