Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[TPTB_need_war]

Any way, whether I am correct or not, this is my stance. I have given up on pop action driven by being a martyr.

I don't know how you can call yourself either white american or native american, as in both cultures staying true to freedom is not to be compromized by such temporary nuisances as prison and death?

In my personal case:

Altruistic: because I can be more effective by being available to code than I can be behind prison bars as a voice that the masses will ignore.

Selfish: I enjoy my life as it is now (especially I have no appear to eliminated the worst of the Multiple Sclerosis suffering from my daily life).

Remember the Biblical verse, "you are not of this world", "do not caste your pearls at swine".

I suppose I subscribe to Arlyn Rand's philosophy in the sense that I should only do what also benefits myself. I don't believe the humans should or would create a great society by acting entirely unselfishly. Without a selfish motive, I don't think evolution would function and nature would not be resilient. I enjoy being unselfish to the extent that is selfish overall (e.g. it makes me feel good, fosters a world that is better for me to live in, etc). For example when I do charity, I do it because for example I had experienced the same suffering and I know how much it would have helped me if someone had been similarly emphatic to my suffering.

As for the Americans in general, the people who existed at the time of Thomas Paine no longer exist. Even amongst the most independent-minded and rugged (rural) Americans, I bet you find them supporting all sorts of collective actions such as "Americans go kick ass on Saddam Hussein just as we did to the Japs".

The (too large) society has divided into so many pet peeves and the only thing holding it together is the debt and socialism economy. There is no cohesion and lurking is chaos because really the people have so many divergent opinions and fantasies. When the economy turns down hard, they will kill each other (actually I see this starting already on the news)

Consider this, most Americans today could not understand the language in "Common Sense"; whereas, apparently > 50% could comprehend that level of literary exposition at that time.

I am by no means claiming to be an expert on US History nor the current state of the USA, but I think it is obvious that the Puritans who suffered at the hands of the King then struggled to survive starvation in the USA, where in touch viscerally with the importance of freedom, economics, and knowledge. Whereas today Americans have never gone a day without food. They have no concept of suffering or hardship. They romanticize suffering as if something they know as "Children's International" on TV.

I come at this from the experience of being raised in pop culture in the USA and somehow rejecting it over a decade or two, and then experience real suffering and survival challenges, thus giving me perspective on my origin culture.

[1713564096]

1713564096

[1713564096]

1713564096

[1713564096]

1713564096

[TPTB_need_war]

I fully expect some governments to outlaw Monero in some ways, it is much more dangerous to them than Bitcoin. But it would be out of ignorance because Monero can be made transparent if required by law on a individual basis and not on a panopticon level like Bitcoin.

They don't need to outlaw Monero unless it becomes popular and used for paying for goods & services. They can just blacklist all BTC trades which didn't have KYC documentation. This effectively blacklists Monero since virtually no one pays directly in Monero for goods & services.

I don't (currently) see a niche where Monero would have any scale for users to resort to in that case. You'd have few 1000s of investors without a way to sell.

For me at this time, Monero is useful as a way to mix BTC -> XMR -> BTC. And as a speculation on people not understanding that Monero doesn't solve any other problem than that.

Sorry to be so blunt because I am really glad that Monero exists! I feel a sense of gratitude for Cryptonote and Monero, but how to express it if I also feel more needs to be done? Am I supposed to go volunteer my time to code on Monero and then have my commits be rejected due to political posturing and also probably not earn anything significant. I just don't know how to pay my appreciation without it looking like I am the enemy. Maybe I am the enemy. I'd rather be the cohort.

[Carlton Banks]

I don't know what your psychological problem is, but I am here to work on a serious solution to a very serious global problem. You may think I am up to some kind of gimick but you are sadly mistaken.

What I am doing now is a combination of:

1. Education (also for those who are lurking)
2. Demonstrating I have a grasp of concepts.

The only gimick you could rightfully claim is that I am making sure that the people who are with me can see clearly that I have a grasp of the issues and can retort or clarify. And correct, at some point one has to shut up if they expect to get any real work done.

It seems this discussion reached a crucial juncture wherein we are clarifying the fundamental differences that could apply to any crypto that is not Bitcoin. That is why I am participating.

I don't think you can claim that the posts I made today were vacuous.

This account is a blatant parody/caricature of "babbling deluded bitcoin loser with an inferiority complex", and I know I'm not the only person who perceives it that way. I will not tolerate any attempted association with me or anything I say. Get out (I realise it won't leave, but someone has to say something unambiguous every now and then, and attempting to talk to me is where I draw the line).

[Bagatell]

Technique #3 - 'TOPIC DILUTION'

Topic dilution is not only effective in forum sliding it is also very useful in keeping the forum readers on unrelated and non-productive issues. This is a critical and useful technique to cause a 'RESOURCE BURN.' By implementing continual and non-related postings that distract and disrupt (trolling ) the forum readers they are more effectively stopped from anything of any real productivity. If the intensity of gradual dilution is intense enough, the readers will effectively stop researching and simply slip into a 'gossip mode.' In this state they can be more easily misdirected away from facts towards uninformed conjecture and opinion. The less informed they are the more effective and easy it becomes to control the entire group in the direction that you would desire the group to go in. It must be stressed that a proper assessment of the psychological capabilities and levels of education is first determined of the group to determine at what level to 'drive in the wedge.' By being too far off topic too quickly it may trigger censorship by a forum moderator.

[stereotype]

Technique #3 - 'TOPIC DILUTION'

Topic dilution is not only effective in forum sliding it is also very useful in keeping the forum readers on unrelated and non-productive issues. This is a critical and useful technique to cause a 'RESOURCE BURN.' By implementing continual and non-related postings that distract and disrupt (trolling ) the forum readers they are more effectively stopped from anything of any real productivity. If the intensity of gradual dilution is intense enough, the readers will effectively stop researching and simply slip into a 'gossip mode.' In this state they can be more easily misdirected away from facts towards uninformed conjecture and opinion. The less informed they are the more effective and easy it becomes to control the entire group in the direction that you would desire the group to go in. It must be stressed that a proper assessment of the psychological capabilities and levels of education is first determined of the group to determine at what level to 'drive in the wedge.' By being too far off topic too quickly it may trigger censorship by a forum moderator.

I think that would afford too much credit to him, personally. I dont think he wants to actually argue or debate at all. To me, it looks like a character, short on ways to express himself in day to day life, who is able to regurgitate here, the dictionary he eats daily for breakfast.

I stopped reading his self-righteous rambling nonsense, because the few nuggets of apparent wisdom just didnt seem worth the effort to extract, from said ramblings.

Intelligent, yes. Wise, no way.

[TPTB_need_war]

I don't know what your psychological problem is, but I am here to work on a serious solution to a very serious global problem. You may think I am up to some kind of gimick but you are sadly mistaken.

What I am doing now is a combination of:

1. Education (also for those who are lurking)
2. Demonstrating I have a grasp of concepts.

The only gimick you could rightfully claim is that I am making sure that the people who are with me can see clearly that I have a grasp of the issues and can retort or clarify. And correct, at some point one has to shut up if they expect to get any real work done.

It seems this discussion reached a crucial juncture wherein we are clarifying the fundamental differences that could apply to any crypto that is not Bitcoin. That is why I am participating.

I don't think you can claim that the posts I made today were vacuous.

This account is a blatant parody/caricature of "babbling deluded bitcoin loser with an inferiority complex", and I know I'm not the only person who perceives it that way. I will not tolerate any attempted association with me or anything I say. Get out (I realise it won't leave, but someone has to say something unambiguous every now and then, and attempting to talk to me is where I draw the line).

Thanks for the motivation to make you eat those words. Please fire me up. You have no idea who you are talking down to.

Are you really a man of dark colored skin? (yes I am aware that negros have statistically lower IQs, doesn't necessary explain this case but it might especially if you are using an avatar which does not reflect who you are but rather some image you want to present)

[TPTB_need_war]

Technique #3 - 'TOPIC DILUTION'

Topic dilution is not only effective in forum sliding it is also very useful in keeping the forum readers on unrelated and non-productive issues. This is a critical and useful technique to cause a 'RESOURCE BURN.' By implementing continual and non-related postings that distract and disrupt (trolling ) the forum readers they are more effectively stopped from anything of any real productivity. If the intensity of gradual dilution is intense enough, the readers will effectively stop researching and simply slip into a 'gossip mode.' In this state they can be more easily misdirected away from facts towards uninformed conjecture and opinion. The less informed they are the more effective and easy it becomes to control the entire group in the direction that you would desire the group to go in. It must be stressed that a proper assessment of the psychological capabilities and levels of education is first determined of the group to determine at what level to 'drive in the wedge.' By being too far off topic too quickly it may trigger censorship by a forum moderator.

I think that would afford too much credit to him, personally. I dont think he wants to actually argue or debate at all. To me, it looks like a character, short on ways to express himself in day to day life, who is able to regurgitate here, the dictionary he eats daily for breakfast.

I stopped reading his self-righteous rambling nonsense, because the few nuggets of apparent wisdom just didnt seem worth the effort to extract, from said ramblings.

Intelligent, yes. Wise, no way.

Did I start the discussion of BTC -> altcoin avalance effect? Did I start the discussion on Monero here?

Every one of my posts an on topic reply to what others posted on those topics I did not start. As for the thread title, no one has been posting on topic. As for the OP inquiry into Bitcoin blockchain scaling, I was posting on that topic before this latest diversion was started (not by myself!).

Your ad hominen noise bullshit is clear for anyone who wants to open their eyes.

Are you Bitards really so insecure and void of counter-points that you can't even discuss the topics without slandering anyone who makes strong points?

P.S. your pathetic attempts to make it appear that you have a consensus against me is failing. I know very well I am winning the readership. I have ways of measuring this effect. You forget I am a marketer and a programmer.

This is like the Mayweather vs. Pacquiao fight. Eventually you need to respond with more than a tap dance, else the public will ignore your "victory".

[Hunyadi]

Are you really a man of dark colored skin? (yes I am aware that negros have statistically lower IQs, doesn't necessary explain this case but it might especially if you are using an avatar which does not reflect who you are but rather some image you want to present)

[TPTB_need_war]

The only reason you would ever be worried about receiving "bad" coins would be because of some legal framework that makes such coins possibility "bad". The exact same legal framework could make 100% of Monero's coins "bad". And you're back to square one.

My understanding of your argument is that in order to maintain fungibility, you need privacy or else that fungibility will be attacked. My argument is both a private and a non-private coin can be equally attacked, and in that situation both have to equally resort to being used outside the legal framework in order to maintain fungibility, so I don't see an advantage of one over the other.

When the law became unbearable in Rome, the people abandoned their land. Later there were cows grazing in the city of Rome. The population fell from 1.3 million to 30,000 in a waterfall collapse.

My thesis is as follows.

We are headed into a NWO tempest where there is no rule of law, only a rule of oblivious addicted masses and gestapo bankster coattail goons.

I long ago gave up on keeping the world we have now, with all our Walmarts, etc..

I am ready to move forward to the world where we sell downloadable 3D printer products anonymously for micropayments, etc..

Your old world will die a slow death of increasing totalitarianism over decades. It will waterfall into collapse 2018 - 2020, then the banksters will reset the global economy on the NWO reserve and institute an increasing level of totalitarian control over humanity in the old world contexts where they can. Over decades that economy will wither and destroy itself. The capital remaining in that old economy will wither and be destroyed within that system.

Realize that the mavericks who shape our world are usually scorned and rejected when they present radical visions of the future.

Add: that doesn't mean I give up hope on every individual in the world. I want to build out the future and those who avail of it will prosper. It is not my job to hold every person's hand and force them to choose. The gate to prosperity is narrow only because the people refuse, not because the opportunity is limited or restrictive.

[Johnny Mnemonic]

I fully expect some governments to outlaw Monero in some ways, it is much more dangerous to them than Bitcoin. But it would be out of ignorance because Monero can be made transparent if required by law on a individual basis and not on a panopticon level like Bitcoin.

They don't need to outlaw Monero unless it becomes popular and used for paying for goods & services. They can just blacklist all BTC trades which didn't have KYC documentation. This effectively blacklists Monero since virtually no one pays directly in Monero for goods & services.

I don't (currently) see a niche where Monero would have any scale for users to resort to in that case. You'd have few 1000s of investors without a way to sell.

For me at this time, Monero is useful as a way to mix BTC -> XMR -> BTC. And as a speculation on people not understanding that Monero doesn't solve any other problem than that.

Sorry to be so blunt because I am really glad that Monero exists! I feel a sense of gratitude for Cryptonote and Monero, but how to express it if I also feel more needs to be done? Am I supposed to go volunteer my time to code on Monero and then have my commits be rejected due to political posturing and also probably not earn anything significant. I just don't know how to pay my appreciation without it looking like I am the enemy. Maybe I am the enemy. I'd rather be the cohort.

Well you're right about not earning much, and if that's the sole issue it's perfectly understandable.

But I disagree that "political posturing" would have anything to do with your commits being rejected. Good work is good work... it doesn't matter who submits the pull request... and I'm confident the devs would appreciate the help, so don't let your past disagreements get in the way of making things better.

[TPTB_need_war]

No you're not because if all coins are bad then all coins have the same value. You can't overpay and be left holding the bag.

That is the definition of fungibility. Again, you are confusing privacylegality with fungibility. Without regard for the merits of either/both.

Slight correction because privacy can be orthogonal to legality if the technology and will is sufficient.

This excellent rebuttal demonstrates the very inferior logic skills of those who incessantly and unapologetically continue their irrational diarrhea (then ad hominem attack me and accuse me of doing what they do).

[Carlton Banks]

Technique #3 - 'TOPIC DILUTION'

Topic dilution is not only effective in forum sliding it is also very useful in keeping the forum readers on unrelated and non-productive issues. This is a critical and useful technique to cause a 'RESOURCE BURN.' By implementing continual and non-related postings that distract and disrupt (trolling ) the forum readers they are more effectively stopped from anything of any real productivity. If the intensity of gradual dilution is intense enough, the readers will effectively stop researching and simply slip into a 'gossip mode.' In this state they can be more easily misdirected away from facts towards uninformed conjecture and opinion. The less informed they are the more effective and easy it becomes to control the entire group in the direction that you would desire the group to go in. It must be stressed that a proper assessment of the psychological capabilities and levels of education is first determined of the group to determine at what level to 'drive in the wedge.' By being too far off topic too quickly it may trigger censorship by a forum moderator.

I think that would afford too much credit to him, personally. I dont think he wants to actually argue or debate at all. To me, it looks like a character, short on ways to express himself in day to day life, who is able to regurgitate here, the dictionary he eats daily for breakfast.

I stopped reading his self-righteous rambling nonsense, because the few nuggets of apparent wisdom just didnt seem worth the effort to extract, from said ramblings.

Intelligent, yes. Wise, no way.

Don't forget insincere. Everything it says is not intended for any face value, always for some confabulated, tortured effect. Highly intelligent, but applied entirely to social engineering from several perspectives at once (i.e. how the entire discourse is perceived by all actors at all levels of psychological investment in said discourse).

[rpietila]

Did I start the discussion of BTC -> altcoin avalance effect? Did I start the discussion on Monero here?

No, I did. And will continue to address the monumental defence erected by Z.B.:

Original theses:

- The exit requires as little as 10% selling their coins in the previous majority ledger, which effects a huge decrease in the value of the remaining coins there due to the negative wealth effect, while increasing the value of their new ledger by approximately the equivalent amount of positive wealth effect. Thus the small minority of the "rogues" can enrich themselves in the expense of the majority by so doing, creating a new majority ledger in terms of marketcap.

If your main point is how few "rogues" (~10%) it takes to switch to a new majority ledger, I think you may be neglecting the arbitrage opportunities that would create. Arbitrage seems to undo the cascade effect of the small exchange float, with arbitrageurs profiting from that market inefficiency.

The arbitrage works if enough of the existing holders of the new chain truly believe in the old chain, and are in the new chain only to make money. I don't chastise anyone for thinking this way as there is hardly anyone in the myriads of other alts who believes in their alt more than in BTC, so it's convenient to assume that this is the case universally.

However, the premise outlines the case that there is a split in the opinion how the main chain should continue, and both sides perceive that the other side's opinion spells doom for the experiment. Thus there is no thinking or incentive to come back - the same way how Bitcoin has managed to gain and preserve a formidable marketcap. It has taken a lot of brunt, but I for instance, don't - and cannot - go back to fiat, because I perceive that as a destructive move regarding my capital. Everyone reading this has the same thinking, so now I urge you to consider the situation where you honestly believe that your solution preserves Bitcoin, and the other camp's one turns it into fiat.

If the new chain starts out empty, there is no one to sell. Everyone who exits the old chain, obtains some value in the new chain, and the wealth effect as calculated from the actual net new capital flows, is 4x-10x. So the new chain does generate a lot of wealth effect (note that the wealth effect multiplier is calculated from the existing data, which have totally allowed the portfolio balancing back to the original chain, eg. BTC/USD rate increase in Mt.Gox in 2010 did allow conversion back to USD, yet the wealth effect was 10x - this is based on many factors that are outside the scope of this post but I have researched them).

If we go closer to the situation in the "protocol split scenario", we can take Crypto Kingdom and CKG as an example. It is not a "push" asset, it is a "pull" asset ("push" is a refuge out from the unwanted chain (example: gold), "pull" is a wanted chain (cars), and both Bitcoin and Monero are a mixture of escapist and going-forward tendencies). CK has only absorbed about $50k of value from the outside world, and its market cap is persistently in the order of $500k. This value has come from somewhere, either it is newly generated digital wealth because a new interesting thing has become available (new digital wealth is generated at a very high rate worldwide!) or some other chains have suffered a loss of interest, and of valuation. Until now the effect is of course not noticeable from the volatility in the other chains, as we only have 100 characters and a very meager marketcap.

But for the sake of getting the point, you just have to envision a scenario where the new chain is either perceived as significantly more desirable than the old, or the old chain as doomed, by a minority of the people originally holding the wealth in the old chain but not going back due to the reasons, and the effect is just as described - negative wealth effect in the old chain and positive in the new.

Don't let the current paradigm of altcoins deceive your thinking concerning a perceived "life-or-death" situation.

ADD: The coming (or why not any of the existing ones in history) bond market collapse (or cash hyperinflation, or altcoin-biting-the-dust) comes to mind. We all know that bonds are unrepayable. Yet they represent a large share of "wealth" of for example pension funds. When the collapse is triggered, the first ones exit, causing a large negative wealth effect to the rest. There is no wish for arbitrage after the tipping point. The supermajority is left holding a bag worth nothing in the end.

I have theoretized that the actual event horizon for BTC's demise is when any competitor gains as little as 20% market cap share without gimmicks. In the BTC-dominant environment that is a gargantuan accomplishment, and if it is realized against all odds, I am sure you all see the writing on the wall, (and if not, someone else does - as the majority's opinion is not relevant, everyone stands for himself). The power of minority has never been as prominent.

Insofar as the 90% are mostly strong hands,* not price chasers, they will react by bringing their portfolios back in line. That means they will do the opposite to what the 10% are doing, but with 9x the force: sell their allocations in the minority ledger, now for a giant premium, and buy more BTC at these cheap prices. I believe this negates the "small float" issues of having only a tiny amount of each coin available on exchange at any one time (not to mention that when prices move drastically a lot of coins [and fiat] come out of hiding).

Now you are talking about the spinoff, my whole agenda is to bring to your attention the higher-than-perceived chance of a new chain abruptly taking ground in the scenario outlined. The reason why you have not perceived the chance as high as it is, is the lack of understanding concerning the wealth effect, and the resultant need of no supermajority but only a small minority deciding to convincingly move, to achieve unwanted consequences to the majority.

In short, as is the case with CK, the ones not migrating there do not have holdings there, and do not have voice, vote or exit available in there, and we can therefore happily hold our CKG "coins" which are now 8x more valuable than 6 months ago, perhaps the best performance in cryptoland.

And any overshoot is yet a further opportunity for arbitrage to further entrench the majority ledger investors who have the strongest hands.

After taking 2 days to think whether this is correct, and if not, how I would refute it, I have reached the conclusion that I don't believe you are correct, and have given anecdotal evidence supporting my viewpoint. Yet I don't hold a great confidence that many would only because of them, change their thinking on the subject. It is a deep matter and my extensive (if anything in cryptosphere can be classified as such ) research has pointed me to think the way I do, and being familiar with the concepts and data is almost a prerequisite for understanding it.

[TPTB_need_war]

The coins remain traceable on the blockchain.

The coins are traceable, but the link between the coins and to whom they belong is less so.

You can create unlinkability by creating a new payment address on each instance of receiving a payment, but as soon as you need to merge the dust left over as change from transactions, then you must have mixing (a.k.a. untraceability). Thus unlinkability is basically useless without mixing. Monero has both.

CoinJoin attempts to add mixing to any blockchain, but the problem is it is either jammable (by a determined Sybil attacker) or the anonymity must be sacrificed to master nodes (which is arguably an improvement over gmaxel's formulation if your threat vector doesn't include the State). I (AnonyMint) was the first person to point out the former in gmaxell's CoinJoin thread and I believe that is why he hates me every since. And I was the first person I believe to point out the latter in the Darkcoin thread and discussions with smooth et al in various threads reaffirmed that.

Cryptonote ring sigs mixing honors the critically important end-to-end principle of the internet, in that they are entirely autonomous and any dumb intermediary can transmit it to the blockchain for you.

Cryptonote does not obscure your IP address which is another vector of anonymity that needs to be improved. I believe I was the first person to point that out (both before Monero on Anoncoin thread and kLee can vouch for that as he was in that discussion and also first I think to raise that issue in a Monero thread which i believe led to proposal to add I2P).

Cryptonote does not help you if the government forces you to reveal your private keys under threat of dire outcomes otherwise. In other words, if you ever have a traceable funds that you tried to hide into or coming out of Monero mixing, this will fail to prevent the government from knowing you had the funds and thus the government can pressure you. So it is an all or nothing proposition in that threat context.

[TPTB_need_war]

Don't forget insincere. Everything it says is not intended for any face value, always

Incorrect.

for some confabulated, tortured effect. Highly intelligent, but applied entirely to social engineering from several perspectives at once (i.e. how the entire discourse is perceived by all actors at all levels of psychological investment in said discourse).

Correct.

Edit#1: Tortured for those readers who do not like the message. Socially engineered (and on multiple levels of perspective) because marketing is. I am interested in accomplishing a goal with a sincere outcome. It is not possible to make everyone happy all the time.

Is the ideology pitched by the Bitcoin folks here not confabulated (sufficiently misaligned with the facts) in some respects? It is not torture for those of us who see it failing the fundamental tenets? Did some of you not try to use social engineering and peer pressure to squelch our voices?

Edit#2: what is interesting is how some Bitcoin supporters view discussions about anything that is not an improvement to Bitcoin as treason or noise. I think they reason that if Bitcoin fails, our only chance fails. Because surely they could sell BTC and buy the superior coin and profit. So it must be some ideological reason they are so defensive. Perhaps it is the "safety in herds" and "fight or flight" underdeveloped prefrontal cortex instinct left over from primitive, post-paleozoic, hunter-gatherer epoch.

[Carlton Banks]

Just for the record, it should be clear from my past activity in this thread that I'm not as on board with the various consensus opinions (in this thread) as the bitcoin apologists who post here. I am frequently a dissenter or at least skeptical of the "justify bitcoin at all costs" camp.

[TPTB_need_war]

Did I start the discussion of BTC -> altcoin avalance effect? Did I start the discussion on Monero here?

No, I did. And will continue to address the monumental defence erected by Z.B.:

Original theses:

- The exit requires as little as 10% selling their coins in the previous majority ledger, which effects a huge decrease in the value of the remaining coins there due to the negative wealth effect, while increasing the value of their new ledger by approximately the equivalent amount of positive wealth effect. Thus the small minority of the "rogues" can enrich themselves in the expense of the majority by so doing, creating a new majority ledger in terms of marketcap.

If your main point is how few "rogues" (~10%) it takes to switch to a new majority ledger, I think you may be neglecting the arbitrage opportunities that would create. Arbitrage seems to undo the cascade effect of the small exchange float, with arbitrageurs profiting from that market inefficiency.

The arbitrage works if enough of the existing holders of the new chain truly believe in the old chain, and are in the new chain only to make money. I don't chastise anyone for thinking this way as there is hardly anyone in the myriads of other alts who believes in their alt more than in BTC, so it's convenient to assume that this is the case universally.

I was planning to offer my thoughts on this avalance effect. So now appears to about the right point for me to jump in.

Someone asked me recently what I would do with the Bitcoins if I created an altcoin and sold coins in an ICO. I replied I would sell the Bitcoins and buy my own coin. I don't view Bitcoin as my unit-of-account (no one sells me anything with a constant BTC price over time), so I might as well hold the coin with the greater upside. The greater volatility and liquidity of the smaller float is a concern that has to be weighed for any short-term liquidity needs.

But readers should know that rpietila is not vested (at this moment) in anything I might do. So I do presume he is writing not with anything about me in mind, even though we are sort of close acquaintances from the past circa 2008 but had not communicated regularly since 2013 or so.

Bitcoin was not vulnerable to such a shift before because it was moving up and it was growing fast amongst the free thinking investor and technie demographics (masses don't count because they don't drive choices about fledgling upstarts). Altcoins that gained some momentum were eroded by profit taking back into Bitcoin (and their mistakes in distribution and lack of original code and design), e.g. Doggiecoin.

Bitcoin has now moved closer to the time where it will be offloaded to the masses (the greater fools) and the smart money will look for the next big trade. Suppose we have at least a 10 bagger on the way, probably much greater maybe 50 - 100X ROI. So still it is going to be a challenge to go against Bitcoin's price momentum. Thus I don't see a reverse wealth effect on Bitcoin as viable at this time, and thus if an altcoin rises too fast it will be taken out by profit taking cashing out to Bitcoin (unless it has an ideological fervor or distribution that prevent this ). I think any coin that wants to achieve it will have to pull in adopters from outside the Bitcoin community.

There is not yet a clear "go to" altcoin for this movement. Cryptonote/Monero has introduced a very important feature, but it is not yet clear if this by itself is enough to warrant an ideological+wealth effect stampede. I was told there is still a large (500?) ongoing community in the Nxt/jl777/SuperNet. I interject to rpietila's argument that the most likely scenario is not wealth effect alone, but an ideological fervor that inflames that budding wealth effect. So I am agreeing with him and Bitcoin supporters that the attitude towards altcoins of not adding anything significant is a justified allegation.

The arbitrage factor dominates for as long as Bitcoin is growing and the challenging altcoin doesn't appear to have the oomph to cross the chasm.

No altcoin is going to displace Bitcoin's dominance of the masses (at least not in pure crypto-coin market and on this cycle). Bitcoin has won that. But who wants to? That is they dying NWO system. The Winklevosses et al are going to cash out on the big move of the masses in by giving them accounts on the behemoths. They are selling the masses (chattel) to the NWO.

Edit#1: the scenario I envision is some altcoin is going to make a big move during the 2016 - 2017 period. In 2017, BTC will offloaded to the masses coincident with the peaking US dollar and US stockmarket bubbles. That altcoin is going to gain significant early adopter attention, but it will exhale and quiet down a bit (the usual pattern of growth for fledgling upstarts). Then later from 2018 or so, it could become a go to investment as the global economy moves into radical transformation and Bitcoin has already been dumped to the masses.

[ssmc2]

stop talking

correct. soon.

no, I meant "shut up" (politeness gets you nowhere these days)

Would you care to demonstrate any logic to justify your command?

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=504237;sa=showPosts

lmao

[Perspicacious]

Your tautology is (a case applicable to Gödel's incompleteness theorem because it is) an assumption of the absence of an outside observer...This is why any program run on a Turing-complete machine (i.e. unbounded recursion) can't be proven to halt...

Oh it is no tautology.  In fact, the elementary nature of your response has forced me to question your intellect.  I assure you, your Turing machine and your incomplete theorem will not help you win this war of attrition that you attempt to wage.  I will have no part in your battle of verbosity.  No!  At the call of a bell, my Pavlovian dogs will maul you into submission; and as you lay on the ground begging for mercy, only then will I unleash my Schrodinger's Cat upon you.  She will sharpen her claws on your back before falling asleep on your face, while you question the state of your wave function.  I will then toss your still breathing body into your Turing machine, where you will be tured for an eternity¹ until you come to learn the true pain of the halting problem.  

I shall once again leave this forum never to return.  


¹Or not, the problem is undecidable.  

[Zangelbert Bingledack]

Altcoin investment has always come across to me as pure financial speculation, simply hoping that Altcoin x will rise in price faster than Bitcoin for a given time period. I never get the sense that Altcoin investors want to disrupt the corrupt banking world and replace it with something better, just that it is a way to make a fast buck.

Since this is the hard money thread, I'd like to query the group:

How can one understand that Bitcoin is first and foremost about store of value and still be interested in the idea of an altcoin (alt-ledger) taking over Bitcoin?

To me, accepting the precedent that the ledger gets replaced when the protocol does, means throwing away the entire concept of crypto as a store of value. How would the market value any cryptoledger as a store of value if you had to actively switch out of it every few years (months?) as new protocols came along? Worse, you'd have to pick the winners correctly.*

I'm in the "we don't switch ledgers" club, because I think that's the only one the market will ultimately support. Anything else subverts the entire basis of money. It's pushing the proverbial red button on the whole concept of cryptocurrency. The only time to switch ledgers is when it is absolutely necessary to avoid total catastrophe. It should be a once in several centuries event, or at most once a generation (~30 years).

Perhaps the argument is, "We only do it once, because we just got this bit wrong with Bitcoin. This altcoin is the ideal form. No more changes after that." But to the market, the precedent has been set. Everyone knows what happens when some obscure flaw comes to light requiring another protocol change. Store of value goes *splat* again. The whole concept has been set back decades.

*Lottery ticket investing (Pascal's Mugging investing?) only works when the set of credible lottery tickets (investment candidates) is somewhat limited; if this dynamic takes hold there will be thousands of plausible "next top dogs" because the incentive will be overwhelming to create and cleverly market them.