Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[TPTB_need_war]

You've always been the disingenuous debater in every discussion I've ever had with you.

Cypherdoc expresses the security model (economic incentives to ensure miner honesty) nearly word-for-word out of the Bitcoin whitepaper, you accuse him of violating the (incorrectly) cite the whitepaper to say that he's wrong, I quote the section in question, and then you accuse me of being disingenuous?

Just keep on doing what you're doing - your own dishonesty is making my case better than anything I could say.

Yeah just keep on doing what you're doing dickhead (do you expect me to be nice after you intentionally slander me twice and both times you are in error?).

There you are being either "not the sharpest tool in the shed" or intentionally disingenuous again. There is no correlation between what Cypherdoc wrote and the whitepaper....

2.  i think that the majority of ppl in this world want to be honest and wish to live in a society that has order.  no one wants to live in chaos.  everybody loses.  in order for society to continue to progress and evolve, order, dependability, and a semblance of honesty is needed.  thus, in a system with so much potential to do good, like Bitcoin, the overwhelming desire is for participants to want to do what makes the system thrive.  to the extent that cheating, dishonesty, and colluding erodes confidence and threatens that goal, most participants will avoid those activities.

That is the same faith we put into a top-down democracy. Fact is a power vacuum sucks in those who can maximize the exploitation of the power vacuum.

You are violating the fundamental tenet of Satoshi's white paper which is decentralized trust, meaning we don't have to trust that people are honest.
...

[TPTB_need_war]

I have solved the design problem. I now know the Holy Grail design we need for crypto-currency.

sure you do.

Gloat while you can. You will eat those words.

[TPTB_need_war]

It's particularly rich coming from someone that changes their ID every 10 minutes.

Citation needed

https://bullbearanalytics.com/2014/09/23/whats-going-monero/

What does that have to do with me?

It's about TPTB_need_war, AKA AnonyMint, AKA TheFascistMind.

Character assassination attempt detected.

What the hell is wrong with not needing to rely on the crutch of my extensive reputation because I can intentionally close my Hero account (before the BCX incident!) and as a newbie be immediately respected as credible, accurate, logical, etc?

Any other dick envy you care to share today?

[justusranvier]

Yeah just keep on doing what you're doing dickhead (do you expect me to be nice after you intentionally slander me twice and both times you are in error?).

There you are being either "not the sharpest tool in the shed" or intentionally disingenuous again. There is no correlation between what Cypherdoc wrote and the whitepaper....

Let's put some context in those quotes:

2 things:

1.  i think ppl under-appreciate the extent to which all participants in Bitcoin, including miners, volunteer and want to be part of a system that has the potential to make themselves extraordinary profits if it works as intended that being in an open, honest manner.  there's a lot at stake in constructing a new financial system and those profits can only be made if it works properly as advertised in that open and honest manner that ordinary ppl can depend on.  this is what will result in the trust needed so that the vast majority of humanity can buy into such a reliable system.

2.  i think that the majority of ppl in this world want to be honest and wish to live in a society that has order.  no one wants to live in chaos.  everybody loses.  in order for society to continue to progress and evolve, order, dependability, and a semblance of honesty is needed.  thus, in a system with so much potential to do good, like Bitcoin, the overwhelming desire is for participants to want to do what makes the system thrive.  to the extent that cheating, dishonesty, and colluding erodes confidence and threatens that goal, most participants will avoid those activities.

I don't know about everyone else, but it looks to me like Cypherdoc's point #2 clearly follows from point #1.

Where else have I heard something like point #1 expressed before?

6. Incentive

By convention, the first transaction in a block is a special transaction that starts a new coin owned by the creator of the block. This adds an incentive for nodes to support the network, and provides a way to initially distribute coins into circulation, since there is no central authority to issue them. The steady addition of a constant of amount of new coins is analogous to gold miners expending resources to add gold to circulation. In our case, it is CPU time and electricity that is expended.

The incentive can also be funded with transaction fees. If the output value of a transaction is less than its input value, the difference is a transaction fee that is added to the incentive value of the block containing the transaction. Once a predetermined number of coins have entered circulation, the incentive can transition entirely to transaction fees and be completely inflation free.

The incentive may help encourage nodes to stay honest. If a greedy attacker is able to assemble more CPU power than all the honest nodes, he would have to choose between using it to defraud people by stealing back his payments, or using it to generate new coins. He ought to find it more profitable to play by the rules, such rules that favour him with more new coins than everyone else combined, than to undermine the system and the validity of his own wealth.

What was your specific accusation against Cypherdoc again?

2.  i think that the majority of ppl in this world want to be honest and wish to live in a society that has order.  no one wants to live in chaos.  everybody loses.  in order for society to continue to progress and evolve, order, dependability, and a semblance of honesty is needed.  thus, in a system with so much potential to do good, like Bitcoin, the overwhelming desire is for participants to want to do what makes the system thrive.  to the extent that cheating, dishonesty, and colluding erodes confidence and threatens that goal, most participants will avoid those activities.

That is the same faith we put into a top-down democracy. Fact is a power vacuum sucks in those who can maximize the exploitation of the power vacuum.

You are violating the fundamental tenet of Satoshi's white paper which is decentralized trust, meaning we don't have to trust that people are honest.

Maybe it would help your argument if you employed more insults, or maybe created a few new sockpuppet accounts.

Since logic, evidence, and rational discourse don't appear to be in your toolbox, just stick with the "shouting down your opponents" approach.

[TPTB_need_war]

justusranvier, keep trying to obfuscate your slander instead of apologizing for your mistake.

[ErisDiscordia]

well this has sadly always been the problem of anonymint. He seems to have interesting ideas and insights but makes it extremely hard to penetrate them and engage in meaningful discussion due to his confrontational and arrogant style of posting. When you keep calling anyone and everyone dickheads while gloating about your superior intelligence and insight, it's hard to have a constructive discussion. I found this to be sad, because I wanted to talk about what he had to say (seemed interesting in many aspects), but gave up eventually because of that.

Everyone please be nice to each other. This thread has some interesting and insightful discussions at time (I know I have learned a lot here) and the price of admission for that kind of level of discourse is that we don't let our egos run rampant here.

[TPTB_need_war]

You are violating the fundamental tenet of Satoshi's white paper which is decentralized trust, meaning we don't have to trust that people are honest.

Note I didn't write what you bolded, i.e. I didn't write that he violated any random statement in the whitepaper. I wrote specifically he is violating the fundamental tenet which I asserted is, "decentralized trust, meaning we don't have to trust that people are honest".

Fundamental tenet is not the same as some aside for the abnormal case of 50% attack.

Since you seem to lack logic skills, you are a waste of my time.

Fuck off.

[inca]

It's particularly rich coming from someone that changes their ID every 10 minutes.

Citation needed

https://bullbearanalytics.com/2014/09/23/whats-going-monero/

What does that have to do with me?

It's about TPTB_need_war, AKA AnonyMint, AKA TheFascistMind.

What the hell is wrong with not needing to rely on the crutch of my extensive reputation because I can intentionally close my Hero account (before the BCX incident!) and as a newbie be immediately respected as credible, accurate, logical, etc?

Lol.

[TPTB_need_war]

well this has sadly always been the problem of anonymint.

I speak frankly and accurately. With precise logic, because I am a programmer.

I don't deal with people who have fuzzy logic, low reading comprehension such as I just explained above for the case of justusranvier.

There is nothing sad about not wasting time on B-listers and altcoins going nowhere no matter how many B-listers you have working on it.

[Bagatell]

It's particularly rich coming from someone that changes their ID every 10 minutes.

Citation needed

https://bullbearanalytics.com/2014/09/23/whats-going-monero/

What does that have to do with me?

It's about TPTB_need_war, AKA AnonyMint, AKA TheFascistMind.

Character assassination attempt detected.

It was you who called Justus disingenuous.

[TPTB_need_war]

It was you who called Justus disingenuous.

And I am factually correct.

He is attempting to protect his buddy and failed the logic miserably.

[ssmc2]

^Yeeeahhhh ignored ^

[inca]

^Yeeeahhhh ignored ^

I just succumbed..we are weak!

[TPTB_need_war]

I feel like I am back in kindergarten again. A bunch of jealous B-listers playing "nananana" my ears are covered games.

[ErisDiscordia]

well this has sadly always been the problem of anonymint.

I speak frankly and accurately. With precise logic, because I am a programmer.

I don't deal with people who have fuzzy logic, low reading comprehension such as I just explained above for the case of justusranvier.

well the trouble with this seems to be that it is you who gets to define by your own standards what exactly constitutes "precise logic" and "fuzzy logic". When following your debates I couldn't shake the feeling that participants were being downgraded to "low-intelligence beta-males" based on whether or not they agreed with your premises and the conclusions you drew from them and not based on any sort of "objective" evaluation of their intelligence/debating skills. So yeah after I saw that obviously I can't change the way you're posting I gave up on a meaningful discussion and just started trolling you I suspect you put me on ignore after that. Ah well, as long as you present some worthwhile interesting material you might be forgiven even for your nasty attitude

[TPTB_need_war]

well the trouble with this seems to be that it is you who gets to define by your own standards what exactly constitutes "precise logic" and "fuzzy logic".

What aspect of the following is not a clear failure of logic on the part of justusranvier?

You are violating the fundamental tenet of Satoshi's white paper which is decentralized trust, meaning we don't have to trust that people are honest.

Note I didn't write what you bolded, i.e. I didn't write that he violated any random statement in the whitepaper. I wrote specifically he is violating the fundamental tenet which I asserted is, "decentralized trust, meaning we don't have to trust that people are honest".

Fundamental tenet is not the same as some aside for the abnormal case of 50% attack.

Since you seem to lack logic skills, you are a waste of my time.

justusranvier, gets so excited to defend his buddy that he failed to read the entire sentence and just focused on finding any random statement in the whitepaper that might be somewhat close to what his buddy was saying. But that is not a refutation of what I wrote, because I didn't allow for any random statement from the whitepaper.

He would need to question my assertion of what is the fundamental tenet of the Satoshi's invention. I claim it is the Byzantine General's solution and not the abnormal case of a 50% attack.

[ErisDiscordia]

I am sorry but I don't see any quote by justus in there...

Please let us not clog up this thread with personal attacks and prick-waving 

my last post concerning this matter.

[justusranvier]

Something that's more interesting than the anonymint noise is the under-appreciated fact that Satoshi believed Bitcoin's profit incentives were so strong that even if an individual accumulated a majority of the hashing power their desire to be profitable in bitcoin terms would be so strong that they wouldn't use that power to attack the network.

Maybe he was right and maybe he was wrong, but the people who are insisting that Bitcoin mining is too centralized should at least start out making their arguments by acknowledging that position and explaining why they believe it is incorrect.

[TPTB_need_war]

I am sorry but I don't see any quote by justus in there...

Please let us not clog up this thread with personal attacks and prick-waving  

my last post concerning this matter.

So you can't tie in the several posts and figure out the failure in logic, yet you then claim that I don't win the logic arguments.

Your laziness is not an excuse for slandering my reputation.

I do win nearly all of the logic battles (and I always mea culpa the rare ones I don't).

[TPTB_need_war]

Something that's more interesting than the anonymint noise

There you go again slandering while losing the upthread logic debate. Sheesh you have no shame and no "mea culpa" honor.

is the under-appreciated fact that Satoshi believed Bitcoin's profit incentives were so strong that even if an individual accumulated a majority of the hashing power their desire to be profitable in bitcoin terms would be so strong that they wouldn't use that power to attack the network.

Maybe he was right and maybe he was wrong, but the people who are insisting that Bitcoin mining is too centralized should at least start out making their arguments by acknowledging that position and explaining why they believe it is incorrect.

In section 4, he says "one CPU, one vote". He is laying out the idealistic case for the Holy Grail of decentralized trust.

You are referring to the exceptional case where he elaborates on the abnormal case where an entity (not necessary one "individual") acquires 50+% of the hashrate. I am not unwilling to discuss his stance on this, but we must start by admitting he didn't think this was the likely case. He believed the "one CPU, one vote" was the likely case, or at least for several years. He was aware that over time it could have to become centralized.

But we were pitched the idealistic case to get us to clamor for and support Bitcoin. And it is that Holy Grail of decentralized trust that is really driving us ideologically to crypto.