Bitcoin Forum
December 04, 2016, 12:23:32 PM *
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 ... 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 1393 1394 1395 1396 1397 1398 1399 1400 1401 1402 1403 1404 1405 1406 1407 1408 1409 1410 1411 1412 1413 1414 1415 1416 1417 ... 1560 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.  (Read 1804144 times)
TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
June 24, 2015, 05:58:11 AM
 #27321

Fun watching u two dance.. Get a room already! :p

Me and cypherdoc:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8qoys8eUn9k

And I only wanted to box  Shocked

(checking to make sure I still have all 21 fingers, toes, and ...)

1480854212
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1480854212

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1480854212
Reply with quote  #2

1480854212
Report to moderator
1480854212
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1480854212

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1480854212
Reply with quote  #2

1480854212
Report to moderator
1480854212
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1480854212

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1480854212
Reply with quote  #2

1480854212
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1480854212
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1480854212

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1480854212
Reply with quote  #2

1480854212
Report to moderator
tvbcof
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1974


View Profile
June 24, 2015, 06:06:25 AM
 #27322

Fun watching u two dance.. Get a room already! :p

Me and cypherdoc:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8qoys8eUn9k

And I only wanted to box  Shocked

Here's what inevitably happens to poor cypherdoc when he bothers me:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fnSpeGlc9ic

It's been going on for years but the guy never seems to learn.


cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
June 24, 2015, 06:10:50 AM
 #27323

let's list a few of the tactics employed by the Blockstream devs:

1.  appeal to authority- "the entire dev/technical community is against this"-which they're not if you look outside core dev.
2.  scare tactics- "if Bitcoin forks, it will fail"
3.  character assassination- "Gavin hasn't coded for over a year", "we are shocked by his behavior", "he's out courting merchants, exchanges, & miners behind our backs".

i honestly ask you, which of the 3 tactics has Gavin employed on Reddit or here?  my answer is NONE.  and here we yet another example of #2 tonite by gmax:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3awomg/how_the_bitcoin_experiment_might_fail/

he's getting pounded too.  and these are the reasons Blockstream will lose in the end.  no one trusts them.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
June 24, 2015, 06:12:47 AM
 #27324

Fun watching u two dance.. Get a room already! :p

Me and cypherdoc:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8qoys8eUn9k

And I only wanted to box  Shocked

Here's what inevitably happens to poor cypherdoc when he bothers me:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fnSpeGlc9ic

It's been going on for years but the guy never seems to learn.



no one cares for your socialist, elitist view around here except for maybe TPTB and a few others.  but go ahead, dream on.
TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
June 24, 2015, 06:36:13 AM
 #27325

the reasons Blockstream will lose in the end.  no one trusts them.

We don't need to trust them, just the technology.

The federated servers can't deviate, for if they do, the BTC will be considered stolen and implicitly blacklisted on the Bitcoin coin.

Side chains don't need federated servers after we've eliminated Bitcoin Core (moved all the BTC out of it), which I don't think will take long.

Sorry your ASICs will be paperweights.

You are astute at politics, but a technological whipping boy.

no one cares for your socialist, elitist view

The socialists, elitists include the gavinmikrophones who say we have to have one size fits all and no technological progress.


da2ce7
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1218


Live and Let Live


View Profile
June 24, 2015, 06:47:39 AM
 #27326

let's list a few of the tactics employed by the Blockstream devs:

1.  appeal to authority- "the entire dev/technical community is against this"-which they're not if you look outside core dev.
2.  scare tactics- "if Bitcoin forks, it will fail"
3.  character assassination- "Gavin hasn't coded for over a year", "we are shocked by his behavior", "he's out courting merchants, exchanges, & miners behind our backs".

i honestly ask you, which of the 3 tactics has Gavin employed on Reddit or here?  my answer is NONE.  and here we yet another example of #2 tonite by gmax:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3awomg/how_the_bitcoin_experiment_might_fail/

he's getting pounded too.  and these are the reasons Blockstream will lose in the end.  no one trusts them.


I've been closely following the debate, in-fact I even tried my hand at a proposal.

I'm a very cautious man by nature. I first want to comment how the core development team has so-far done an underrepresented engineering work in computer science in keeping the Bitcoin network running.  This achievement should not be under-stated.  They have really done an remarkable job.

Part of their success has been their extremely conservative nature. In the past, when changes have been rushed through, such as BIP 16 https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0016.mediawiki , without full consideration of the proposed alternatives (BIP 17) https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0017.mediawiki we have found serious issues with them in hindsight.

To quote:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/34mrtj/eli5_why_is_peter_todd_important_and_why_do_some/
Quote
[–]nullcGreg Maxwell - Bitcoin Expert 14 points 1 month ago*

To give an external perspective from Luke's on this;

I now agree that BIP17 was better; not just slightly better but very clearly better in important, meaningful ways.

At the time I preferred BIP16, in hindsight I made an error in reasoning-- part of this was that I incorrectly believed that the difference was smaller than it actually was: There were substantial differences in terms of limitations of P2SH that none of us (probably not even Luke) understood at the time. (I say not even Luke because Luke's primary argument was about the "aesthetics" of the implementation, which were not-- by themselves-- that persuasive to anyone.)

A lack of care in this deployment resulted in substantial non-trivial (3-5 blocks) network forks for a period of about two months. BIP16's irregularity resulted in alternative implementers being somewhat slower to implement and more error prone. Luke just gave a concrete example (the idiotic 520 byte limit; which I think we didn't even realize existed in BIP16 at the time, spec was updated later to mention it); another is that you can't combine multiple P2SH scripts, e.g. to get an OR where you can spend a coin with either a small script or a big one-- that one we knew existed but didn't give adequate thought to, it's turned out to be a rather annoying limitation.

At the time the fact that the BIP16 approach had more testing and work on it, especially after the embarrassing design reboot after OP_EVAL turned out to be vulnerability introducing, and Gavin's strong preference for it, combined with the assessment of "little difference" made me prefer BIP16; as anything else would have meant additional delays. In reality, it was basically years before there was widespread P2SH use, an additional delay would have been better. It's worth noting that the person (roconnor) who found the OP_EVAL flaw also preferred BIP17-- which was probably a sign we should have paid more attention to. It's not a big regret but I do consider it a lesson.

It didn't help that some people (mostly not Luke himself) tried to construct a public drama with non-technical community members over what was still just a kind of boring technical argument. Unfortunately; trying to make drama can have exactly the opposite effect of embedding people in their positions and making them immune to reason. It's almost universally a bad move if you care about achieving a high quality result. I keep trying to remind myself of the importance of deciding to be immune to political drama in order to avoid the failure modes it creates if you let it influence you.

You can see a chart of opinions at the time: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/P2SH_Votes BIP16 was a condorcet winner; but most people considered either approach acceptable.

Rushing important decisions is a fools game. A prudent person makes well informed and slow careful choices.


I would much prefer to suffer the discomfort of transaction fees being a few more cents, than to rush a hard fork and fuck up the community (the most valuable thing that Bitcoin has).

(From a Old Hat).

One off NP-Hard.
Zangelbert Bingledack
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1022


View Profile
June 24, 2015, 06:59:04 AM
 #27327

I'm less interested in rushing the hard fork than I was, now that it seems less likely that Bitcoin breaks due to full blocks.

High fees eventually is burdensome, but that's a much less urgent problem because it takes real adoption to get fees high and it ramps gently. Hopefully fees will give us a nice smooth ramp up in pain so that the need to hard fork can come smoothly to a head, rather than suddenly, leaving the holdouts with no ground to stand on so that consensus is easier, without having the pain be so sudden and intense that it results in a PR fiasco.

Gavin's plan to schedule a hard fork for a future date is fine with me, though, since it can always be unscheduled if necessary. In the meantime we can expect everything to be tried and tested so that we'll know whether it's really necessary and how much opposition there really is.

A fork will be necessary eventually either way, and everyone acknowledges that. Since the question is only "when and by how much,"  the ramping fees creates a nice gentle mounting of pressure toward consensus on exactly how the "raise the cap" vs. "optimize other ways" contours play out.
Bagatell
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 719



View Profile
June 24, 2015, 07:01:42 AM
 #27328

Quote
[–]nullcGreg Maxwell - Bitcoin Expert 14 points 1 month ago*

It didn't help that some people (mostly not Luke himself) tried to construct a public drama with non-technical community members over what was still just a kind of boring technical argument. Unfortunately; trying to make drama can have exactly the opposite effect of embedding people in their positions and making them immune to reason. It's almost universally a bad move if you care about achieving a high quality result. I keep trying to remind myself of the importance of deciding to be immune to political drama in order to avoid the failure modes it creates if you let it influence you.


And here we are again.
TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
June 24, 2015, 07:10:48 AM
 #27329

I'm less interested in rushing the hard fork than I was, now that it seems less likely that Bitcoin breaks due to full blocks.

I believe the rush was fabricated to draw Blockstream into a political cat fight which of course Gavinmike could win because the majority are easily hoodwinked by "this is for the masses" and Blockstream "is against progress" and are "elitists". I think they wanted to prevent side chains some how if they could gain control over the fork, such as blacklisting all BTC that went off chain.

That is why I urged Adam to cool it in public (no direct communication, just my posts and one unacknowledged private message).

Appears Gavinmike may be losing now as awareness is rising.

sickpig
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1106


View Profile
June 24, 2015, 07:32:38 AM
 #27330



As far as I remember the debate about the max block size cap started a "long" time ago,
an it risked to stall indefinitely.

In my opinion Gavin's conduct has objectively an accelerating effect on the decision
process. I dare to say that such "extreme" attitude had stimulated a lot devs
in focusing to find a solution and to come to a compromise.

I'm not saying that his proposal is perfect or better than any others on the table, just
stating that his strategy have moved the situation toward a new equilibrium by a long shot.

I agree. Gavin's threat of a unilateral hardfork did successfully concentrate minds on coming up with solutions to the problem. How do you know that his intention was not to stage a dev-team coup? He behaved exactly as if he really intended to, nothing suggested otherwise (although I don't claim to be aware of every bit of public commentary Gavin has made, as previously mentioned, I am not a twitter user  Grin)

I don't know as any other person who based his opinion on fact. I can for sure observe public community  reactions to Gavin's behaviour, though.

Well, the facts are that Gavin literally did just that; an alternative, hardforked client with a 20 MB block limit, and anyone from the core deve team that didn't like that could watch while he lobbies miners, services and merchants to accept the new client. That was what he said, he has not retracted it, nor confessed the ulterior motive you are affording him. Those are the facts, are they not?

Sure facts are facts, while speculation is another thing entirely.

Gaving did something and community at large react to his stimulation.

And I prise community reactions, in particular core devs reaction.  

From what I can see we're moving forward in the process of finding
a way to make bitcoin scale.

Just to make an example in the beginning of the debate a lot of devs
(core or not) did not acknowledge that a block size increase was needed
Now almost everybody, modulo mircea popescu and mpex group, agree
about some sort of increase.

This is a result of Gavin action, and I say a positive one.

Other less measurable, but nonetheless actual result, is the increasing pace
at which "layer 2" solutions are developed (Lightning Network, Sidechain, Payment
channels implementations etc etc).

Mind you I never said that Gavin's proposal are the best available technical
wise, I don't have enough knowledge, skills and time to make a proper judgement.


Bitcoin is a participatory system which ought to respect the right of self determinism of all of its users - Gregory Maxwell.
rocks
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1153


View Profile
June 24, 2015, 07:36:48 AM
 #27331

But polls show that Gavin has a clear majority... its just certain core devs who object and not on technical grounds.  And most of them are working for a single organization.  How is that "hectoring a community"?


It isn't. Who said that?

There is a difference between "we need a hard fork to increase the block size" and "Gavin's plan is the way to do it, (which ever plan he settles upon)"

Most all the devs want a hard fork to increase block size.  Very few are on board with Gavin's plan.
Anyhow, it looks like the Bitcoin Core hard fork will be more likely to progress from gmaxwell's BIP, and the XT fork from Gavins perhaps.
They may remain compatible until there is a block that one would process and the other wouldn't.

You can include me in that contingent: we do need a hard fork to increase the block size (and only for what that will achieve, buying time). Very few people are debating that now, and I myself have been aware of the scalability issue for almost as long as I've been interested in bitcoin.

Re: which designs will be implemented on which fork; I thought Gavin had decided against the hostile fork?

the use of the term hostile is propaganda.

its not hostile, it's only hostile if you are feeling threatened like maybe the majority of Core developer working on another another hard fork and want to leverage block size increase with your proposed improvements.

Telling the entire core dev team, the commercial bitcoin players and the bitcoin user community that if they didn't like it, they were powerless to stop him? This is friendly gesture in your eyes?

I'm not even being rhetorical using the word "hostile", Gavin and Mike's attitude was exactly that: hostile.

That is completely not the situation at all.

Gavin was clear that the intent was to let the bitcoin community decide, by enabling the community to have options they themselves could pick from (bitcoind, bitcoin XT). The reality of the current situation is the core devs have probably put in less than 1% of the coding infrastructure work to get the bitcoin ecosystem to where it is today, but simultaneously get to dictate almost all the terms. That makes no sense for an open platform.

Quote
Telling the entire core dev team, the commercial bitcoin players and the bitcoin user community that if they didn't like it, they were powerless to stop him? This is friendly gesture in your eyes?

Gavin simply enables choice, he has no power to force anything with that move. In fact the default no action is for people to stay with the blockstream team. People have to make a concious choice to switch to XT, while the "no vote" segment essentially votes no. The path Gavin offered with XT was in fact probably the hardest to make work simply because of that fact.

I've come to see a single core as being the single greatest threat to Bitcoin out of all of this. A better situation to me would be a bitcoin P2P network with several separately developed cores that adhere to a common set of rules. The upgrade path is then always put to a vote. Any one core could then propose a change simply by implementing it (with a rule that after x% of blocks back the change it becomes active).

Then if people like the change, more will move to that core. This in turn would cause the other core to adopt the change or lose their users, and that is how consensus is achieved. If a majority did not like the change, they would not move to that core, and the change would never be accepted.

At no point in this do any set of gatekeepers get to dictate terms. Since no core has a majority of users captured, change would always have to come through user acceptance and adoption, and developers would simply be proposers of options.
Carlton Banks
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 1470



View Profile
June 24, 2015, 07:43:05 AM
 #27332

I'm less interested in rushing the hard fork than I was, now that it seems less likely that Bitcoin breaks due to full blocks.

I sent transactions Monday during the test, I just picked some older outputs from the bottom of the wallet, and they confirmed after 1 block.

Vires in numeris
Carlton Banks
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 1470



View Profile
June 24, 2015, 07:52:18 AM
 #27333

Well, the facts are that Gavin literally did just that; an alternative, hardforked client with a 20 MB block limit, and anyone from the core deve team that didn't like that could watch while he lobbies miners, services and merchants to accept the new client. That was what he said, he has not retracted it, nor confessed the ulterior motive you are affording him. Those are the facts, are they not?

Sure facts are facts, while speculation is another thing entirely.

Gaving did something and community at large react to his stimulation.

And I prise community reactions, in particular core devs reaction.  

From what I can see we're moving forward in the process of finding
a way to make bitcoin scale.

Just to make an example in the beginning of the debate a lot of devs
(core or not) did not acknowledge that a block size increase was needed
Now almost everybody, modulo mircea popescu and mpex group, agree
about some sort of increase.

This is a result of Gavin action, and I say a positive one.

Other less measurable, but nonetheless actual result, is the increasing pace
at which "layer 2" solutions are developed (Lightning Network, Sidechain, Payment
channels implementations etc etc).

Speculating about what? I am sorry, but the only speculative statement in the above posts between you and I is the part where you assume Gavin was just acting, just doing this for the effect it would have. Again, that's not what he said, he has not retracted what he did say to confess his secret altruistic plan to get everyone talking, nor confessed the ulterior motive you are affording him.

Vires in numeris
TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
June 24, 2015, 07:52:56 AM
 #27334

I've come to see a single core as being the single greatest threat to Bitcoin out of all of this. A better situation to me would be a bitcoin P2P network with several separately developed cores that adhere to a common set of rules. The upgrade path is then always put to a vote. Any one core could then propose a change simply by implementing it (with a rule that after x% of blocks back the change it becomes active).

Then if people like the change, more will move to that core. This in turn would cause the other core to adopt the change or lose their users, and that is how consensus is achieved. If a majority did not like the change, they would not move to that core, and the change would never be accepted.

At no point in this do any set of gatekeepers get to dictate terms. Since no core has a majority of users captured, change would always have to come through user acceptance and adoption, and developers would simply be proposers of options.

You just reinvented pegged side chains.

sickpig
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1106


View Profile
June 24, 2015, 08:55:08 AM
 #27335

Well, the facts are that Gavin literally did just that; an alternative, hardforked client with a 20 MB block limit, and anyone from the core deve team that didn't like that could watch while he lobbies miners, services and merchants to accept the new client. That was what he said, he has not retracted it, nor confessed the ulterior motive you are affording him. Those are the facts, are they not?

Sure facts are facts, while speculation is another thing entirely.

Gaving did something and community at large react to his stimulation.

And I prise community reactions, in particular core devs reaction.  

From what I can see we're moving forward in the process of finding
a way to make bitcoin scale.

Just to make an example in the beginning of the debate a lot of devs
(core or not) did not acknowledge that a block size increase was needed
Now almost everybody, modulo mircea popescu and mpex group, agree
about some sort of increase.

This is a result of Gavin action, and I say a positive one.

Other less measurable, but nonetheless actual result, is the increasing pace
at which "layer 2" solutions are developed (Lightning Network, Sidechain, Payment
channels implementations etc etc).

Speculating about what? I am sorry, but the only speculative statement in the above posts between you and I is the part where you assume Gavin was just acting, just doing this for the effect it would have. Again, that's not what he said, he has not retracted what he did say to confess his secret altruistic plan to get everyone talking, nor confessed the ulterior motive you are affording him.

I'm not saying you're speculating and neither do I.

In fact I'm not assuming anything, not even that Gavin is just acting.

I'm just describing the facts as I see them, just to make clear that even if I want to,
and I don't, I can't determine real Gavin's intentions.

So the answer to your question
 
How do you know that his intention was not to stage a dev-team coup?

is still: I don't know, because it is impossible to determine his real intention.

Bitcoin is a participatory system which ought to respect the right of self determinism of all of its users - Gregory Maxwell.
Carlton Banks
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 1470



View Profile
June 24, 2015, 08:57:18 AM
 #27336

So the answer to your question:
 
How do you know that his intention was not to stage a dev-team coup?

is still: I don't know, because it is impossible to determine his real intention.


Agreed. It's a fundamental truism, applies pretty much universally. You cannot therefore say that Gavin's conduct was a good idea, only the outcome (which was in stark opposition to his conduct) was laudable.

Vires in numeris
NewLiberty
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1064


Gresham's Lawyer


View Profile WWW
June 24, 2015, 09:04:05 AM
 #27337

Other less measurable, but nonetheless actual result, is the increasing pace
at which "layer 2" solutions are developed (Lightning Network, Sidechain, Payment
channels implementations etc etc).

An accelerated delivery is not always a good thing for development quality.

I'm more of the opinion that Bitcoin will succeed, provided that it does not fail, and that a misstep can easily be worse than doing nothing.
Intelligent people may disagree with this.

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
sickpig
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1106


View Profile
June 24, 2015, 09:21:12 AM
 #27338

Other less measurable, but nonetheless actual result, is the increasing pace
at which "layer 2" solutions are developed (Lightning Network, Sidechain, Payment
channels implementations etc etc).

An accelerated delivery is not always a good thing for development quality.

I'm more of the opinion that Bitcoin will succeed, provided that it does not fail, and that a misstep can easily be worse than doing nothing.
Intelligent people may disagree with this.

I agree.

Going too fast is never a wise thing to do, especially when you're dealing
with ~3.5bn system that could potentially bring a huge change in our society.

I don't know if doing nothing is the right thing to do, though.

I suppose that all depends on the definition of "success".

Bitcoin is a participatory system which ought to respect the right of self determinism of all of its users - Gregory Maxwell.
hdbuck
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1134



View Profile
June 24, 2015, 09:33:15 AM
 #27339

Other less measurable, but nonetheless actual result, is the increasing pace
at which "layer 2" solutions are developed (Lightning Network, Sidechain, Payment
channels implementations etc etc).

An accelerated delivery is not always a good thing for development quality.

I'm more of the opinion that Bitcoin will succeed, provided that it does not fail, and that a misstep can easily be worse than doing nothing.
Intelligent people may disagree with this.

I'd say it depends what you mean by "succeed".

Do you mean price-wise, as in making you rich, or changing the face of the world and finance?
It appeared to me lately that whilst both outcomes should be complementary, it probably wont be when considering the details of the path we are now on.

Explaining myself:

Bitcoin, as a disruptive technology, is meant to disrupt, hence, tearing the ambiant status quo in its field - ie. finance.

However, it seems lately that the big names in its ecosystem are more concerned about their personal gain and position than working for the greater good: enter Wall Street, banks, ETFs, lobbyists, regulations, intelligencia, politics, etc...

Well imho that is a very risky move.. sustaining the old ways and powers in place is denaturing bitcoin's subversive part.

I like to refer to myself as a bitcoiner, plain and simple, waging between personal gain and paranoia.

The key aspect for bitcoin to success for me is its capacity of giving back a little power to the people, avoiding Big Bro in a lesser extent and its corrupted-to-the-bone establishment.

I understand financial freedom has a cost, but it seems we are just turning in circles here: the head of the spear being mortified by power, money, and secrecy.

So imho, Bitcoin will probably leave us with a bitter tasting, once they will be done with it.

But being a bitcoiner also imply being a little crazy and having a little faith Wink


Zarathustra
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 938


View Profile
June 24, 2015, 09:58:43 AM
 #27340

Nope, it is confirmed there is no global elite.

http://armstrongeconomics.com/archives/33771


Whether the society and its elite is national or international or both is irrelevant. Relevant is: Do you promote the society (collectivism/paternalism) or the community (anarchy, self-sufficiency).

I promote the local and global community with my cryptocoin (and other technology) work and my concept of the coming Knowledge Age. But for you this must be absolute and preclude knowledge sharing in a "global community of exchange / sharing". The latter part is where we differ and you are all tied up into your Mathusianism which clouds your vision.

My vision is not clouded.

http://www.sciencealert.com/it-s-official-we-re-on-the-brink-of-earth-s-sixth-mass-extinction

"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 ... 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 1393 1394 1395 1396 1397 1398 1399 1400 1401 1402 1403 1404 1405 1406 1407 1408 1409 1410 1411 1412 1413 1414 1415 1416 1417 ... 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!