Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[TPTB_need_war]

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.

yeah took me a while to find the download button with all the bling on the page. The site does not have a professional and efficient presentation.

The new name is much better.

[1715552833]

1715552833

[1715552833]

1715552833

[1715552833]

1715552833

[lunarboy]

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.

  for a bunch of towel-head Muslims to rise up in revolution

Don't appreciate the racial stereotyping. Uncharacteristic for a forward thinker such as yourself.

[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.

  for a bunch of towel-head Muslims to rise up in revolution

Don't appreciate the racial stereotyping. Uncharacteristic for a forward thinker such as yourself.

Your George Soros+Rockefeller zombified programmed politically correct brain is so stupefied that you didn't even realize he wrote nothing about race.

And he didn't even write a derogatory comment about a religious group. Rather he described their common mode of head dressing.

This is important for me to note because it is yet another example of how Bitcoin supporters are irrational and deluded.

[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.

  for a bunch of towel-head Muslims to rise up in revolution

Don't appreciate the racial stereotyping. Uncharacteristic for a forward thinker such as yourself.

It was written with the same dripping disdain that I'm arguing against to make a point. Probably not a good idea.

[TPTB_need_war]

It was written with the same dripping disdain that I'm arguing against to make a point. Probably not a good idea.

Those who miscategorize Common Sense as disdain have lost common sense (ostensibly because they've been deluded by various propaganda as I have explained in the prior few posts).

[TPTB_need_war]

To all those who I offended with my "conspiratorial" perspective, I do not dislike any of you (as far I can see so far). Your world view is not the same as mine at this juncture in history (e.g. we might have been more aligned had we met in the 1990s when I was about high tech and there weren't these dark totalitarian clouds on the horizon). I believe you are deluded and you think the same of me. The future will prove who was correct. Good luck.

This might be my last post...

...

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.

...

Alternatively readers may send me your Bitmessage address in a private message. I can't promise which day I might contact any specific person via Bitmessage, so you would need to run it every other day indefinitely. It is unfortunate, but this is the best there for anonymous communication at this time. And I am very rushed, so my communications need to be prioritized.

Please read my recent posts and ask yourself if you agree with my stance on reality. If so and you want to encourage me to work on a solution (as I contemplate the decision), then feel free to offer to communicate with me in Bitmessage.

Note I am not lacking people interested in encouraging me, so perhaps readers should only request to communicate with me ongoing if they feel they can help.

[iCEBREAKER]

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 

Right, the 7 most important/urgent (as determined by the fee market) transactions of the world's population are processed every second.

I wish cypher, Hearn, and Gavin good luck with Bitcoin XT in the alt subs.

It's important for people to have cheaper Bitcoin-like transfers available as they start to get priced out of Bitcoin proper.

But TBH, the first thing I thought of was 'Bitcoin SX.'   

Why not just stick with good old "GavinCoin?"  I'd buy GavinCoins, but not Bitcoin SXes XTs.

[TPTB_need_war]

It's important for people to have cheaper Bitcoin-like transfers available as they start to get priced out of Bitcoin proper.

Wouldn't the definition of "Bitcoin proper" be the one which has the most capital committed to it?

How could the coin of a few hobbiest have more capital than the VCs, Peter Thiel, Winkelvosses, Larry Summer's club of financial elites, the masses in Paypal, Coinbase, the merchants using Peter Thiel's Bitpay, 21 Inc + Samsung, etc?

I just can't fathom how you can rationalize in your mind (what appears to me to be a delusion) that some hobbiests and some fraction of the goldbugs can defy all that inertia?

What would differentiate your fork causing it to attract a significant capital base? If you claim no inflation, then Gavincoin will claim it too. Etc..

Capital is actually the productive capacity of the people, but in this case you don't have millions (nor even 1000s) of users independently working on programming Bitcoin, but rather mostly speculators boarding the wealth effect (soon to become greater fool theory) freight train. The VCs are paying most of the developers involved in Bitcoin projects.

Okay time for me to step away and watch the outcome.

[BldSwtTrs]

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.

  for a bunch of towel-head Muslims to rise up in revolution

Don't appreciate the racial stereotyping. Uncharacteristic for a forward thinker such as yourself.

This is not a racial stereotyping, this is a cultural stereotyping. It's actually backward thinking to confuse race and culture.

[vokain]

You can never win with the masses. They will always be wrong, for as long as they demand to organize themselves in collectives.

The Internet is essentially the mass of masses. Extrapolate the audience averaging effect in the popular game show Who Wants to Be a Millionaire:

"But there’s a third option: You can use your “Ask-the-Audience" life line. You can poll the entire studio audience on the four possible answers, and their responses are instantaneously assembled into a bar graph. Invariably, this graph shows one overwhelming choice, and with rare exceptions the audience is right. “I’ll trust the audience,” you tell Regis. “Final answer.”

Good move. But why? No person in the audience is any more likely than you to know where grapes come from, yet the collective intelligence of the group is almost always a better bet than your best guess. Psychologists are very interested in this perplexing statistical phenomenon. If the crowd is always wiser than any individual, what does that say about the way knowledge is stored and arranged in our minds? And can it help us make better choices, even beyond game shows?

...

That’s actually what Vul and Pashler found when they ran the experiment. As reported in the July issue of the journal Psychological Science, the average of two guesses for any individual participant was better than either guess alone, regardless of the time between guesses. So polling the “crowd within” does indeed yield a statistically more accurate answer. What’s more, this internal crowd gets more independent-minded with time: Contestants who were asked to second-guess themselves three weeks later benefited even more by averaging their two guesses than did those who second-guessed themselves immediately. The psychologists speculate that the cognitive pull of the original answer loses its power and allows more mental flexibility over time."
http://www.psychologicalscience.org/onlyhuman/2008/06/polling-crowd-within.cfm

[solex]

You can never win with the masses. They will always be wrong, for as long as they demand to organize themselves in collectives.

The Internet is essentially the mass of masses. Extrapolate the audience averaging effect in the popular game show Who Wants to Be a Millionaire:

"But there’s a third option: You can use your “Ask-the-Audience" life line. You can poll the entire studio audience on the four possible answers, and their responses are instantaneously assembled into a bar graph. Invariably, this graph shows one overwhelming choice, and with rare exceptions the audience is right. “I’ll trust the audience,” you tell Regis. “Final answer.”

Good move. But why? No person in the audience is any more likely than you to know where grapes come from, yet the collective intelligence of the group is almost always a better bet than your best guess. Psychologists are very interested in this perplexing statistical phenomenon. If the crowd is always wiser than any individual, what does that say about the way knowledge is stored and arranged in our minds? And can it help us make better choices, even beyond game shows?

...

That’s actually what Vul and Pashler found when they ran the experiment. As reported in the July issue of the journal Psychological Science, the average of two guesses for any individual participant was better than either guess alone, regardless of the time between guesses. So polling the “crowd within” does indeed yield a statistically more accurate answer. What’s more, this internal crowd gets more independent-minded with time: Contestants who were asked to second-guess themselves three weeks later benefited even more by averaging their two guesses than did those who second-guessed themselves immediately. The psychologists speculate that the cognitive pull of the original answer loses its power and allows more mental flexibility over time."
http://www.psychologicalscience.org/onlyhuman/2008/06/polling-crowd-within.cfm

@vokain You have probably seen this already, but in case not: enjoy!
BBC - The Code - The Wisdom of the Crowd
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iOucwX7Z1HU

PS. Interesting how every single block size limit poll, since the first one in Feb 2013, has had majority support for the increase.

[cypherdoc]

You can never win with the masses. They will always be wrong, for as long as they demand to organize themselves in collectives.

The Internet is essentially the mass of masses. Extrapolate the audience averaging effect in the popular game show Who Wants to Be a Millionaire:

"But there’s a third option: You can use your “Ask-the-Audience" life line. You can poll the entire studio audience on the four possible answers, and their responses are instantaneously assembled into a bar graph. Invariably, this graph shows one overwhelming choice, and with rare exceptions the audience is right. “I’ll trust the audience,” you tell Regis. “Final answer.”

Good move. But why? No person in the audience is any more likely than you to know where grapes come from, yet the collective intelligence of the group is almost always a better bet than your best guess. Psychologists are very interested in this perplexing statistical phenomenon. If the crowd is always wiser than any individual, what does that say about the way knowledge is stored and arranged in our minds? And can it help us make better choices, even beyond game shows?

...

That’s actually what Vul and Pashler found when they ran the experiment. As reported in the July issue of the journal Psychological Science, the average of two guesses for any individual participant was better than either guess alone, regardless of the time between guesses. So polling the “crowd within” does indeed yield a statistically more accurate answer. What’s more, this internal crowd gets more independent-minded with time: Contestants who were asked to second-guess themselves three weeks later benefited even more by averaging their two guesses than did those who second-guessed themselves immediately. The psychologists speculate that the cognitive pull of the original answer loses its power and allows more mental flexibility over time."
http://www.psychologicalscience.org/onlyhuman/2008/06/polling-crowd-within.cfm

This reminded me of Intrade. What a loss.

[Erdogan]

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.

Sorry to break in. It is not that we (bitcoiners, I) necessarily want bitcoin in its current form (or in its immediate next form) to be some kind of law of the land, backed by good will of the users. No. What I want is free choice, private money of all sorts possible. The market will sort out the best, and probably, if we look to submarkets in general for examples, not only the best according to some standard or to some majority will take it all, there are always contenders.

The main thing is to break away from laws restricting types of money, including soft money controls which are everywhere. I think that only the general market can make that happen, now that we have money types that can navigate around these monopolies. It will happen, it just takes time. If it is large blocks or small blocks, I think it doesn't matter much, because the difference is so small that bitcoin will not split into two money types for only this reason.

[Erdogan]

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.

This point is crucial, as others also have said. Bitcoin can compete now, with this low penetration, and for every new user the liquidity increases. That is in my view, a guarantee of success.

Compare this to just about any investment project that have a threshold of sales to be a success. Some succeed, but most don't.

[cypherdoc]

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.

now you're just being obstinate in the face of irrefutable data.  something needs to be done now as it appears any random Reddit dude can plug everything up if he wants to causing everyone's fees to rise while stalling out confirmations.

so in case you have an immediately deployable solution to your organic, resilient, vertical growth ideals, you should be on board with at least a temporary fix to give the devs some time to actually build one.

[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.

This point is crucial, as others also have said. Bitcoin can compete now, with this low penetration, and for every new user the liquidity increases. That is in my view, a guarantee of success.

Compare this to just about any investment project that have a threshold of sales to be a success. Some succeed, but most don't.

it's called Metcalfe's Law.  "value" of the network is squared by every new user.  iCE would rather keep it strangled down to him and his Myrcea buddies.

[cypherdoc]

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.

btw, this stress test is also an example of how anyone (not just large miners} actively supporting a >1MB network like XT will circle back around and flood Core with small TX's in hopes of breaking what is perceived to be a competitor.

hell, i might even do that.  it's so easy.

[cypherdoc]

lol, the network is STILL choked off after all this time.  i don't blame the short sightedness of the guy who just sold us off down to $232 given how strident iCE and his buddies have been about making any progress whatsoever on this block size issue.  i think it's a big mistake as it just gives the rest of us cheaper coins to accumulate as i think a block size increase is inevitable and soon as a result of the stress test:

[cypherdoc]

hey Mom, look!  creative destruction at work!:

[cypherdoc]

the problem with core devs deciding any block size limit is that they essentially become central bankers, ie, unilaterally determining everyone's cost of accessing the network. by what metric can they ever determine what size is appropriate given most of Bitcoin's incentives are economically and game theoretically driven? better to let the free mkt of miners and users work that out via mutually determined fees.