Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[cypherdoc]

The legal authority for the National Security Agency’s bulk collection of telephone metadata derives from Section 215 of the Patriot Act, and that section is due to expire on June 1.

https://threatpost.com/tech-companies-privacy-advocates-call-for-nsa-reform/111805

[1713517107]

1713517107

[1713517107]

1713517107

[1713517107]

1713517107

[1713517107]

1713517107

[1713517107]

1713517107

[cypherdoc]

Stocks getting pounded today, and yes Pruden, i still like the Dow Theory non conf:

[ssmc2]

http://mashable.com/2015/03/25/google-pony-express/

[cypherdoc]

John Nash still going strong.  Amazing:

https://www.sciencenews.org/blog/science-ticker/john-nash-louis-nirenberg-share-math%E2%80%99s-abel-prize

Remember Nash on gold & Bitcoin?:

http://cryptogeeks.com/bitcoin-john-nash-talking-about-bitcoin-all-respect-i-dont-understand-anything

also, the Nash Equilibrium and mining.

[cypherdoc]

no one wants to hear it but Jim Grant lays it on the line again:

Jim Grant: Fed’s Emergency Maneuvers More Likely To Hasten Actual Emergency

https://grabien.com/file.php?id=40434&searchorder=date

[sidhujag]

John Nash still going strong.  Amazing:

https://www.sciencenews.org/blog/science-ticker/john-nash-louis-nirenberg-share-math%E2%80%99s-abel-prize

Remember Nash on gold & Bitcoin?:

http://cryptogeeks.com/bitcoin-john-nash-talking-about-bitcoin-all-respect-i-dont-understand-anything

also, the Nash Equilibrium and mining.

I think he invented bitcoin

[Pruden]

Stocks getting pounded today, and yes Pruden, i still like the Dow Theory non conf:

It would have been a bad day if not for the fact that very few issues made a new 52-week low. This guarantees a bounce, which might set up a correction, like in early December, but for now longs are the place to be.

Still, economic surprises are very strong on the bad side this quarter. The good news is that the oil crash is over.

[cypherdoc]

John Nash still going strong.  Amazing:

https://www.sciencenews.org/blog/science-ticker/john-nash-louis-nirenberg-share-math%E2%80%99s-abel-prize

Remember Nash on gold & Bitcoin?:

http://cryptogeeks.com/bitcoin-john-nash-talking-about-bitcoin-all-respect-i-dont-understand-anything

also, the Nash Equilibrium and mining.

I think he invented bitcoin

we talked about this before.

i'm going thru more of his stuff.  i'm liking it.

[sickpig]

John Nash still going strong.  Amazing:

https://www.sciencenews.org/blog/science-ticker/john-nash-louis-nirenberg-share-math%E2%80%99s-abel-prize

Remember Nash on gold & Bitcoin?:

http://cryptogeeks.com/bitcoin-john-nash-talking-about-bitcoin-all-respect-i-dont-understand-anything

also, the Nash Equilibrium and mining.

I think he invented bitcoin

we talked about this before.

i'm going thru more of his stuff.  i'm liking it.

Search the  "Bitcoin 20MB fork" thread for traincarswreck's posts you'll find quite a few resources aimed to link Nash and bitcoin (mind you that he can be very "cryptic" at times:)

[Melbustus]

John Nash still going strong.  Amazing:

https://www.sciencenews.org/blog/science-ticker/john-nash-louis-nirenberg-share-math%E2%80%99s-abel-prize

Remember Nash on gold & Bitcoin?:

http://cryptogeeks.com/bitcoin-john-nash-talking-about-bitcoin-all-respect-i-dont-understand-anything

also, the Nash Equilibrium and mining.

I think he invented bitcoin

One of the stranger Satoshi theories: Satoshi == Nick Szabo == Wei Dai == John Nash. I skimmed this one night: http://fuk.io/who-is-satoshi-nakamoto-the-truth/ . Seems a bit nuts, even by Bitcoin standards.

[justusranvier]

One of the stranger Satoshi theories: Satoshi == Nick Szabo == Wei Dai == John Nash.

What if one person used all four of those aliases, then decided to obscure the trail even further by passing one or more of the identities to a successor, DPR-style?

[cypherdoc]

just watched his youtube lecture at Scranton in 2011.  dang, he knows everything about money; including current events.  aand, he thinks about it like we do.

[79b79aa8d5047da6d3XX]

The published piece to read would be: 'Ideal Money', John F. Nash, Jr.,  Southern Economic Journal, Vol. 69, No. 1 (Jul., 2002), pp. 4-11.

If someone can't get access and has a public repository where I can put a copy, I'd be glad to.

As for Nash being Satoshi ... very doubtful (the incomprehensible video starts with: "Bitcoin might not be it ... but gold or silver ..."). But he, like Hayek before him, has been talking about a nationless currency whose supply is outside of political control.

[iCEBREAKER]

i like Peter for the most part, but because his specialty is stirring the pot. 

Better version!

[smooth]

what happened to yours and everyone elses FUD about the pools themselves organizing to do it? 

Looks like a bitcoin core developer is expressing that same FUD!
Heresy!

Quick! Shoot him down!

https://twitter.com/petertoddbtc/status/572517325250801664?lang=en
https://twitter.com/petertoddbtc/status/572519382108139520
https://twitter.com/petertoddbtc/status/572519758769213440

whoa!  i guess if Peter Todd said it, it must be true!

look, i like Peter for the most part, but his specialty is stirring the pot. 

Every one of his statements is true.

It isn't that the split of hash across pools is fake, it is that there is absolutely no way to know, and the incentive to lie is both there and has increased.

It's quite silly to pretend this isn't a concern. The security model of mining is based on any actor's share being small. Small doesn't mean <=50% or even <20%, its more like 2% or maybe 0.2%.

[cypherdoc]

The published piece to read would be: 'Ideal Money', John F. Nash, Jr.,  Southern Economic Journal, Vol. 69, No. 1 (Jul., 2002), pp. 4-11.

If someone can't get access and has a public repository where I can put a copy, I'd be glad to.

As for Nash being Satoshi ... very doubtful (the incomprehensible video starts with: "Bitcoin might not be it ... but gold or silver ..."). But he, like Hayek before him, has been talking about a nationless currency whose supply is outside of political control.

i'd be interested.  look likes their a paywall...

[cypherdoc]

what happened to yours and everyone elses FUD about the pools themselves organizing to do it? 

Looks like a bitcoin core developer is expressing that same FUD!
Heresy!

Quick! Shoot him down!

https://twitter.com/petertoddbtc/status/572517325250801664?lang=en
https://twitter.com/petertoddbtc/status/572519382108139520
https://twitter.com/petertoddbtc/status/572519758769213440

whoa!  i guess if Peter Todd said it, it must be true!

look, i like Peter for the most part, but his specialty is stirring the pot. 

Every one of his statements is true.

It isn't that the split of hash across pools is fake, it is that there is absolutely no way to know, and the incentive to lie is both there and has increased.

It's quite silly to pretend this isn't a concern. The security model of mining is based on any actor's share being small. Small doesn't mean <=50% or even <20%, its more like 2% or maybe 0.2%.

you're certainly welcome to be concerned.  i'm not.  Nash's Equilibrium, whom we just happen to be talking about, looks to me to have distributed the hash rate nicely since the ghash incident according to the game theory.  and probably for the last time as the hash rate technological advances have plateaued.  this was expected as hardware is now becoming commoditized and comparably powered units can affordably get into the hands of smaller miners again.  they still have to associate with a pool, of course, but those pools are being diversified and spread quite obviously.

any attack by a gvt has also been discussed quite a bit.  there are thing that can be done by the network to block the source according to Gavin:
http://gavintech.blogspot.nl/2012/05/neutralizing-51-attack.html

If a 51% attacker stopped including all broadcast transactions in blocks "we" would quickly figure out a rule or rules to reject their blocks.

Something like "ignore a longer chain orphaning the current best chain if the sum(priorities of transactions included in new chain) is much less than sum(priorities of transactions in the part of the current best chain that would be orphaned)" would mean a 51% attacker would have to have both lots of hashing power AND lots of old, high-priority bitcoins to keep up a transaction-denial-of-service attack. And they'd pretty quickly run out of old, high-priority bitcoins and would be forced to either include other people's transactions or have their chain rejected.

I'm tempted to code that up and run some tests on a testnet-in-a-box, but there are much higher priority things on my TODO list; I don't think a 51% attack is likely. You'd spend a lot of time and money on an attack that "we" would neuter within a day or two.

there are lots of ppl monitoring the BC for just such an attack.  and for what?  double spend for a cup of coffee?  i don't think so.

[cypherdoc]

The published piece to read would be: 'Ideal Money', John F. Nash, Jr.,  Southern Economic Journal, Vol. 69, No. 1 (Jul., 2002), pp. 4-11.

If someone can't get access and has a public repository where I can put a copy, I'd be glad to.

As for Nash being Satoshi ... very doubtful (the incomprehensible video starts with: "Bitcoin might not be it ... but gold or silver ..."). But he, like Hayek before him, has been talking about a nationless currency whose supply is outside of political control.

i'd not heard this one before today:  Satoshi Nakamoto = IAmNash sato koto

interesting...

[tabnloz]

what happened to yours and everyone elses FUD about the pools themselves organizing to do it?  

Looks like a bitcoin core developer is expressing that same FUD!
Heresy!

Quick! Shoot him down!

https://twitter.com/petertoddbtc/status/572517325250801664?lang=en
https://twitter.com/petertoddbtc/status/572519382108139520
https://twitter.com/petertoddbtc/status/572519758769213440

whoa!  i guess if Peter Todd said it, it must be true!

look, i like Peter for the most part, but his specialty is stirring the pot.  

I didn't say that because he said it it must be true, I just show that it's not just a bunch of FUD by some bitcointalk trolls like you are trying to picture it.

i call you a troll b/c it's obvious to everyone around here that when you start a bunch of FUD threads that are meant to generate fear and selling, you lose credibility. like this one:  https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1001698.0  if you'll notice, i don't start threads.  i pretty much stay here b/c my goal is to generate and maintain quality, relatively academic Bitcoin discussion within this thread that has become known and has gained credibility.  i'm not into headlines, like you.  so yeah, if you enter here with that same FUD, i will call you out and expect something more from you.

Ok, so you think a thread on bitcointalk can influence the price of the BTC markets, and that is the reason I actually opened a thread. Not because I wanted to give my honest opinion about what I think is currently happening. Nah.
I opened similar threads when price was at $1000, $800, $570, $400 etc offering similar technical arguments. I guess those were FUD too.

I clearly see that in your thread you guys are not interested in reading any bearish/contrarian opinions without flagging it as FUD, bullshit and attacking the posters personally (even though they didn't do it in their posts expressing their opinions).
I never attacked anybody personally, just expressed an opinion.

You guys can carry on and jerk each other off while bitcoin unexpectedly dumps.

I remember Spiff talking about how he couldn't wait for the delusional bears to FUD and dump into his bids at $500-$390.
Because losing several billions of marketcap in one year is just the same as flash crashing for a few moments because of a $50k dump or whatever in 2010. Of course it would be the same.
Only fools think that "This Time is Different™".


Carry on good sir, I won't be posting in this thread from now on, don't worry.

Only fools think that this time is different.....like with automobiles, telephones, mobile phones, computers, the internet.

Ironic thing is, posters like WFTN are price trolls. They like to comment on how unthreatening & flawed bitcoin is (sarcastic 'this time its different'), but then go on to say it could be shutdown by governments.....presumably as its a disintermediating threat.

I would say all possibilities remain, but, like Cypher says, the longer it goes without happening, the more the industry expands, the more ingrained it becomes, the harder it will be to destroy intentionally. Theoretically a large company, govt could invest $50mn but how can you naked short it? Maybe Jim Cramer & the gang exposed by Deep Capture will get involved. They couldnt buy $50mn worth (except OTC) or they'd send it to the moon, and I think the US govt could be ruled out judging by their DPR auctions / Bitlicense proposals. A possibility would be Satoshi's stash, in the Dr Frankenstein trying to kill his own creation sense.

As for a financial company? The innovation of the blockchain (inseparable from bitcoin) is being increasingly acknowledged by all and sundry as a technological and financial breakthrough.  If it is anything like the internet revolution, we're talking multi trillion dollar economy. Just one company (AAPL) is poking through the $750bn mark.

[sidhujag]

John Nash still going strong.  Amazing:

https://www.sciencenews.org/blog/science-ticker/john-nash-louis-nirenberg-share-math%E2%80%99s-abel-prize

Remember Nash on gold & Bitcoin?:

http://cryptogeeks.com/bitcoin-john-nash-talking-about-bitcoin-all-respect-i-dont-understand-anything

also, the Nash Equilibrium and mining.

I think he invented bitcoin

One of the stranger Satoshi theories: Satoshi == Nick Szabo == Wei Dai == John Nash. I skimmed this one night: http://fuk.io/who-is-satoshi-nakamoto-the-truth/ . Seems a bit nuts, even by Bitcoin standards.

Not really.. he is really one of the few people who were capable of developing it and had incentive.. cryptographer, economist with knowledge of gov't workings, mathematician and hobby programmer (with help).. he goes out of his way to NOT mention bitcoin even when asked about it.. I suspect truth will come out when he passes.. although he looks to be in pretty good shape still. The name is obviously made up as noone exists by it, thus it is cryptically linked to the real identity.. perfect for a game theorist and cryptographer to play with people trying to find out. Satoshi === Nash