Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[shmadz]

Gavin moving forward. Will you be left behind? :

http://sourceforge.net/p/bitcoin/mailman/message/34155307/

There you go again.  Using fear (this time, of being "left behind" from the glorious rapture of GavinCoin) to sell a hard fork.

The rough consensus of all non-Gavin core devs is against 20mb blocks in the near future.

But for some reason, Gavin will only accept a consensus which aligns with his position.  Who does he think he is, Linux Torvalds or Evan Duffield?

So how does Gavin the pointy-headed boss react to being unable to convince his coders and engineers?

By lobbying (*cough, panicking, cough*) the drooling masses in an attempt to overrule the experts with a stampeding mob.

That's not the path of "calm down already" suggested by Nick Szabo.

The Gavin tail is trying to wag the core dev dog, which guarantees the predictable "rancor" he's whining about.

Ironically, when the wheels fall off of GavinCoin because of UXTO assplosions or whatever, these spurned core devs will be the ones Gavin and everyone else will turn to for solutions.  Typical "Oops I broke it, now you fix it" pointy-headed boss behavior!  

If persistent full 1mb blocks turn out to be an insurmountable problem, consensus to modify that limit would not need to be manufactured with lobbying and tales of impending dooom.

take a look at how a rag tag army of volunteers can clog up the network.  we're still stuck at over 23000 unconf tx's, with a peak around 25000, now about 2 hrs later:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/37rwph/stress_test_for_the_next_few_hours_ill_be/

I just sent a test transaction, just a quick spend from my Blockchain.info spending wallet, and it made it into the very next block, so as far as my experience goes, that rag tag army clogged up exactly nothing.

[1713462829]

1713462829

[1713462829]

1713462829

[1713462829]

1713462829

[TPTB_need_war]

...

it's just based on the general concept of a swap thus possibly quite different from what many are used to. Think in terms of buying one exposure and paying for it with another. Use tickers to describe each exposure you'd like to buy (receive) and sell (pay) and voila, you've created your first swap contract! Don't use time based tickers that contain dates (ex. options or futures). If you want a high leverage contract based on an underlying or an index, you can use a ticker to access that underlying or index directly (ex 10 year treasury) then use our leverage option to dial in as much gearing as your stomach can handle. Its digital, and its unlimited (theoretically up to 10,000x). This way you avoid theta and time decay issues inherent in options, as well has delta and gamma and sensitivity to volatility. As I mentioned to the guy in the previous post these are swaps, not options. Options are not well suited for bitcoin speculation due to their sensitivity to volatility and bitcoins extreme volatility.

...

This is interesting to me, because conceptually I visualize that replacing a thresholding criteria (which can have aliasing error) with a criteria that is based on an average state over time thus I assume (without digging into the math) removes the aliasing error and thus the unnecessary carrying cost of implied volatility for options. I am not familiar with swaps nor have I studied the math for Black-Scholes implied volatility. Note to self to dig into this concept in the future. This is very important to me if it applies to the carry cost of hedging altcoin volatility.

Reggie afair this is not succinctly communicated on your company website.

Maybe you should clarify it for us "N00bs". Exactly what does HFT have to do with digital OTC swaps, particularly P2P swaps. For the life of me, I can't figure it out and as far as I know I believe I created them.

After several tries of attempting to digest your website in a reasonably quick perusal, the distinction about the focus on swaps was not communicated to me. Normally I am known to have in the 99th percentile of reading comprehension (perhaps will not be the case from here forward because I am skimming and rushing). Perhaps that is because I am not a trader and not familiar with swaps, thus the word takes on its general definition for me, not the financial derivative. So is it my fault or your communication style? I dunno but I am betting on the latter.

I've tried to watch some Youtubes of you speaking in the past, and you do not communicate efficiently to me. I get tired of waiting for you to get to the point. Your writing style here in this forum is more direct to the point.

Note that HFT was not the only concern I enumerated nor are all my concerns (as expressed in "etc") bounded by the enumerated items. I was speaking paradigmatically about the "devil is in the details" and the inherent risks of closed source.

He is a troll, Reggie.

You apparently don't realize that expressing an opinion does not make a person a troll. But calling a person who expresses an opinion a troll, makes you one.

Can you make any point?

[TPTB_need_war]

The reason we have to worry about miners producing "too large" blocks is because they don't pay for all the P2P network resources they use (neither do end users).

All the arguments we have about resource consumption are derived from that primary design flaw.

If we fix it, then we won't have to argue any more.

Any mechanism you envision must also incorporate the fact that if collusion and monopolistic strategies are viable, they will be deployed.

Miners and pools have an incentive to include as many txns as they can get paid for and scale up the resource requirements to drive small miners to pools. So the community got up in arms about GHash.io, so no problem just hide your ownership behind a Sybil attack on the pools (that is surely the case today) so the community is either ignorantly pacified or can play Whack-A-Mole.

Even if you made txns free or negative cost (miners pay spenders), the incentive of the prior paragraph remains.

There is fundamental design flaw here that can't be fixed without radical overhaul of the design of PoW.

Economic FUD appears to be the type most resistant to being discarded after having been falsified. That particular bit has been floating around for over a century despite being thoroughly debunked.

https://www.mises.org/library/myth-natural-monopoly-0

The so called "natural monopoly" that has been falsified does not apply to what I wrote. Indeed it is preposterous to assume that all utility markets are naturally uniform to the extent that one provider can gain lower-cost economies-of-scale over all markets. Markets are diverse and require local differentiation (for reasons including Antifragility). However, if the monopolist can capture the State, then the monopoly becomes viable.

I am stating above that if the monopolist can capture nearly ubiquitous economies-of-scale in the social and economic inertia of the coin, then the monopoly is viable.

In short, remove the word "natural" from your retort, then it falls apart. I am using the word "viable" not "natural". The distinction is semantics around the ramifications of lower-cost and Antifragility. The Mises Institute seems to perhaps imply the Iron Law Of Political Economics is not natural.   (but I just skimmed the linked page)

There's a peculiar kind of incoherence about people who can argue both for decentralization and also argue that users of the system can not be relied up to decide their own best interests.

The incoherence is yours because you don't seem to reason out that individual incentives can be misaligned with global optimization of systems and societies. Again read the Iron Law of Political Economics.

Generally speaking you seem to lack the intellect (or desire/motivation?) to consider all the possibilities of issues you entertain.

lol so now gavin is only considering mike's opinion. plus calling for lobbying ( big fat not-so-democratic word here ) from merchants and centralized businesses...

mymy.. USG get out of this body!

Exactly as I wrote since 2013, that it would play out.

Monopolists capturing the social and economic inertia...

As block rewards diminishes the Nash equilibrium is introduced and miners become marginalized with little to no power in the system.

This is otherwise known as a power vacuum of the Tragedy of the Commons and I warned in 2013 that it makes monopolies viable.

[TPTB_need_war]

It's not possible to build a currency on misanthropy.

You seem to often conflate orthogonal concerns. We can fight the global cancer which some 50% are individually aligned, while still having their best interests in mind[1].

Mass education...

There is no shortcut.

Paradigms don't shift by educating people to ignore their individual incentives and go for global optimization. Rather the waterfall crashes force the adjustments.

[1]	https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=355212.msg11462546#msg11462546 https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=355212.msg11469562#msg11469562

It is very much expected that the individual incentives are to be more concerned about the Bitcoin price than the greater implications of this totalitarianism and Ross's plight.

Individuals do not prioritize the global optimization of the society, but rather our own selfish incentives.

[iCEBREAKER]

take a look at how a rag tag army of volunteers can clog up the network.  we're still stuck at over 23000 unconf tx's, with a peak around 25000, now about 2 hrs later:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/37rwph/stress_test_for_the_next_few_hours_ill_be/

   Good.  /grumpy cat

This stunt may generate the type of incalculable empirical feedback we need to ascertain how best to modify the max_block_size parameter.

Of course since it is artificial demand in the form of a stress-test that factor must be accounted for.

But in the aggregate, we see here the ecosystem demanding/supplying a required service, so it's not completely bogus data.

It is critical for Bitcoin to grow up, not out.

Bitcoin's Mother of Blockchains needs skycraper transactions, not sprawl.

Bitcoin and its Blockchain must develop like a culture, not merely grow like cancer.

Full block pressure catalyzes development of optimal strategies for using the limited space; subsidizing artificially sparse blocks retards that process.

It's not possible to build a currency on misanthropy.

Au contraire, misanthropy is the only rational basis on which to build a currency.

That is why Bitcoins trustless Satoshi-Consensus mechanism disrupted and made obsolete all manner of weighted-trust-node-network Rube Goldberg schemes.

Bitcoin is the only currency still works like gold and silver when about half of humanity is an adversary.

[TPTB_need_war]

It is critical for Bitcoin to grow up, not out.

Bitcoin's Mother of Blockchains needs skycraper transactions, not sprawl.

Bitcoin and its Blockchain must develop like a culture, not merely grow like cancer.

When will you accept that individual incentives are not aligned in Bitcoin with your ideological global optimization?

People will use their coins and this will force miners to adopt Gavincoin. It is demand driven and you can foam at the mouth as much as you want, but you won't stop this freight train.

MP can drop his nuke on Gavincoin, we will scoop up cheap coins and then move on to the next ramp. Thanks MP for giving us your money.

The utility of early adopters to Larry Summers has now diminished. He has used you successfully and is moving on. You can be discarded now.

[TPTB_need_war]

Folks, what I take away from this recent splash in this thread is that you all are trying to be pragmatic. There are differing opinions about how to best try to change the world.

I can only ask that you read my posts and consider my points. And note that I have been both correct about price and general trends since 2013.

https://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/cryptography-researchers-users-face-jail-time-australia/

Australia is a member of the Five Eyes nations.

Indeed this shows how desperate they are. As with Napster, they will just drive the movement to anonymity.

出る釘は打たれる (deru kugi wa utareru) - "A nail that sticks out will be hammered"

Ross Ulbricht sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole the harshest sentence possible.
http://www.wired.com/2015/05/silk-road-creator-ross-ulbricht-sentenced-life-prison/

Let's hope we can free him and the others from jail one day in the future, but it won't likely be soon.

Clearly the system is going to attempt to apply maximum punishment on any individual which creates something which has a huge market and is in defiance of the TPTB and their NWO plans.

“The stated purpose [of the Silk Road] was to be beyond the law. In the world you created over time, democracy didn’t exist. You were captain of the ship, the Dread Pirate Roberts,” she told Ulbricht as she read the sentence, referring to his pseudonym as the Silk Road’s leader. “Silk Road’s birth and presence asserted that its…creator was better than the laws of this country. This is deeply troubling, terribly misguided, and very dangerous.”

So assuming I believe I have finally stumbled onto the design for altcoin that would actually scale and resist centralization, I hope you all can understand why I am contemplating whether I should proceed or not.

The interaction here is valuable both in terms of learning about the thoughts, synergies and counter-points, but between personal pressures on me and the overall speed at which the system is progressing towards the totalitarian outcome, it is about time for me to retire from Bitcointalk so I can devote full-time to making some decisions and then working on my chosen direction(s). Note I do have a newly launched fledgling social network to attend to which is demonstrating some traction.

Any one who desires to have ongoing communication with me, please keep (permanently) a Bitmessage address on your Bitcointalk profile, make sure you have posted (anything) in one of the 4 threads I have been posting in recently. I will contact you when my free time allows. You must run your Bitmessage at least every other day (old messages are discarded from the network) and make sure you run it on a computer that can't be infected with any virus (i.e. hopefully not the same computer you surf the net from and download porn to!)

Bitmessage is the only means I am aware of for us to communicate where it can't be proven by the NSA whom was talking to whom.

The anonymity facilities on the internet are sorely lacking. This must change and pronto, if we are to avoid a Dark Age.

[cypherdoc]

Bitcoin is the only currency still works like gold and silver when about half of humanity is an adversary.

it won't work like gold when only 0.0000001% of the world's population think like us or have any exposure to Bitcoin due to the strangulation by 1MB blocks.

[iCEBREAKER]

Bitcoin is the only currency still works like gold and silver when about half of humanity is an adversary.

it won't work like gold when only 0.0000001% of the world's population think like us or have any exposure to Bitcoin due to the strangulation by 1MB blocks.

Direct use of BTC by >0.0000001% of the world's population isn't necessary nor supportable.

Indirect usage is.  Plenty of space in the alt/side chains and trustless payment processors (ZOMG ABRA!!!) for coffee and pizza.

The true value that Bitcoin brings to the table is not "everyone gets to write into the holy ledger", it is instead "everyone gets to benefit from sane and non-inflationary financial instutions whose sanity and honesty are ensured by the holy blockchain".
-davout

[Peter R]

Direct use of BTC by >0.0000001% of the world's population isn't necessary nor supportable.

0.0000001% of the world's population is only 7 people, you know 

[TPTB_need_war]

Bitcoin is the only currency still works like gold and silver when about half of humanity is an adversary.

it won't work like gold when only 0.0000001% of the world's population think like us or have any exposure to Bitcoin due to the strangulation by 1MB blocks.

Cypherdoc please help me understand you (and others like you).

How do you envision the growth of Bitcoin changing the way sufficient other people behave or think such that this would avoid the current system wherein the individual incentives are aligned with the cartels and oligarchs (a.k.a. the 0.0001%, banksters or TPTB) in a socialism+totalitarian cancer?

My assertion to Justus upthread (on this page) is that the masses don't change via education nor by evolution, rather only by the revolution of suffering a dead end in the road.

Icebreaker seems to think that the minority can impose their will on the majority, but he needs to consider that the upper 0.01% gain their power by aligning their incentives with the lower 50% in collectivism. His minority (which is my minority, i.e. We The Upper Middle Class Knowledge Age Producers) which is perhaps the upper 0.1% or so, will not succeed for as long as we do not align ourselves with a greater proportion of the middle class (the upper 50%).

My plans going forward in crypto (if I do proceed) are about forming that middle class alliance that can lead to overtaking Bitcoin by 2033 as Bitcoin falls into the NWO morass of the 0.01% + lower 50%.

Cypherdoc you and others seem to think Bitcoin can somehow escape that morass of the 0.01% + lower 50%. How so?

Direct use of BTC by >0.0000001% of the world's population isn't necessary nor supportable.

0.0000001% of the world's population is only 7 people, you know  

Obviously it was a "rough" number. It would great if they would both clarify which demographics they are referring to.

Note when I write 0.01% there are is also another upper 1+% or so of the Middle Class that align themselves opportunitistically but this can shift if they shift allegiances. And this is why the TPTB wish to destroy the millionaires, because they are the "parasites" (from the elite's perspective) that drive antifragility (with shifting allegiance) and defy the totalitarian control of the elite.

[cypherdoc]

Direct use of BTC by >0.0000001% of the world's population isn't necessary nor supportable.

0.0000001% of the world's population is only 7 people, you know  

Not 700?

Edit:  oops. I even took the time to think about the numbers yet stillput on  the percentag sign . 

[TPTB_need_war]

Cypherdoc please answer me. I really want to understand your reasoning. It is important and impacts my decision process.

Justus et al, please also chime in. I want to understand the model you all have in mind of how Bitcoin changes the world.

[Peter R]

Direct use of BTC by >0.0000001% of the world's population isn't necessary nor supportable.

0.0000001% of the world's population is only 7 people, you know  

Not 700?

0.0000001% / 100% x (7x10^9 people)  = 7 people.

Sorry to be pedantic; I just found iCEBREAKER's comment humorous because it meant that supporting more than 7 people using bitcoin wasn't supportable.   Our scalability problems aren't that challenging . I'm sure we can support at least 8. 

[TPTB_need_war]

Direct use of BTC by >0.0000001% of the world's population isn't necessary nor supportable.

0.0000001% of the world's population is only 7 people, you know 

Not 700?

700 if you remove the %

[cypherdoc]

Direct use of BTC by >0.0000001% of the world's population isn't necessary nor supportable.

0.0000001% of the world's population is only 7 people, you know  

Not 700?

Edit:  oops. I even took the time to think about the numbers yet stillput on  the percentag sign . 

[TPTB_need_war]

Ironically, when the wheels fall off of GavinCoin because of UXTO assplosions or whatever, these spurned core devs will be the ones Gavin and everyone else will turn to for solutions.  Typical "Oops I broke it, now you fix it" pointy-headed boss behavior!  

If persistent full 1mb blocks turn out to be an insurmountable problem, consensus to modify that limit would not need to be manufactured with lobbying and tales of impending dooom.

This stunt may generate the type of incalculable empirical feedback we need to ascertain how best to modify the max_block_size parameter.

Of course since it is artificial demand in the form of a stress-test that factor must be accounted for.

1. You seem to not be aware that $billions in capital (a lot of it not invested in BTC but rather VC investments in the space) is invested on the future of Bitcoin, and to make the future uncertain causes capital to become risk adverse. Gavin can't wait, because capital has to plan out the future.

2. You seem to assume centralization[1] can't solve every technical issue of scaling higher transaction rates. Wasn't Visa scale the initial goal? Is Visa not centralized? ("Damn it, but we want decentralization and we will early adopters will fork and short NWOcoin" is not a logical retort)

Come on man, come back to reality.

You seem to have developed an overconfidence from your early adopter decision, which you are projecting as correct analysis of the future. But where is the logic?

The utility of early adopters to Larry Summers has now diminished. He has used you successfully and is moving on. You can be discarded now.

You early adopters were bought at a very small cost by the banksters to help them launch the NWOcoin trojan horse. You are now expendable. They have already the inertia they need.

[1] IBLT is a fancy sugar coating on centralization to make geeks wet their pants again (see their Jesus) and be fooled, as they were with the original DEEP STATE whitepaper.

[cypherdoc]

Cypherdoc please answer me. I really want to understand your reasoning. It is important and impacts my decision process.

Justus et al, please also chime in. I want to understand the model you all have in mind of how Bitcoin changes the world.

i think you underestimate the common man and their ability to discern what the hell is going on in today's world.  i've sprinkled hints throughout posts but we generally ignore each other so i don't blame you for missing it.  understanding hard money is not hard.  i think most ppl innately understand that repeatedly printing up a bunch of money to solve a debt problem isn't a solution.  borrowing more money is not a solution for a borrowing problem.  there is also plenty of evidence TPTB are losing their grip.  i see evidence of this everywhere.

the internet combined with smartphones is contributing to this more widespread awareness and education of what's going on in the world.  it used to be taboo reading your smartphone out in public.  now it's acceptable and you're even considered unimportant if you don't check it every once in a while.  the enhanced connectivity of ppl round the world allows for the free exchange of ideas and information never seen before.  we can now educate each other.  this is exactly what we're doing here in this thread.  for a bunch of towel-head Muslims to rise up in revolution around Facebook & Twitter communiques in Egypt and Libya back in the Arab Spring is one of a number of signs that the masses aren't going to put up with TPTB bullshit anymore.  corruption and fraud need to hide in the dark.  it hates transparency.  the internet is shining a bright light upon TPTB.  they don't like it and the more they complain (like Mitch McConnell, James Comey of FBI, Clapper of NSA, Cameron of UK) the more i know we're on the right path to disruption.

central bank reputations have taken a beating the last 6 yrs.  anyone who follows the financial mkts, like i do, can see evidence of their manipulation everywhere.  everyone knows it's ludicrous to see stocks gyrate wildly immediately after an FOMC announcement.  sidhujag keeps talking about staying long the stock mkt "until the masses" come in.  as if they are going to be sheep once again.  well, i don't think that's happening this time.  and if i'm right about stocks rolling over right now as per my charts, guys like him who've always assumed the idiot on the street (avg Joe investor) is going to buy from them at 32000 are going to be in for a painful realization that the game has now leveled out due to less information asymmetry.  60% of American in fact do not own stocks (which is way down) and it doesn't look like they're going to anytime soon as they've learned from 2 major crashes of >50% in the last 15 yrs along with a real estate crash.  this is also why 80% of Americans voted against TARP despite the propaganda.

come June 1 we'll find out if the NSA will retain their mass data collection program.  it will be a sad day if they prevail but there's alot of lobbying going on right now and i'm hopeful it will not be extended.  either way, guys like Glenn Greenwald, Eric Snowden, and many others continue to fight back.  they are hard to ignore and fundamentally the NSA and TPTB will find it harder and harder to defend their policies out in public.  they don't realize how stupid they sound and most ppl realize this.

and simply from a numerical standpoint, i don't see how TPTB can control all of us especially if i'm right about the increased generalized awareness of the public.  i often fly and like to look down across the landscape at all the millions of homes and dwellings scattered around.  i imagine all of these dwellings being connected by the internet and ppl talking, texting, emailing freely their opinions and concerns.  i don't think there is anyway a small # of elites with their police can stop everyone.  it's impossible.  this is why torrenting, file sharing and streaming continue to go on unchecked despite persistent and expensive music and Hollywood campaigns to snuff this out.  the disruption of Wherehouse, Barnes & Noble, Borders, Encyclopedia Brittanica is evidence of this.  the rise and increasing popularity of Linux, Android, and open source in general is good.

Bitcoin is a major part of this revolution and b/c it is open source and adheres to the principles of sound money, i don't see any way a Digital Kill Switch can keep it away from the general population.  it is too important to us to allow that.  i simply see guys like Larry Summers adhering to his own principle of greed in saving/protecting his built up fortune by coming to Bitcoin b/c he sees the writing on the wall; not as some allegiance to his fellow elites as you claim.  they are all greedy bastards and they realize that the zero bound on interest rates is the end of the line.  negative interest rates are sure to spark a revolution.  the smart ones are abandoning ship.  they've had their run, they know it, and the smart thing is to pivot in the other direction before their brethren jump ship.

that's alot of rambling.  i'm tired and i don't usually like to compose this much shit.  most of what i have to say is in my earlier posts in 2011.

[TPTB_need_war]

Thank you Cypherdoc. You put a lot of effort into that post and it makes your stance clear. I need to be reminded of that noble and inspirational perspective, although I was exposed to it before. The idea that information is spreading now with the internet and thus the masses will suddenly for the first time in human history change how they behave. Ya know, "it is different this time" has always been wrong for 6000 years since Mesopotamia.

Did you know that Napoleon won not because of his military genius but because (the Pen Is Mightier Than the Sword so) he promulgated the idealism that he was liberating the conquered areas from the oppression they were suffering. Later on when it became apparent tha Napoleon was the same oppression they were trying to get rid of, Napoleon began to lose battles.

But never did the masses succeed in eliminating the elite and system of oppression. Some blue bloods were beheaded, but the upper 0.0001% banksters were not touched (they didn't stick around during the French Revolution and they continued on under Napoleon).

The elite always co-op every mass movement. Why? Because collectivism is a power vacuum. It demands that an elite come into that entropic vacuum.

You can never win with the masses. They will always be wrong, for as long as they demand to organize themselves in collectives. And I have explained upthread that Bitcoin is power vacuum collective, i.e. it can't resist centralization.

So as nice as your theory sounds, it is incorrect. I wish you could agree, but alas some people need to be wrong (or let's say diverse objectives have to be fulfilled) to make a market, because there needs to be both a buyer and seller.

I do agree the general spread of technology improves the quality of life of the people, so there is a benefit to spreading these new technologies which can also be used to enslave us. My point is only that you won't get the revolutionary outcome via Bitcoin rather just more of the same oppression (and worse because of the peaking totalitarianism coming).

For the upper middle class, the only way to avoid expropriation is to find a frontier, technology and a market that is sufficiently large (noting that geographical frontiers and gold are no longer an option), which is can not be centralized, which does not require any ideological groupthink, and in which rather the individual incentives are aligned with no power vacuum.

P.S. the recent examples you cite as cases of the masses rising up were all engineered by the banksters. Do some research. Start with the Benghazi incident and Hillary Clinton's private email server. Dude they have the brains of the masses zombified with Facebook. They can put up anything there on Facebook and drive an overthrow of a government by releasing some corruption via Wikileaks, etc.. There has been a long-standing plan to foment chaos in the Middle East to drive the end of petro-dollar as they prepare the global economic collapse to drive the political result of the one world reserve currency and global Technocracy. The Middle East had to be eliminated as potential safe haven for capital.

The central bank and nation-states reputations are being destroyed on purpose by the banksters in order to usher in the one-world reserve currency solution to that morass.

Larry Summers would not cross over from a $3+ trillion black budget to a measily $10 billion marketcap because he has banked his entire life on the fact that the elite have never lost control ever. The names change, but the paradigm of the Iron Law of Political Economics have no changed in all of recorded human history.

He knows damn well that the elite are in control of Bitcoin and DEEP STATE think tanks know very well that you will fall for these delusions that you have.

In the case critical thinkers such as Peter R, etc, I presume these guys refuse to entertain information they can't prove as in equivalent to a scientific laboratory experiment. They fail to correlate the repeating pattern of history thus they they don't see the corroborating evidence. Thus they remain uncommitted until it is too late to do anything. Sad.

[molecular]

You can download the pdf tutorial there:

http://veritaseum.com/index.php/download/veritaseum-wallet/viewdownload/2-veritaseum-clients-wallets-utilities/5-veritaseum-s-prototype-wallet-quick-tutorial

ah, thanks. I was on that page but thought the video was the tutorial.