Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[TPTB_need_war]

I'm not sure there is much rational behind this logic, seems pretty similar to the coincidental Cypriot rise? Still it's getting some media coverage so worth a look

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-06-16/bitcoin-spikes-greeks-follow-cyprus-template

go figure?

Well given I wrote in May that Bitcoin would rally in June or July (at max up to $320ish) because of Greece, I would say you are late to the game.

There is an initial synergy for private assets, but the contagion coming will pull liquidity out of the most liquid (real, not leveraged) assets, i.e. gold and Bitcoin. Repeat of 2008 for gold and silver and other private assets that didn't exist. We will head down again to lower lows.

[cypherdoc]

BOO!!!

[TPTB_need_war]

BOO!!!

Haha! Okay. I will accept you are just in your own little world here. Good luck.

[TPTB_need_war]

Why do you belabor this point instead of focusing on your errors about 9/11?

You're right, I just checked and I misremembered something. There wasn't a second bombing attempt in 1998 - that was actually a robbery. So even though the buildings had been in the news twice in the decade prior to 9/11 there had been only one prior attempt by terrorists to destroy the towers.

But why are you focused on circumstantial innuendo and not on the hard physical science of it?

I couldn't move on with my life until I had researched the hard science of it. I just had to know. I don't understand why others would be so apathetic?

[thezerg]

For the expansionist here, what do you think?  Should we compromise at 8MB?  Personally I am ok with that, esp if an automatic periodic increase is baked in.

http://cointelegraph.com/news/114577/chinese-mining-pools-propose-alternative-8-mb-block-size

EDIT: page 1337!  gotta have something substantive on it :-)

[cypherdoc]

For the expansionist here, what do you think?  Should we compromise at 8MB?  Personally I am ok with that, esp if an automatic periodic increase is baked in.

http://cointelegraph.com/news/114577/chinese-mining-pools-propose-alternative-8-mb-block-size

EDIT: page 1337!  gotta have something substantive on it :-)

i'm ok with it with the automatic expansion.  but i'm alittle concerned with the miner voting for expansion.  why just them and is voting really the way we want to go?

[cypherdoc]

the paranoia runs high in this one...BOO!!!

Come on man. Armstrong never posts in any forum any where on earth. He has stated he doesn't follow others. He is in his own world. His site gets as much traffic as this site does. He doesn't need to come here and dilute his message and waste his time.

You know very well I am not Armstrong.

then prove it with the Skype.

[justusranvier]

But why are you focused on circumstantial innuendo and not on the hard physical science of it?

I couldn't move on with my life until I had researched the hard science of it. I just had to know. I don't understand why others would be so apathetic?

Because ultimately I will never have access to the evidence or the expertise to evaluate it, and most importantly: I don't care if it was Saudi terrorists or American terrorists who planned the attacks.

Even if the US government is 100% responsible for 9/11, it has done far worse than kill those 3000 people, both before and after the event.

So focusing on whether or not they are responsible is a bit like obsessing over whether or not a serial killer also deserves a parking ticket.

[cypherdoc]

simple, you get to verify who i am.

I believe it is you in the pic who is posting. That isn't a benefit from my perspective.

then you refuse to acknowledge your logic is flawed.  i don't fit the profile of your accusation.  at all.  proving that you are just slinging mud hoping something sticks.

[cypherdoc]

For the expansionist here, what do you think?  Should we compromise at 8MB?  Personally I am ok with that, esp if an automatic periodic increase is baked in.

http://cointelegraph.com/news/114577/chinese-mining-pools-propose-alternative-8-mb-block-size

EDIT: page 1337!  gotta have something substantive on it :-)

i smell DOOM for Blockstream, gmax, and Adam:

“We have really good communication with Gavin Andresen on this issue."

[tabnloz]

It's always shocked me how many 9/11 conspiracy theories people buy into, where there exists significantly more evidence that FDR knew of Pearl Harbor a day or so in advance, but allowed it to happen in order to push a reluctant US into war.

It is very likely that he did.  In my fairly rudimentary research on the matter I would say it's almost a certainty.  That's a leader's job.

Later in the conversation, Gilbert recorded Goering's observations that the common people can always be manipulated into supporting and fighting wars by their political leaders:

We got around to the subject of war again and I said that, contrary to his attitude, I did not think that the common people are very thankful for leaders who bring them war and destruction.
"Why, of course, the people don't want war," Goering shrugged. "Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece. Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship."

There is one difference," I pointed out. "In a democracy the people have some say in the matter through their elected representatives, and in the United States only Congress can declare wars."

"Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country."

FDR had it easy in that he had someone (and a very foolish someone) who was actually able and willing to attack us.  Ah, the good old days.

FDR's platform was to remain isolationist, however as time went on it was increasingly obvious the US could not remain so as the Allies were beng dominated by the Axis throughout Europe and Japan had controlled much of Asia for years by 1942. In order to provoke Japan, the US (iirc) blocked oil supplies to the Home islands, amongst other things, effectively daring them to throw the first punch that would get the American public onside. Hitting Pearl Harbour (and Darwin in Australia) was an attempt to decimate the US fleet in the Pacific to stymie the effectiveness of the US when they eventually joined (as the Japanese knew was inevitable). and, iirc someone stood up in parliament (Denmark?) in the weeks before the attack and spoke of intelligence of an attack on PH.....

...The main issue I have with 9/11 is that there should be no stigma to asking questions, as the US (and indeed governments all over) have a horrific history of denying / colluding in these kind of circumstances (Gulf of Tonkin, Reichstag fire, many lesser). However, at some stage it became unpatriotic to do so. Evidently, asking more questions would have been appropriate in the aftermath of 9/11 and the subsequent groupthink WMD / Iraq invasion disaster.

There are many aspects of the event that don't make immediate sense: WTC 7, some witness testimony, the probability of NORAD wargames on the same day under the same scenario (same thing happened in London on 7/7). These deserve to be explored and the commission report doesn't cover it adequately or at all.

Still, the most rational explanation is a lack of communication and failure of intelligence agencies to identify a known target & threat - but like with the NSA revelations, sometimes we can't even imagine the extent of it all.

[justusranvier]

i smell DOOM for Blockstream, gmax, and Adam:

“We have really good communication with Gavin Andresen on this issue."

Doom is not the ideal outcome.

It would likely mean any positive contributions they could make would be squandered.

[rocks]

It's always shocked me how many 9/11 conspiracy theories people buy into, where there exists significantly more evidence that FDR knew of Pearl Harbor a day or so in advance, but allowed it to happen in order to push a reluctant US into war.

It is very likely that he did.  In my fairly rudimentary research on the matter I would say it's almost a certainty.  That's a leader's job.

Later in the conversation, Gilbert recorded Goering's observations that the common people can always be manipulated into supporting and fighting wars by their political leaders:

We got around to the subject of war again and I said that, contrary to his attitude, I did not think that the common people are very thankful for leaders who bring them war and destruction.
"Why, of course, the people don't want war," Goering shrugged. "Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece. Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship."

There is one difference," I pointed out. "In a democracy the people have some say in the matter through their elected representatives, and in the United States only Congress can declare wars."

"Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country."

FDR had it easy in that he had someone (and a very foolish someone) who was actually able and willing to attack us.  Ah, the good old days.

FDR's platform was to remain isolationist, however as time went on it was increasingly obvious the US could not remain so as the Allies were beng dominated by the Axis throughout Europe and Japan had controlled much of Asia for years by 1942. In order to provoke Japan, the US (iirc) blocked oil supplies to the Home islands, amongst other things, effectively daring them to throw the first punch that would get the American public onside. Hitting Pearl Harbour (and Darwin in Australia) was an attempt to decimate the US fleet in the Pacific to stymie the effectiveness of the US when they eventually joined (as the Japanese knew was inevitable). and, iirc someone stood up in parliament (Denmark?) in the weeks before the attack and spoke of intelligence of an attack on PH.....

That is the biggest bunch of historical revisionist bunk. FDR was the very opposite of isolationist and very strongly pushing the US to support Briton very early on. This was to the point where the US was essentially engaging the German navy on Briton's behalf on the Atlantic side. FDR explicitly intermixed US merchant ships with British convoys, providing explicit protection to the Brits. That is not isolationist.

The Germans however learned their lesson in WWI, where the US only entered the war after their uboats sunk US merchant ships. Without that Wilson would not have been able to get the US to enter WWI. So in WWII the Germans went very far out of their way to avoid a direct confrontation with the US navy or US merchant ships. Very far out of there way. To call FDR isolationist is absurd, he was pro-Briton.

This presented a problem for the pro-Briton FDR. He needed a spark, and found it in Japan.

[cypherdoc]

i smell DOOM for Blockstream, gmax, and Adam:

“We have really good communication with Gavin Andresen on this issue."

Doom is not the ideal outcome.

It would likely mean any positive contributions they could make would be squandered.

well, they could go BK; in a year or so.  

mining really is the last piece to Gavin's puzzle and that quote is telling.  everyone else in the space clearly has an interest in seeing tx growth; users, merchants, exchanges.  and they have expressed themselves as such.  the only one's that were questionable were the miners; esp the big Chinese one's that had spoken up a couple of weeks ago.  now that they seem to be clearly onboard with the Big Picture, which Blockstream clearly isn't, the only thing remaining is just exactly how much we are going to increase the block size.  since 8MB is completely fine with them, that should be the starting point.  we definitely should build in an automatic increase.

the only part that makes me pause is this voting mechanism for block size expansion which was part of Jeff's proposal.  but overall, quite positive.

[TPTB_need_war]

some witness testimony, the probability of NORAD wargames on the same day under the same scenario (same thing happened in London on 7/7)

You can be refuted on these points. Stay with hard physical science of the collapse of the buildings and the pools of molten lava that was superhot for weeks. Those can't be explained without thermite.

When you have looked at these issues with the relevant scientific background, then the comments that others make about extraneous BS just looks so damn lame there aren't really words to describe.

[Erdogan]

I'm not sure there is much rational behind this logic, seems pretty similar to the coincidental Cypriot rise? Still it's getting some media coverage so worth a look

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-06-16/bitcoin-spikes-greeks-follow-cyprus-template

go figure?

You know, this is like a complicated game. You have to speculate what others speculate what others think... So it does not have to be real in any way, the greeks do not have to be involved, but still it could be the reason.

[TPTB_need_war]

But why are you focused on circumstantial innuendo and not on the hard physical science of it?

I couldn't move on with my life until I had researched the hard science of it. I just had to know. I don't understand why others would be so apathetic?

Because ultimately I will never have access to the evidence or the expertise to evaluate it, and most importantly: I don't care if it was Saudi terrorists or American terrorists who planned the attacks.

Even if the US government is 100% responsible for 9/11, it has done far worse than kill those 3000 people, both before and after the event.

So focusing on whether or not they are responsible is a bit like obsessing over whether or not a serial killer also deserves a parking ticket.

But by denying the knowledge of the power you are up against, it enables to you believe in fantasies about human ability to overcome with a network design which is fraught with centralization vectors and inertia.

But thank you. You explained why you are easily willing to hop onto hope. You don't want to know. You prefer hope than hard reality.

And this is why the 90% slow burn in the NWO plan works, as I explained mathematically upthread.

Any way, if you are sincere in your desire for what is best for humanity, then the best way for the two of us to interact is via concrete engineering designs. All of this fighting over piecewise dis-analysis of the problem set is just noise. Then you can make your decision which one you support. Probably you will choose the hope and wet dreams of Bitcoin no matter what. Because that is just the way your personality and mind is programmed apparently. That is okay. We need a market of winners and losers. There can't be all winners, else there isn't a market, unless of course we are just expanding the pie for everyone so even the losers in the market are gaining nominally while losing relative to the winners. And only after the fact will we prove which choices were correct. I am not asserting that I have proven you will be the loser. I don't know for sure even what your future choices will be. And I don't know for sure what outcomes will be achieved, especially from my side.

Again thank you for your candid honesty. And I hope I have returned the same.

Edit: this hope curse is something I am dealing with too. I been trying to convince myself that what I want to embark on is not just hope. To gain some estimates of realism and the market. One thing I have learned from my past successes is, don't rely on others they slow me down. Don't expect anyone to help me, because they will just parasite. Close off the world and code and amazing things happen. "Have faith in yourself, you've done this before". Don't try to reason it all out. Code and ship it.

[thezerg]

For the expansionist here, what do you think?  Should we compromise at 8MB?  Personally I am ok with that, esp if an automatic periodic increase is baked in.

http://cointelegraph.com/news/114577/chinese-mining-pools-propose-alternative-8-mb-block-size

EDIT: page 1337!  gotta have something substantive on it :-)

i'm ok with it with the automatic expansion.  but i'm alittle concerned with the miner voting for expansion.  why just them and is voting really the way we want to go?

Yes the BIP 100 voting scheme seems a bit under developed at this point.  The problem is that POW mining is the only way to prove independent existence, this is the basis of distributed consensus -- you can easily create a bunch of fake AWS "full" nodes for example -- 1000 nodes just forward requests to a single full node.  And if you could solve the voting problem without using mining, you could use that solution to remove mining from consensus (i.e. from bitcoin).

One way to prove unique nodes is to require that every node use asymmetric functions to encode the data to be stored, with uniquifying "salt".  This is essentially hashing but backwards.

For example, every node chooses a unique 256bit identifier (salt).  Then for every 8 or 16 bits of blockchain data Di, it finds and stores Xi such that Hash(Xi + identifier + i) = Di (where "+" means "append").

This search happens continually as the blockchain is being created.

Now a client can validate the uniqueness of storage by another node by requesting random chunks of data from the node.  The node responds with its ID and Xi0-i1.  The client can then quickly validate this by running the hash function and comparing the result to its own blockchain.

A "full" node (one that is calculating this data and storing it as the blockchain is created) will be able to respond quickly where one that is not doing so will have to calculate the reverse hash function (essentially a random search like mining but easier because only 8 or 16 bits) on the fly.

Once you have this "proof of storage" you might be able to turn it into allowing node voting...

[TPTB_need_war]

For the expansionist here, what do you think?  Should we compromise at 8MB?  Personally I am ok with that, esp if an automatic periodic increase is baked in.

http://cointelegraph.com/news/114577/chinese-mining-pools-propose-alternative-8-mb-block-size

EDIT: page 1337!  gotta have something substantive on it :-)

i'm ok with it with the automatic expansion.  but i'm alittle concerned with the miner voting for expansion.  why just them and is voting really the way we want to go?

Yes the BIP 100 voting scheme seems a bit under developed at this point.  The problem is that POW mining is the only way to prove independent existence, this is the basis of distributed consensus -- you can easily create a bunch of fake AWS "full" nodes for example -- 1000 nodes just forward requests to a single full node.  And if you could solve the voting problem without using mining, you could use that solution to remove mining from consensus (i.e. from bitcoin).

One way to prove unique nodes is to require that every node use asymmetric functions to encode the data to be stored, with uniquifying "salt".  This is essentially hashing but backwards.

For example, every node chooses a unique 256bit identifier (salt).  Then for every 8 or 16 bits of blockchain data Di, it finds and stores Xi such that Hash(Xi + identifier + i) = Di (where "+" means "append").

This search happens continually as the blockchain is being created.

Now a client can validate the uniqueness of storage by another node by requesting random chunks of data from the node.  The node responds with its ID and Xi0-i1.  The client can then quickly validate this by running the hash function and comparing the result to its own blockchain.

A "full" node (one that is calculating this data and storing it as the blockchain is created) will be able to respond quickly where one that is not doing so will have to calculate the reverse hash function (essentially a random search like mining but easier because only 8 or 16 bits) on the fly.

Once you have this "proof of storage" you might be able to turn it into allowing node voting...

So someone rents hard disk space on Amazon AWS during the voting period and becomes many unique entities.

You were correct that there is no way to prove one computer, one vote. PoW doesn't work by voting. It works by random chance. The only problem PoW solves is consensus on ordering.

Ah I grow weary in this thread.

[justusranvier]

Voting schemes are not the simplist thing that could work.