Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[cypherdoc]

On the Chinese mine objections. Let them cry. Bitcoin is a force for good so if they want to allow themselves to be forked off the network through their local bandwidth problems, so be it. I say do someing about it. It will give miners round the world a chance to level the passing field. And if Wall street really does  want to get into Bitcoin, this will give them a chance to build their own mines. That would be a good thing too so as to further decentralize the process. Personally I think the Chinese gvt will allow their miners to step it up to stay competitive. Bitcoin is their chance to challenge the dollar which is why they haven't crushed it yet.

Bitcoin must remain concerned with "local bandwidth problems" in order to stay diverse/diffuse/defensible/resilient.  Not that Gavinstas GAS about that these days; just saying for the record.

And if one cares to RTFA, one notices it contains quotes from major Chinese exchange operators, not "mine objections" (those came a couple of days ago, these are new; please try to keep up with the class).

The exchanges are key to GavinCoin's fate.  The more exchanges stay faithful to vanilla Bitcoin, the more power is given to MP's 'GavinCoin Short.'

BTCChina is the #3 pool miner, laggard.

That's right!  Very good.  Now you know that, at minimum, ~31% of the network (f2pool + BTCChina + Eligius) are against mining GavinCoins.

BTCChina is also one of the largest exchanges.  The first line in the CT article says:

Two of China's biggest bitcoin exchanges - BTCChina and Huobi - have voiced concerns over Bitcoin Core developer Gavin Andresen's proposal to raise the block size limit to 20 megabytes by next year.

The combined defensive power of these huge pro-vanilla pools/mines/exchanges makes it more likely GavinCoin will get r3kt like Stannis on the Blackwater (perhaps thanks in part to MP's 'GavinCoin Short' wildfire WMD).

-

glad to hear you admit i'm right on the pt i was trying to make.  which was that increasing the block size will NOT lead to centralization.  that's yours and their's #1 argument out of the way.

now for your 31% of the network against:  Let them cry. Bitcoin is a force for good so if they want to allow themselves to be forked off the network through their local bandwidth problems, so be it. I say do something about it. It will give miners round the world a chance to level the playing field. And if Wall street really does want to get into Bitcoin, this will give them a chance to build their own mines which Fred Wilson recommended in the Andrew Ross Sorkin interview with Nathan Popper.  That would be a good thing too so as to further decentralize the process of mining and let the US into that game. Personally I think the Chinese gvt will allow their miners to step it up in terms of bandwidth eventually to stay competitive. Bitcoin is their chance to challenge the dollar which is why they haven't crushed it yet.

[1714138986]

1714138986

[1714138986]

1714138986

[cypherdoc]

actually, there's no way f2pool, Eligius, and BTCPool add to 31% of the network.  i count 10% max and f2pool isn't even on the chart.

[vokain]

Monero's implementation is fixed.

Like Bitcoin, only Monero's emission schedule is fixed (by social contract).  

In all other areas, both remain open to improvement, bound only by the constraint of community consensus.

Considering this, it seems to me that another ledger does not have to surpass a dominant ledger in any metric for it to coexist. When the culture of a collective strives for technological advances under the auspices of everlastingly standing against any nefarious PTB, I think this can challenge the thesis that there has to be one dominant ledger, at least immediately. Consider as an imperfect example: Apple vs. and Windows.

[iCEBREAKER]

Looks like Gavin's plan to get the miners to join his coup d'état is not going so great, lol

http://cointelegraph.com/news/114481/chinese-exchanges-reject-gavin-andresens-20-mb-block-size-increase

LOL @ Gavin r3kt like Stannis on the Blackwater.   

So much for FrappuccinoDoc's anglocentric assertion that most BTC activity takes place in the EU and US.

This news comes right after f2pool (China's and the world's largest) publicly told Gavin in an exchange (tweeted by Szabo) to calm down, forget about 20mb blocks, and learn to spell their names right.

They need to use strong words, Hong Kong and China combined have less than 100 nodes and miners face an exponential increase of orphans with a disproportionate increase in blockchain size due to there trans Pacific internet connection.

They have little influence other than political.

They need Bitcoin centralization or SC to survive.

Asian Bitcoiners not only have influence in the political/social form, but also economic and technological.

They aren't using strong words; their circumspect quotes in the CT article are studiously measured, calm, and polite.

The presence of large mines/pools/exchanges outside the anglosphere is required to keep the system diverse/diffuse/defensible/resilient.

[iCEBREAKER]

actually, there's no way f2pool, Eligius, and BTCPool add to 31% of the network.  i count 10% max and f2pool isn't even on the chart.

Look here you grumpy old fart.  You need to take your gingko and go on vacation, instead of requiring spoon-feeding in the manner of a vegetative nursing home resident.

You are constantly losing your shit and repeatedly requiring correction of your misapprehension of common knowledge and basic facts.

Watching gmax slap you around on reddit is Good Times, but a waste of his invaluable energy.  Likewise for tvbcof's, hdbuck's, and Marcus' disastrous attempts at informing and educating you.

If you stay, I suggest making a standing reservation in the burn ward.  Because GavinCoin is toast.  

Please stop telling us VanillaCoiners what our "#1" anti-GavinCoin argument is, or at least get it approximately correct.

#1 trade-offs with negative impacts on existing levels of diversity/diffusion/defensibility/resiliency
#2 UXTO explosion
#3 blocksize gaming, propagation, bandwidth, etc.

[tvbcof]

Monero's implementation is fixed.

Like Bitcoin, only Monero's emission schedule is fixed (by social contract).  

In all other areas, both remain open to improvement, bound only by the constraint of community consensus.

Considering this, it seems to me that another ledger does not have to surpass a dominant ledger in any metric for it to coexist. When the culture of a collective strives for technological advances under the auspices to everlastingly stand against any nefarious PTB, I think this can challenge the thesis that there has to be one dominant ledger, at least immediately. Consider as an imperfect example: Apple vs. Windows.

The assumption seems to rest on the notion that if most miners were not interested in a particular fork, some sufficient fraction could and would attack it.  This is dubious for several reasons.  Among them, they would have to give up the value of mining on their favored chain.  Even if they were not able to mine it profitably (as has happened at least once in Bitcoin's history) they would still have to pay the costs out-of-pocket and hope that they could re-coup the money by ?.?.?.

One of the giant (and almost completely ignored) advantages a Bitcoin which is primarily used as a backing store has is that it can simply freeze for relatively long periods of time if a sufficiently troublesome attack is underway.  For the most part, the sidechains that Bitcoin backs can keep right on humming along an fap.doc can enjoy his latte.  A Bitcoin built to support every peon's real-time needs has no such luxury.  If Bitcoin itself is being supported by technically competent people well distributed around the world, and if there is good communications and transparency about the attack and the defenses being mounted to fend it off, end-users at the sidechain level (or Bitcoin level for that matter) can consider it a nuisance rather that a thing to be terribly concerned about.

p.s., I added the second para because in the event that XT was going and had significant firepower to deploy against Core (unlikely to last long even if it did come to pass) then Core still has relatively little to be concerned about.  Better defenses.  Defenses are what Bitcoin is (or should be) all about.  That's where the real enduring value lays...which fap.doc will learn to his dismay.

edit: slight

[rocks]

Looks like Gavin's plan to get the miners to join his coup d'état is not going so great, lol

http://cointelegraph.com/news/114481/chinese-exchanges-reject-gavin-andresens-20-mb-block-size-increase

LOL @ Gavin r3kt like Stannis on the Blackwater.  

So much for FrappuccinoDoc's anglocentric assertion that most BTC activity takes place in the EU and US.

This news comes right after f2pool (China's and the world's largest) publicly told Gavin in an exchange (tweeted by Szabo) to calm down, forget about 20mb blocks, and learn to spell their names right.

They need to use strong words, Hong Kong and China combined have less than 100 nodes and miners face an exponential increase of orphans with a disproportionate increase in blockchain size due to there trans Pacific internet connection.

They have little influence other than political.

They need Bitcoin centralization or SC to survive.

I lived for several years in Seoul and had a 100Mbps down / 10Mbps up connection for ~$15/month residential, commercial lines had more. Friends have told me they are now at 1Gbps connections.

20MB blocks translates to an average of  0.5Mbps. If miners in China have an issue with that then they have other problems.

Oh, and the entire mining farm only needs a small number of kpbs to connect to the pool node which can be anywhere.

[Adrian-x]

Looks like Gavin's plan to get the miners to join his coup d'état is not going so great, lol

http://cointelegraph.com/news/114481/chinese-exchanges-reject-gavin-andresens-20-mb-block-size-increase

LOL @ Gavin r3kt like Stannis on the Blackwater.  

So much for FrappuccinoDoc's anglocentric assertion that most BTC activity takes place in the EU and US.

This news comes right after f2pool (China's and the world's largest) publicly told Gavin in an exchange (tweeted by Szabo) to calm down, forget about 20mb blocks, and learn to spell their names right.

They need to use strong words, Hong Kong and China combined have less than 100 nodes and miners face an exponential increase of orphans with a disproportionate increase in blockchain size due to there trans Pacific internet connection.

They have little influence other than political.

They need Bitcoin centralization or SC to survive.

Asian Bitcoiners not only have influence in the political/social form, but also economic and technological.

They aren't using strong words; their circumspect quotes in the CT article are studiously measured, calm, and polite.

The presence of large mines/pools/exchanges outside the anglosphere is required to keep the system diverse/diffuse/defensible/resilient.

Accommodating a minority of less than 100 nodes with the highest off blockchain transaction volume looks dependant on centralization, concentrated and not very resident. I find it ironic to think by keeping block small you feel they will achieve the goal of decentralization.  Yes they have 1.7% network diversity interest and are 98.3% dependent on political influence.

The problem is this minority have the attention of a centralized control system.

[cypherdoc]

actually, there's no way f2pool, Eligius, and BTCPool add to 31% of the network.  i count 10% max and f2pool isn't even on the chart.

Look here you grumpy old fart.  You need to take your gingko and go on vacation, instead of requiring spoon-feeding in the manner of a vegetative nursing home resident.

You are constantly losing your shit and repeatedly requiring correction of your misapprehension of common knowledge and basic facts.

Watching gmax slap you around on reddit is Good Times, but a waste of his invaluable energy.  Likewise for tvbcof's, hdbuck's, and Marcus' disastrous attempts at informing and educating you.

If you stay, I suggest making a standing reservation in the burn ward.  Because GavinCoin is toast.  

Please stop telling us VanillaCoiners what our "#1" anti-GavinCoin argument is, or at least get it approximately correct.

#1 trade-offs with negative impacts on existing levels of diversity/diffusion/defensibility/resiliency
#2 UXTO explosion
#3 blocksize gaming, propagation, bandwidth, etc.

Is that how you deal with your flawed addition problem  I just pointed out? With ad hominems? iCE, stop being an idiot and trying to push Monero.

It has been your #1 argument. Sorry for blowing a large smoking hole through it.

[rocks]

Looks like Gavin's plan to get the miners to join his coup d'état is not going so great, lol

http://cointelegraph.com/news/114481/chinese-exchanges-reject-gavin-andresens-20-mb-block-size-increase

LOL @ Gavin r3kt like Stannis on the Blackwater.  

So much for FrappuccinoDoc's anglocentric assertion that most BTC activity takes place in the EU and US.

This news comes right after f2pool (China's and the world's largest) publicly told Gavin in an exchange (tweeted by Szabo) to calm down, forget about 20mb blocks, and learn to spell their names right.

They need to use strong words, Hong Kong and China combined have less than 100 nodes and miners face an exponential increase of orphans with a disproportionate increase in blockchain size due to there trans Pacific internet connection.

They have little influence other than political.

They need Bitcoin centralization or SC to survive.

Asian Bitcoiners not only have influence in the political/social form, but also economic and technological.

They aren't using strong words; their circumspect quotes in the CT article are studiously measured, calm, and polite.

The presence of large mines/pools/exchanges outside the anglosphere is required to keep the system diverse/diffuse/defensible/resilient.

Accommodating a minority of less than 100 nodes with the highest off blockchain transaction volume looks dependant on centralization, concentrated and not very resident. I find it ironic to think by keeping block small you feel they will achieve the goal of decentralization.  Yes they have 1.7% network diversity interest and are 98.3% dependent on political influence.  

Contrary to popular opinion, the consensus mechanism for Bitcoin does not require a large super majority to set direction, any group of slightly more than 50% of participants can set direction. The reason is simple, in a 60/40 split the 40 can either fork away from the majority losing all ability to transact with the economic majority, or the 40 can follow the 60.

In the March 2013 it did not take a large super majority to switch from the 0.7 branch longest chain, if I remember correctly once roughly 50% of the hash rate switched to the shorter 0.8 branch, that was enough for the rest to see the direction and follow suit.

The polls I've seen show >80% of people are interest in 20MB blocks. If this 80 switches to 20MB blocks, the rest will follow. To not do so means becoming fully disconnected from the economic majority. Even if china represents 40% of the hashrate, they will follow the majority of users in the rest of the world. That is how consensus works. To not do so is economic suicide.

[iCEBREAKER]

Looks like Gavin's plan to get the miners to join his coup d'état is not going so great, lol

http://cointelegraph.com/news/114481/chinese-exchanges-reject-gavin-andresens-20-mb-block-size-increase

LOL @ Gavin r3kt like Stannis on the Blackwater.  

So much for FrappuccinoDoc's anglocentric assertion that most BTC activity takes place in the EU and US.

This news comes right after f2pool (China's and the world's largest) publicly told Gavin in an exchange (tweeted by Szabo) to calm down, forget about 20mb blocks, and learn to spell their names right.

They need to use strong words, Hong Kong and China combined have less than 100 nodes and miners face an exponential increase of orphans with a disproportionate increase in blockchain size due to there trans Pacific internet connection.

They have little influence other than political.

They need Bitcoin centralization or SC to survive.

I lived for several years in Seoul and had a 100Mbps down / 10Mbps up connection for ~$15/month residential, commercial lines had more. Friends have told me they are now at 1Gbps connections.

20MB blocks translates to an average of  0.5Mbps. If miners in China have an issue with that then they have other problems.

Oh, and the entire mining farm only needs a small number of kpbs to connect to the pool node which can be anywhere.

S. Korea is very small, rich, and high-tech; Seoul in particular is extremely densely populated (and utterly unsuited for mining at scale).

You might as well reason about all of Russian bandwidth in terms of Moscow's example, or all of America's in terms of San Francisco.

[Cconvert2G36]

On the Chinese mine objections. Let them cry. Bitcoin is a force for good so if they want to allow themselves to be forked off the network through their local bandwidth problems, so be it. I say do someing about it. It will give miners round the world a chance to level the passing field. And if Wall street really does  want to get into Bitcoin, this will give them a chance to build their own mines. That would be a good thing too so as to further decentralize the process. Personally I think the Chinese gvt will allow their miners to step it up to stay competitive. Bitcoin is their chance to challenge the dollar which is why they haven't crushed it yet.

Bitcoin must remain concerned with "local bandwidth problems" in order to stay diverse/diffuse/defensible/resilient.  Not that Gavinstas GAS about that these days; just saying for the record.

And if one cares to RTFA, one notices it contains quotes from major Chinese exchange operators, not "mine objections" (those came a couple of days ago, these are new; please try to keep up with the class).

The exchanges are key to GavinCoin's fate.  The more exchanges stay faithful to vanilla Bitcoin, the more power is given to MP's 'GavinCoin Short.'

BTCChina is the #3 pool miner, laggard.

That's right!  Very good.  Now you know that, at minimum, ~31% of the network (f2pool + BTCChina + Eligius) are against mining GavinCoins.

BTCChina is also one of the largest exchanges.  The first line in the CT article says:

Two of China's biggest bitcoin exchanges - BTCChina and Huobi - have voiced concerns over Bitcoin Core developer Gavin Andresen's proposal to raise the block size limit to 20 megabytes by next year.

The combined defensive power of these huge pro-vanilla pools/mines/exchanges makes it more likely GavinCoin will get r3kt like Stannis on the Blackwater (perhaps thanks in part to MP's 'GavinCoin Short' wildfire WMD).

So the monero/side chain/MP cultists are the Lannisters? Wonder how that works out...

[vokain]

I had the impression everyone's kind of joined in on the fight against the Lannisters (ruling party) who are inextricably tied to the bankers.

edit: Then I guess we have the Dragon Empire from across the sea, but they have their own messes to clean up before getting anywhere.

idk I'm only on episode 5

[Adrian-x]

the only centralization problem i see is the centralization of Core developers under the Blockstream banner, and their lack economic understanding

I don't understand how you can write that given all I have written in this thread about the inherent centralization in Bitcoin's design.

This discourages me about the rationality of the readers here.

If you have rebuttal to the points I made about Bitcoin technical design being centralized, I'd like to read it to see if it is rational.

your Ideas are too convoluted, the total number of miners and nodes expanding and contracting is in response to market conditions and inevitable, I don't buy the idea of a contraction in the number of mining participants or nodes will continue to the point of centralization

You did not comprehend that I pointed out monopolization mechanisms by which the number of full nodes could even increase yet centralization could still occur.

You also don't seem to comprehend that the number of mining nodes has nothing to do with the fact that consensus has the power to deny transactions. You depend on a diligent human action running full nodes that will fork or blacklist away from any malfeasance. But humans are more self-interested than they are collective goals focused, as the Logic Of Collective Action explains.

Your conceptualization revolving around the # of nodes and economic incentives equilibrium ignores the points I've made about the ability of the cartel to attain the exclusive lowest cost access to electricity and economies-of-scale on hardware optimization.

I've already explained how the incentive structure breaks in numerous scenarios. Do you have your ears covered?

The bold above is happening in real time we get to see empirical evidence very soon. Still home advantage to the central authority who can push there winning card through with a soft fork by offering miners extra revenue for merge mining SC's

And surprisingly there is an idea that can dethrone the central authority by catering to the majority who use the network and run the protocol and many who have an invested interest are watching, and the central authority says the ignorant majority are just ignorant, listen to us we're experts.

So looking at the pole above, it may be causality but there seems to be wisdom in the consensus of the herd. So I think you may end up being wrong let's see.

I hope you are.

[iCEBREAKER]

Two of China's biggest bitcoin exchanges - BTCChina and Huobi - have voiced concerns over Bitcoin Core developer Gavin Andresen's proposal to raise the block size limit to 20 megabytes by next year.

The combined defensive power of these huge pro-vanilla pools/mines/exchanges makes it more likely GavinCoin will get r3kt like Stannis on the Blackwater (perhaps thanks in part to MP's 'GavinCoin Short' wildfire WMD).

So the monero/side chain/MP cultists are the Lannisters? Wonder how that works out...

Varus was there too.  Bron, Tyrion, Tomlin, and Jaime are good Lannisters, unlike Sexy Evil Circe and the rest.   

The point is Bitcoin much harder to attack than even King's Landing's well defended walls.  Satoshi build BTC to last through any external siege or internal coup.

No matter how great his hubris or wicked his witchcraft, Gavin the pretender to Satoshi's throne and his fleet of pirate ships are going to get r3kt in this battle.

Good summary here:  https://www.coingecko.com/buzz/bitcoin-leaders-speak-up-block-size

Includes the first media coverage I've seen of MPEX's economic doomsday weapon, the GavinCoin Short:

Popescu explained why any hard fork that increases the block size limit is destined for failure:

“The fate of this fork will be exactly the fate of all attempted forks to date : the savvy Bitcoin holders will sell their fake-Bitcoins on the fake network, while double-spending (and thus invalidating) their sale on the actual network, thereby keeping their actual Bitcoin safe (iv). The proceeds of this "victimless" (v) crime will be used to purchase more legitimate Bitcoins on the legitimate network, thus draining away value from the holders of Bitcoin fakes, into the pockets of the legitimate Bitcoin holders.”

[Cconvert2G36]

Two of China's biggest bitcoin exchanges - BTCChina and Huobi - have voiced concerns over Bitcoin Core developer Gavin Andresen's proposal to raise the block size limit to 20 megabytes by next year.

The combined defensive power of these huge pro-vanilla pools/mines/exchanges makes it more likely GavinCoin will get r3kt like Stannis on the Blackwater (perhaps thanks in part to MP's 'GavinCoin Short' wildfire WMD).

So the monero/side chain/MP cultists are the Lannisters? Wonder how that works out...

Varus was there too.  Bron, Tyrion, Tomlin, and Jaime are good Lannisters, unlike Sexy Evil Circe and the rest.   

The point is Bitcoin much harder to attack than even King's Landing's well defended walls.  Satoshi build BTC to last through any external siege or internal coup.

No matter how great his hubris or wicked his witchcraft, Gavin the pretender to Satoshi's throne and his fleet of pirate ships are going to get r3kt in this battle.

Good summary here:  https://www.coingecko.com/buzz/bitcoin-leaders-speak-up-block-size

Includes the first media coverage I've seen of MPEX's economic doomsday weapon, the GavinCoin Short:

Popescu explained why any hard fork that increases the block size limit is destined for failure:

“The fate of this fork will be exactly the fate of all attempted forks to date : the savvy Bitcoin holders will sell their fake-Bitcoins on the fake network, while double-spending (and thus invalidating) their sale on the actual network, thereby keeping their actual Bitcoin safe (iv). The proceeds of this "victimless" (v) crime will be used to purchase more legitimate Bitcoins on the legitimate network, thus draining away value from the holders of Bitcoin fakes, into the pockets of the legitimate Bitcoin holders.”

Keep going... at least I am aware my posts are bereft of constructive content.

[iCEBREAKER]

Good summary here:  https://www.coingecko.com/buzz/bitcoin-leaders-speak-up-block-size

Includes the first media coverage I've seen of MPEX's economic doomsday weapon, the GavinCoin Short:

Popescu explained why any hard fork that increases the block size limit is destined for failure:

“The fate of this fork will be exactly the fate of all attempted forks to date : the savvy Bitcoin holders will sell their fake-Bitcoins on the fake network, while double-spending (and thus invalidating) their sale on the actual network, thereby keeping their actual Bitcoin safe (iv). The proceeds of this "victimless" (v) crime will be used to purchase more legitimate Bitcoins on the legitimate network, thus draining away value from the holders of Bitcoin fakes, into the pockets of the legitimate Bitcoin holders.”

Keep going... at least I am aware my posts are bereft of constructive content.

Constructive content?

Foolish mortal...T H I S  I S  B I T C O I N T A L K !

[cypherdoc]

Good summary here:  https://www.coingecko.com/buzz/bitcoin-leaders-speak-up-block-size

Includes the first media coverage I've seen of MPEX's economic doomsday weapon, the GavinCoin Short:

Popescu explained why any hard fork that increases the block size limit is destined for failure:

“The fate of this fork will be exactly the fate of all attempted forks to date : the savvy Bitcoin holders will sell their fake-Bitcoins on the fake network, while double-spending (and thus invalidating) their sale on the actual network, thereby keeping their actual Bitcoin safe (iv). The proceeds of this "victimless" (v) crime will be used to purchase more legitimate Bitcoins on the legitimate network, thus draining away value from the holders of Bitcoin fakes, into the pockets of the legitimate Bitcoin holders.”

Keep going... at least I am aware my posts are bereft of constructive content.

Constructive content?

Foolish mortal...T H I S  I S  B I T C O I N T A L K !

iCELatte - - > CONCERN TROLL!

[iCEBREAKER]

Good summary here:  https://www.coingecko.com/buzz/bitcoin-leaders-speak-up-block-size

Includes the first media coverage I've seen of MPEX's economic doomsday weapon, the GavinCoin Short:

Popescu explained why any hard fork that increases the block size limit is destined for failure:

“The fate of this fork will be exactly the fate of all attempted forks to date : the savvy Bitcoin holders will sell their fake-Bitcoins on the fake network, while double-spending (and thus invalidating) their sale on the actual network, thereby keeping their actual Bitcoin safe (iv). The proceeds of this "victimless" (v) crime will be used to purchase more legitimate Bitcoins on the legitimate network, thus draining away value from the holders of Bitcoin fakes, into the pockets of the legitimate Bitcoin holders.”

Keep going... at least I am aware my posts are bereft of constructive content.

Constructive content?

Foolish mortal...T H I S  I S  B I T C O I N T A L K !

iCELatte - - > CONCERN TROLL!

I'm not the one CONCERNED about how zero fee transactions taking a little longer will cause yet another Death Of Bitcoin.   

[TPTB_need_war]

makes Monero roughly 1% of my assets

Some of have publicly commented that you ended up coding less for Monero than they had hoped.

If I said that hypothetically if I was a dev on a coin and my holding in the coin was only 1% of my assets then I wouldn't have much incentive to work on it full-time (forum posting not included as work); would this strike you or anyone else as being unethical or in any other way incorrect or inappropriate?

I am getting at whether a dev having a large stake in a coin is detrimental or positive?

I understand Cypherdoc criticizes Gregory's stake in Bitcoin because Greg is on the other side of the block size increase debate. And he seems to be jealous that Greg was gifted some hardware in exchange for (and/or to aid) his development work.

Seems to me that there will always be jealously, but Satoshi seems to mostly get a free ride. Is it because he is anonymous, gone, or because he caused a star to appear in the eyes of the Bitcoin supporters?

Let's just say I'm not necessarily a good example to use for generalizations, in part because I practice aggressive risk management, and also in part because I'm perfectly comfortable financially (I have no desire for a castle), so I don't see the need to take extreme risks.

I don't necessarily sign up for the moon shots (e.g. SpaceShipTwo -- see below). But on the other hand I incur large losses only rarely and always have a bullet left in the chamber when opportunity presents itself, so I've done okay.

Btw, I had deduced this about you.

If we are truly facing a potential global Dark Age, it is possible that all the diversification you can muster won't help you. In that case, being undriven to attempt the moon shot can be the crash and burn scenario.

Odds would normally overwhelmingly favor your cautious stance, but I don't think we are heading into a normal business cycle correction. I believe Martin Armstrong's 309 year cycle model of civilization change. It is also so happens that all of his models are converging towards a major crash at the same time, e.g. the 25 year War Cycle model, the 51.6 year ECM, the pandemic model, etc..

I believe we are headed into a tempest on the order of the fall of Western Rome with the technological differences, i.e. a propaganda war with virtual realities and a technological totalitarianism. TPTB have the technological and political circumstances to drag us into a top-down Technocracy that slow burns into eugenics and death by a 1000 paper cuts.

We hackers have the potential to create efforts which thwart such a dire outcome.

For all you Bible believers, the calculations for the Tribulations and Jesus's return (Google "Abdomination of the Desolation" and "Marshall Swing") point to 2015.75 as the beginning of the Tribulations. I am not basing my decisions on Biblical numerology. Just noting I am aware of this.

However even I am skeptical about the degree to which a waterfall crash can implode all diversification over short time intervals. The collapse of Western Rome into the Middle Ages was not a process that could be observed in a single lifetime. Although apparently the localized collapse from 1.2 million to 30,000 population of Rome was mostly concentrated over decades.