Bitcoin Forum
July 24, 2017, 07:00:10 AM *
News: Due to BIP91, it would starting now be prudent to require 5 times more confirmations than usual before trusting transactions.
 
   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 ... 1436 1437 1438 1439 1440 1441 1442 1443 1444 1445 1446 1447 1448 1449 1450 1451 1452 1453 1454 1455 1456 1457 1458 1459 1460 1461 1462 1463 1464 1465 1466 1467 1468 1469 1470 1471 1472 1473 1474 1475 1476 1477 1478 1479 1480 1481 1482 1483 1484 1485 [1486] 1487 1488 1489 1490 1491 1492 1493 1494 1495 1496 1497 1498 1499 1500 1501 1502 1503 1504 1505 1506 1507 1508 1509 1510 1511 1512 1513 1514 1515 1516 1517 1518 1519 1520 1521 1522 1523 1524 1525 1526 1527 1528 1529 1530 1531 1532 1533 1534 1535 1536 ... 1558 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.  (Read 1935936 times)
Zarathustra
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 980



View Profile
August 03, 2015, 11:36:35 AM
 #29701

You know what really is "lame as hell?"  Argumentum ad populum.   Wink

It's a good thing the legal system does not decide cases by popular sentiment, or else you'd be out ~3000 LeBronCoins.   Cheesy

Funny how it only became a real issue when I started wanting bigger blocks.

Yes, your hypocrisy became an issue when you begain accepting argumentum ad populum in one instance while in another rejecting it.

If you want to decide block size by a vote in the Court Of Reddit, why not do the same for your controversial hoard of coins' fate?   Huh

Same in this thread. The 1MB'ers constitute a minority of professional loosers.

Decentralized search
Search for products or services and get paid for it
pre-sale Token CAT
25 July 50% discount
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1500879610
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1500879610

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1500879610
Reply with quote  #2

1500879610
Report to moderator
1500879610
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1500879610

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1500879610
Reply with quote  #2

1500879610
Report to moderator
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
August 03, 2015, 02:04:59 PM
 #29702

8
You know what really is "lame as hell?"  Argumentum ad populum.   Wink

It's a good thing the legal system does not decide cases by popular sentiment, or else you'd be out ~3000 LeBronCoins.   Cheesy

Funny how it only became a real issue when I started wanting bigger blocks.

Yes, your hypocrisy became an issue when you begain accepting argumentum ad populum in one instance while in another rejecting it.

If you want to decide block size by a vote in the Court Of Reddit, why not do the same for your controversial hoard of coins' fate?   Huh

Same in this thread. The 1MB'ers constitute a minority of professional loosers.

Now, if I were as childish as the greedy Cripplecoiners, I'd jump up and down screaming, "see, see, Rekt!"
Adrian-x
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1358



View Profile
August 03, 2015, 03:14:36 PM
 #29703


IF AND ONLY IF technical and/or economic damage (IE actual congestion) occurs and persists as a direct result of the 1MB cap, the present controversy and contention will dissipate and be replaced by a rough consensus including MP.


The problem is that what you call "actual congestion" or "economic damage" may be called "nice fee market" by others.

Wrong.  The objective definition of "actual congestion" is "competitive fees no longer properly prioritizing their tx."


The problem is that what you call "competitive fees" may be called "economic damage" by others.

Actually what is refer to as "Competitive fees" or "economic damage" is actually artificial economic manipulation, competitive fees that results from a block size limit (limited money velocity) are in origin as benign to the market as artificial interest rates set by central bankers.

This type of manipulation is consistent with central planning. Marxist central planing just uses a shorter rope.

Thank me in Bits 12MwnzxtprG2mHm3rKdgi7NmJKCypsMMQw
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
August 03, 2015, 03:54:21 PM
 #29704


IF AND ONLY IF technical and/or economic damage (IE actual congestion) occurs and persists as a direct result of the 1MB cap, the present controversy and contention will dissipate and be replaced by a rough consensus including MP.


The problem is that what you call "actual congestion" or "economic damage" may be called "nice fee market" by others.

Wrong.  The objective definition of "actual congestion" is "competitive fees no longer properly prioritizing their tx."


The problem is that what you call "competitive fees" may be called "economic damage" by others.

Actually what is refer to as "Competitive fees" or "economic damage" is actually artificial economic manipulation, competitive fees that results from a block size limit (limited money velocity) are in original as benign to the market as artificial interest rates set by central bankers.

This type of manipulation is consistent with central planning. Marxist central planing just uses a shorter rope.

and that is exactly what the Cripplecoiners are all about.  they've all but admitted that it is not a technical limitation that they are worried about but that it is about preventing the "FreeShitArmy" from using Bitcoin.  i'm amazed at the level of greed being displayed.

personally, i've always thought about Bitcoin fitting into the "Sharing Economy" like most other disruptive businesses that are disrupting multiple spaces across the internet.  apparently, this is the last thing these guys want to do; SHARE.

the sad thing about it is that many of them are millenials whom i've always viewed as wanting to help vs my many greedy fellow boomers.  turns out that many of them are just as greedy and unwilling to share.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
August 03, 2015, 04:00:11 PM
 #29705

$DJI continuing to catch down to the $DJT.  $DJT valiantly trying to lie to you about everything being OK:

Jdj1727
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 336


View Profile
August 03, 2015, 04:02:05 PM
 #29706

You guys/girls hold gold/silver as well as BTC?
Meuh6879
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1316



View Profile
August 03, 2015, 04:07:59 PM
 #29707

Mark Karpeles retells the Mt. Gox story!
http://youtu.be/JCR3722ACTI?a  

that's even funny! how does he do that


like this : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EscuOuXx3JM
alternate : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YmHbYG7TGp4

cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
August 03, 2015, 04:09:02 PM
 #29708

remember this one?  how could you not?  i just showed this to you last Friday.  and many times before:

cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
August 03, 2015, 04:09:38 PM
 #29709

You guys/girls hold gold/silver as well as BTC?

not me. 
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
August 03, 2015, 04:39:18 PM
 #29710

here's the formalization of the stupidity behind TBI's inflation proposal last Friday:

https://medium.com/@twobitidiot/the-21mm-btc-soft-cap-71e14cd09946?source=tw-dd6a8357807c-1438618892173

but he does bring up a VERY good point that directly undermines the Cripplecoiner's case:

Now I know that centralization will decrease over time. Current holders will get diluted by a third as the remaining seven million bitcoins are mined. And as bitcoin appreciates in value, early investors will likely reduce their positions and lock in gains. So even those who could temporarily tank the market with large sell orders (intentionally or otherwise, read: Bearwhale) will probably be held at bay, and their power to truly manipulate market pricing is limited. (Wealth concentration isn’t really a risk to new long-term investors, but it does ensure that it will be take many, many years and probably several unmitigated wipeouts of derivatives markets before a healthy infrastructure can emerge.)

It seems a bit perverse that 100 private capitalists could reap enormous gains in the event that the currency become a developing economy reserve, but there’s nothing unique or inherently wrong about that dynamic. Without speculators, bitcoin won’t hit the critical market cap and liquidity it needs to emerge as a truly viable reserve. So again, the wealth concentration issue is just the weak argument for adding low inflation to bitcoin (to gradually dilute down the largest holders). It’s not an industry killer, but the optics probably suck enough to significantly constrain growth.


if we keep Cripplecoin as is and attempt to make it a "settlement layer" with only 100 or so private capitalists as owners, what is the likelihood that the other 6 billion users worldwide will come on board with this new system?  answer: they won't. it will be an even worse system of wealth concentration than we have today.  and with the attitudes displayed by the most vocal advocates of Cripplecoin advocates (both technical and non technical) in this thread and elsewhere, are these really the new economic masters you want to bow down to?  i say, "hell no".
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
August 03, 2015, 04:48:37 PM
 #29711

this can't be good:

Jdj1727
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 336


View Profile
August 03, 2015, 04:50:40 PM
 #29712

this can't be good:



Does NOT look promising. BTC on the other hand, is starting to build some nice momentum.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
August 03, 2015, 04:52:02 PM
 #29713

exactly what inflation are you talking about?  oil, food, miners, commodities all going DOWN.  all i hear is that great sucking sound and sweet smell of Deflation:

cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
August 03, 2015, 04:55:55 PM
 #29714

growth?  what f*cking growth?:





bad news for gold and silver.  the top 2 miners:



cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
August 03, 2015, 05:06:27 PM
 #29715

here's the formalization of the stupidity behind TBI's inflation proposal last Friday:

https://medium.com/@twobitidiot/the-21mm-btc-soft-cap-71e14cd09946?source=tw-dd6a8357807c-1438618892173

but he does bring up a VERY good point that directly undermines the Cripplecoiner's case:

Now I know that centralization will decrease over time. Current holders will get diluted by a third as the remaining seven million bitcoins are mined. And as bitcoin appreciates in value, early investors will likely reduce their positions and lock in gains. So even those who could temporarily tank the market with large sell orders (intentionally or otherwise, read: Bearwhale) will probably be held at bay, and their power to truly manipulate market pricing is limited. (Wealth concentration isn’t really a risk to new long-term investors, but it does ensure that it will be take many, many years and probably several unmitigated wipeouts of derivatives markets before a healthy infrastructure can emerge.)

It seems a bit perverse that 100 private capitalists could reap enormous gains in the event that the currency become a developing economy reserve, but there’s nothing unique or inherently wrong about that dynamic. Without speculators, bitcoin won’t hit the critical market cap and liquidity it needs to emerge as a truly viable reserve. So again, the wealth concentration issue is just the weak argument for adding low inflation to bitcoin (to gradually dilute down the largest holders). It’s not an industry killer, but the optics probably suck enough to significantly constrain growth.


if we keep Cripplecoin as is and attempt to make it a "settlement layer" with only 100 or so private capitalists as owners, what is the likelihood that the other 6 billion users worldwide will come on board with this new system?  answer: they won't. it will be an even worse system of wealth concentration than we have today.  and with the attitudes displayed by the most vocal advocates of Cripplecoin advocates (both technical and non technical) in this thread and elsewhere, are these really the new economic masters you want to bow down to?  i say, "hell no".

another quote from the blog:

One of the primary untested assumptions confronting the industry is that this anticipated fee-based mining incentive can work at scale. At best, that will mean that we probably end up with a network that is more expensive than existing card networks and money transfer options. At worst, that will mean that the network is constantly threatened by double spending attacks, undermining confidence in the entire bitcoin technology stack that is being built out today.

bold part mine.  Bitcoin won't get more expensive, fee-wise, if we bring on many, many more tx's onto the MAINchain that will help spread the costs and provide enough profit for mining to expand and grow.  this is why i'm so against all these offchain solutions that have been presented like SC's and LN.  furthermore, this isn't novel thinking; it was ALWAYS in the original Satoshi vision that these Cripplecoiner's are so quick to dismiss and trash. 
inca
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1148


View Profile
August 03, 2015, 05:24:07 PM
 #29716

Do any of you have any links to a side chain white paper or proposal for bitcoin? I am keen to read the technicals in a bit more detail.

Thanks..

or is this it: https://blockstream.com/sidechains.pdf
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
August 03, 2015, 05:28:40 PM
 #29717

Do any of you have any links to a side chain white paper or proposal for bitcoin? I am keen to read the technicals in a bit more detail.

Thanks..

or is this it: https://blockstream.com/sidechains.pdf

that's it
Wekkel
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1554



View Profile
August 03, 2015, 05:43:47 PM
 #29718

Soon, Barrick will be a penny stock if this trend persists.

Like this post? you can tip me (BTC) 18j7UBNfhWWfvwGwrtzWfUrp1v6RDerFkY or (XEM) NBXGH5-MXQPNL-T5TA3R-QCQYUX-3FIEXC-LGIKGT-H7XJ
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
August 03, 2015, 05:50:56 PM
 #29719

Soon, Barrick will be a penny stock if this trend persists.

and gold will be at $400
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
August 03, 2015, 05:51:51 PM
 #29720

oops, silver starting to crumble:

Pages: « 1 ... 1436 1437 1438 1439 1440 1441 1442 1443 1444 1445 1446 1447 1448 1449 1450 1451 1452 1453 1454 1455 1456 1457 1458 1459 1460 1461 1462 1463 1464 1465 1466 1467 1468 1469 1470 1471 1472 1473 1474 1475 1476 1477 1478 1479 1480 1481 1482 1483 1484 1485 [1486] 1487 1488 1489 1490 1491 1492 1493 1494 1495 1496 1497 1498 1499 1500 1501 1502 1503 1504 1505 1506 1507 1508 1509 1510 1511 1512 1513 1514 1515 1516 1517 1518 1519 1520 1521 1522 1523 1524 1525 1526 1527 1528 1529 1530 1531 1532 1533 1534 1535 1536 ... 1558 »
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!