Bitcoin Forum
December 08, 2016, 02:32:18 PM *
News: To be able to use the next phase of the beta forum software, please ensure that your email address is correct/functional.
 
   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 ... 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 1391 1392 ... 1560 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.  (Read 1806232 times)
justusranvier
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1400



View Profile WWW
June 18, 2015, 04:16:03 PM
 #26821

http://sourceforge.net/p/bitcoin/mailman/message/34220013/
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1481207538
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481207538

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481207538
Reply with quote  #2

1481207538
Report to moderator
1481207538
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481207538

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481207538
Reply with quote  #2

1481207538
Report to moderator
TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
June 18, 2015, 04:21:25 PM
 #26822


I would not and did not offer that advice to supporters of Core. I instead advised they try to use their remaining clout to get consensus around an increase where they still have commit access.

Core supporters should immediately release a fork with 8Mb blocks or some automated schedule of block size increases.

This is the only way they can diffuse the power grab which they are most likely going to lose otherwise (MPEX's Gavinshort as one potential wildcard).

But they painted themselves into a corner by saying that no changes should come without entire consensus before hand. They really lost the chess match. I could see precisely what Hearn et al was baiting Adam to write. And damn if he fell right into the trap.

I am sending a link of this post to both Adam and Greg. Then I won't bother them again.

Your advice is teaching them how to lose. Clever. But I am calling you out.

justusranvier
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1400



View Profile WWW
June 18, 2015, 04:56:37 PM
 #26823


I would not and did not offer that advice to supporters of Core. I instead advised they try to use their remaining clout to get consensus around an increase where they still have commit access.

Core supporters should immediately release a fork with 8Mb blocks or some automated schedule of block size increases.

This is the only way they can diffuse the power grab which they are most likely going to lose otherwise (MPEX's Gavinshort as one potential wildcard).

But they painted themselves into a corner by saying that no changes should come without entire consensus before hand. They really lost the chess match. I could see precisely what Hearn et al was baiting Adam to write. And damn if he fell right into the trap.

I am sending a link of this post to both Adam and Greg. Then I won't bother them again.

Your advice is teaching them how to lose. Clever. But I am calling you out.
Hopefully at least some of them won't be so unable or unwilling to understand this isn't a either-or situation.

The relevant question is: who is going to produce the software which the Bitcoin economic majority will choose to use?

The answer could be the existing Bitcoin Core developers.
The answer could be Mike and Gavin.

The answer could just as easily be none of the above.

Anybody involved who does not act with that understanding in mind is very likely to lose any ability they would otherwise have to do good things for Bitcoin.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
June 18, 2015, 05:03:11 PM
 #26824

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

http://www.bitcoinity.org/markets/bitfinex/USD

talk about bullish posturing:

thezerg
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1246


View Profile
June 18, 2015, 05:05:04 PM
 #26825


Well said!
rocks
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1153


View Profile
June 18, 2015, 05:13:49 PM
 #26826


Very well said. Thanks
rocks
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1153


View Profile
June 18, 2015, 05:18:24 PM
 #26827

Just had some limit buy orders for GBTC hit in my IRA. God help me I now own* my first Bitcoin through a 3rd party intermediary I have to trust (* own as in have a legal claim to, but lack possession and thus lack true ownership).

The premium has come down a lot, my purchase was only ~$35 over coinbase's spot price. What's strange is my buy is below the day's low being reported...

Please don't f me Barry.
TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
June 18, 2015, 05:31:34 PM
 #26828

Well the vested interest is very clear. You don't really give a hoot about what happens to the world (even though you convince yourself otherwise). You want Bitcoin to the moon because you feel it is the easiest way for you to make ROI. Volatile altcoins or other investments would be so much more difficult than the...

The sure thing.

Until it is not...

Yeah buy this deadcat ramp to $315. (which I told you in May was coming as predicted by Armstrong's model of public vs. private assets)

After that, it will get much more interesting.  Cool

(and buying an IRA that will be confiscated by ObamaHillary Clinton, lol)

thezerg
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1246


View Profile
June 18, 2015, 05:37:17 PM
 #26829


Thanks!  It was a very succinct way of offering support to Justus without dropping the trivial +1 moniker.  In fact, about 50% shorter than your showing of support of my support.  If you practice a bit, I'm sure you'll discover how to get to the brevity, the essence, no no can I even claim  --- the Zen mastery --- of encouragement postings.  Grin
tvbcof
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1988


View Profile
June 18, 2015, 06:39:17 PM
 #26830


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.

Complete Bullshit. That is the natural carbon circulation. Taking carbon out of the ground and transport it into the atmosphere and the ocean means to enrich the atmosphere and the ocean with additional carbon. Every child understands it.

Even a child can understand that Santa came down the chimney, ate the cookies, drank the milk, and dropped off a load of presents.

CO2 is a trace gas in our atmosphere.  Currently around 400 ppmv or 0.04%.

Combustion of fossil fuels accounts for about 5% or so of the total release of CO2 into the atmosphere per year.  Natural processes release and absorb many times that per year.

Here's a concept that 'even a child can understand.'  If one is protecting oneself from a bullet by hiding behind an armor plate, adding another armor plate does not materially effect the outcome.  This principle applies to CO2 as a greenhouse gas in the atmosphere in that the impacts of increasing concentrations of CO2 approach nill.  Graphic:

 -> http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/clip_image002_thumb7.jpg?w=619&h=376 <-

In terms of 'greenhouse gasses' water vapor is the most crucial.  The dispute is actually about whether there is a positive or negative feedback loop.  Evidence is piling up that those who panic about a positive feedback loop are wrong.  Unfortunately, politics has damaged science to the extent that it will be difficult to understand if there is a threat here which is worth the (devastating) sacrifices needed to address it.  I lay the blame for this almost completely on the 'warmunista' side of the battle.

Bringing it home:

Coupled with the unavoidable bleak numbers coming out of even the most chicken-little science circles and realities about sizes of economies and such, the best most people can do in terms of justifying specific actions is the claim that such action will make them 'recognized as global leaders in the fight against climate change.'  This is what my state of Oregon is claiming as the benefits of charging everyone a few more bucks every time they go to the gas station.

It's pretty nebulous where the money will end up which is most likely be design.  Certainly some of it will end up in various green boondoggles as has already been the case.  Ultimately what our 'actions' here in the state of Oregon will achieve is to may us 'recognized as world-class chumps.'  Oh well.  I can afford an extra $0.20/gal for gasoline but I feel for those who are more on-the-edge and cannot.  My historically progressive concepts of 'social justice' and long held feelings about progressive/regressive taxation have not changed much so I am opposed to such scammery on multiple levels.


rocks
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1153


View Profile
June 18, 2015, 07:12:46 PM
 #26831

In terms of 'greenhouse gasses' water vapor is the most crucial.  The dispute is actually about whether there is a positive or negative feedback loop.  Evidence is piling up that those who panic about a positive feedback loop are wrong.  Unfortunately, politics has damaged science to the extent that it will be difficult to understand if there is a threat here which is worth the (devastating) sacrifices needed to address it.  I lay the blame for this almost completely on the 'warmunista' side of the battle.

This is what is so absurd about the whole thing, the original theory has been proven objectively incorrect, yet the theory continues as a mass delusion.

The global warming theory was predicated on a "if A, then B, then C" hypothesis, where B never happened. The original (and still current) theory is increases in CO2, increase water vapor, which in turn warms the atmosphere. But water vapor did not change in any manner predicted or needed for the theory to work. Thus the theory is wrong, QED. But I'm called the anti-science denier (often in racist terms).

As with everything, it is a scam for a narrow set of politically connected people (i.e. climate "scientists" and the green industry) to extract money from the public through the government. That is all it is.

Take away the free government money (enabled by the dollar) and the scams stop, or at least decrease significantly.
Adrian-x
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1330



View Profile
June 18, 2015, 08:15:06 PM
 #26832


And you are incorrect to assume that Zaradude was arguing about environment. He is not.

I was arguing about the climate of the environment, just as Nassim Taleb:

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.



I think we can all agree that "green initiatives" can lead to greater environmental harm through subsidies and waste, and that systems like carbon credits probably serve to enrich and empower such regulators, but it is still crucially importantly to be aware of our individual and collective impact upon Mother Earth (for example, realizing everything's means to their ends) regardless of said political pandering.

I think we can all agree that Nassim Taleb is saying: We should not enrich the atmosphere with additional carbon, since we do not know the result of such crazy experiments.

I'm behind you 100% but who is "We" in the statement above. We is not you and me it's the central controllers, who arguably are corrupted by TPTB. its not that we need to convince the central controllers to manage how we pollution by electing a centralized authority. that idea is now broken. But that we need the correct incentives to pollute sustainably.

the problem is real when you look at the science I was a skeptic well over a decade ago until a simple experiment proved it empirically and changed my viewpoint, basically that Co2 absorbs infrared energy and then radiates the stored energy over time.

the problem is not that the managers are doing a bad job managing Co2 or any pollutants for that matter the real problem is economic. We need 3% exponential economic growth every year to stay flush, this  results in an acceleration of the consumption of raw materials, and benefits those who consume the most resources before inflation so they can profit off consumer spending post inflation. We can thank Milton Friedman for the idea.

The thing the managers fear the most is deflation, in a deflation scenario deferred consumption is rewarded. this mode of being would drastically reduce pollution and the exploration of natural resources.
the solution is very different from what we have now, and the change is something we ether embrace or gets forced on us, our managers (the controllers who should be defining a sustainable system) are just shuffling deck chars on the titanic. TPTB_need_war, types are just messing up the water for the rest of us so the actual PTB can maintain control.

our environmental problems are not so much a byproduct of progress, but a byproduct of a sick economic system. if we the collective who need the environment all made sacrifices without correcting the economic problem, the cancer would just grow to consume what we don't.  the idea of cap and trade is also a faker it's worse than the money problem because financial institutions can manipulate carbon credits into existence.  

The People's Cap-And-Trade by James D'Angelo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fCtf9eumuhU is the first proposal I think has merit in reducing unsustainable ecological impact - Bitcoin being the first.



Thank me in Bits 12MwnzxtprG2mHm3rKdgi7NmJKCypsMMQw
Adrian-x
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1330



View Profile
June 18, 2015, 08:21:46 PM
 #26833

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

http://www.bitcoinity.org/markets/bitfinex/USD

talk about bullish posturing:



is it because of Greece or is it some whale who feels bitcoin may have a future now that Blockstream are not so strong.

Thank me in Bits 12MwnzxtprG2mHm3rKdgi7NmJKCypsMMQw
Zarathustra
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 938


View Profile
June 18, 2015, 09:03:07 PM
 #26834


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.

Complete Bullshit. That is the natural carbon circulation. Taking carbon out of the ground and transport it into the atmosphere and the ocean means to enrich the atmosphere and the ocean with additional carbon. Every child understands it.

Even a child can understand that Santa came down the chimney, ate the cookies, drank the milk, and dropped off a load of presents.

CO2 is a trace gas in our atmosphere.  Currently around 400 ppmv or 0.04%.

Combustion of fossil fuels accounts for about 5% or so of the total release of CO2 into the atmosphere per year.  Natural processes release and absorb many times that per year.

Here's a concept that 'even a child can understand.' 



- He wasn't driving drunk, he just had a trace of blood alcohol; 800 ppm (0.08%) is the limit in all 50 US states, and limits are lower in most other countries).

- Don't worry about your iron deficiency, iron is only 4.4 ppm of your body's atoms (Sterner and Eiser, 2002).

- Ireland isn't important; it's only 660 ppm (0.066%) of the world population.

- That ibuprofen pill can't do you any good; it's only 3 ppm of your body weight (200 mg in 60 kg person).

- The Earth is insignificant, it's only 3 ppm of the mass of the solar system.

- Your children can drink that water, it only contains a trace of arsenic (0.01 ppm is the WHO and US EPA limit).

- Ozone is only a trace gas: 0.1 ppm

"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."
TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
June 18, 2015, 09:08:57 PM
 #26835


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.

Complete Bullshit. That is the natural carbon circulation. Taking carbon out of the ground and transport it into the atmosphere and the ocean means to enrich the atmosphere and the ocean with additional carbon. Every child understands it.

Even a child can understand that Santa came down the chimney, ate the cookies, drank the milk, and dropped off a load of presents.

CO2 is a trace gas in our atmosphere.  Currently around 400 ppmv or 0.04%.

Combustion of fossil fuels accounts for about 5% or so of the total release of CO2 into the atmosphere per year.  Natural processes release and absorb many times that per year.

Here's a concept that 'even a child can understand.'



- He wasn't driving drunk, he just had a trace of blood alcohol; 800 ppm (0.08%) is the limit in all 50 US states, and limits are lower in most other countries).

- Don't worry about your iron deficiency, iron is only 4.4 ppm of your body's atoms (Sterner and Eiser, 2002).

- Ireland isn't important; it's only 660 ppm (0.066%) of the world population.

- That ibuprofen pill can't do you any good; it's only 3 ppm of your body weight (200 mg in 60 kg person).

- The Earth is insignificant, it's only 3 ppm of the mass of the solar system.

- Your children can drink that water, it only contains a trace of arsenic (0.01 ppm is the WHO and US EPA limit).

- Ozone is only a trace gas: 0.1 ppm

Increasing any of those trace quantities by 5% has what effect?  Roll Eyes

tvbcof you see most people don't do logic. Stay hinged to them at the hip via Bitcoin Core or XT and suffer their fate. Buy an anonymous pegged BTC side chain and speculate on some of its coins and prosper. It is your choice. You must make it.

Zarathustra
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 938


View Profile
June 18, 2015, 09:10:57 PM
 #26836


Combustion of fossil fuels accounts for about 5% or so of the total release of CO2 into the atmosphere per year.  Natural processes release and absorb many times that per year.


This is one of the dumbest 'arguments' of the anthropocentric truthers and bible throwers.

The natural process is a carbon circulation. Combustion of fossil fuels takes carbon out of the ground and transfers it into the ocean and the atmosphere.

"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."
zanzibar
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 334


View Profile
June 18, 2015, 09:18:36 PM
 #26837


This is one of the dumbest 'arguments' of the anthropocentric truthers and bible throwers.

The natural process is a carbon circulation. Combustion of fossil fuels takes carbon out of the ground and transfers it into the ocean and the atmosphere.

+1, it's why we'll probably be extinct in about 150 years, we still have people denying the inevitable. 
TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
June 18, 2015, 09:21:11 PM
 #26838


This is one of the dumbest 'arguments' of the anthropocentric truthers and bible throwers.

The natural process is a carbon circulation. Combustion of fossil fuels takes carbon out of the ground and transfers it into the ocean and the atmosphere.

+1, it's why we'll probably be extinct in about 150 years, we still have people denying the inevitable.  

You'll be culled precisely because you follow this nonsense.

I plan to fork away from your nonsense, so I won't be dragged into the abyss with you. Make your choice.

rocks
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1153


View Profile
June 18, 2015, 09:28:53 PM
 #26839


Combustion of fossil fuels accounts for about 5% or so of the total release of CO2 into the atmosphere per year.  Natural processes release and absorb many times that per year.


This is one of the dumbest 'arguments' of the anthropocentric truthers and bible throwers.

The natural process is a carbon circulation. Combustion of fossil fuels takes carbon out of the ground and transfers it into the ocean and the atmosphere.

It is not a circulation but a pump which over time slowly puts more and more carbon into the ground from out of the air. This is why the long term carbon graphs show carbon as constantly decreasing at a steady rate over millions of years. The amount we've taken out and put back into the air is a fraction of what was put into the ground over just the past 100M years.

In fact, this removal was/is a problem. Without mankind's intervention, atmospheric carbon would have dropped below the level require for photosynthesis in not too far into the future (geologically speaking, I think the forecast was ~10M years). It is very accurate to say that without the industrial era life on the earth would have run into issues.

One of the founders of Green Peace has a great discussion on this. He argues that we should be trying to extract carbon out of the ground to reverse this process and ensure a buffer, and shows how in the big picture we'd still be a levels which are historically low for the earth.

The reality is mankind will probably only develop the technology to extract enough carbon to get the earth back to where it was 100M years ago, which in the big picture is not much. Nuclear/wind/solar will be much cheaper alternatives after that because most of the carbon is just too difficult or uneconomical to get to.

Edit:
http://news.heartland.org/newspaper-article/2015/03/20/why-i-am-climate-change-skeptic

Quote
Human Emissions Saved Planet

Over the past 150 million years, carbon dioxide had been drawn down steadily (by plants) from about 3,000 parts per million to about 280 parts per million before the Industrial Revolution. If this trend continued, the carbon dioxide level would have become too low to support life on Earth. Human fossil fuel use and clearing land for crops have boosted carbon dioxide from its lowest level in the history of the Earth back to 400 parts per million today.

At 400 parts per million, all our food crops, forests, and natural ecosystems are still on a starvation diet for carbon dioxide. The optimum level of carbon dioxide for plant growth, given enough water and nutrients, is about 1,500 parts per million, nearly four times higher than today. Greenhouse growers inject carbon-dioxide to increase yields. Farms and forests will produce more if carbon-dioxide keeps rising.

We have no proof increased carbon dioxide is responsible for the earth’s slight warming over the past 300 years. There has been no significant warming for 18 years while we have emitted 25 per cent of all the carbon dioxide ever emitted. Carbon dioxide is vital for life on Earth and plants would like more of it. Which should we emphasize to our children?
NewLiberty
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1064


Gresham's Lawyer


View Profile WWW
June 18, 2015, 09:29:49 PM
 #26840

Just had some limit buy orders for GBTC hit in my IRA. God help me I now own* my first Bitcoin through a 3rd party intermediary I have to trust (* own as in have a legal claim to, but lack possession and thus lack true ownership).

The premium has come down a lot, my purchase was only ~$35 over coinbase's spot price. What's strange is my buy is below the day's low being reported...

Please don't f me Barry.

I'm right there with you.
401K funds without much other options that have a US CUSIP.

If/when the Winklevoss COIN materializes, the premium should normalize toward (or below) the actual bitcoin prices with the onset of competition, and shorting.

The question though... what will the bitcoin price be by then?  Who knows how long that will take.

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
Pages: « 1 ... 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 1391 1392 ... 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!