Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[TPTB_need_war]

If you brake your leg or your neck, you should consult a quack instead of a university trained doctor of the establishment.

When the funding for tenured professors comes from the establishment which does not want truth to be explored on a particular issue (e.g. anthropogenic global warming aka man-made climate change lie that was foisted on the establishment and which 9,000 PhDs were signatories against but even that never made the news), then science within the establishment does not exist on that issue.

When some of those established engineers and professors decide instead to fund their collaboration, this is then debunked as non-science because it didn't take place within the monolith of the establishment's controlled funding model.

Logical indeed.

I know the anthropocentric logic of the quacks and truthers: taking CO2 out of the ground and put it into the athmosphere and the ocean doesn't change the climate of the athmosphere and the ocean.

Logical indeed.

Wow you just proved you are an idiot (or presumptuous which is the same thing). Do some research on the science. I did. And so did 9,000 PhDs.

Lazy people love to boast and we who are not lazy realize you are idiots. That is why you get the NWO enslavement that you deserve.

It's you who is the idiot. Not an idiot for example is Nassim Taleb:

Climate Change.

I am hyper-conservative ecologically (meaning super-Green). My position on the climate is to avoid releasing pollutants in the atmosphere, on the basis of ignorance, regardless of current expert opinion
.............

We have polluted for years, causing much damage to the environment, while the scientists currently making these complicated forecasting models were not sticking their necks out and trying to stop us from building these risks (they resemble those "risk experts" in the economic domain who fight the previous war) --these are the ones now trying to impose the solutions on us. But the skepticism about models that I propose does not lead to the same conclusions as the ones endorsed by anti-environmentalists, pro-market fundamentalists, quite the contrary: we need to be hyper-conservationists ecologically, super-Green, since we do not know what we are harming with now. That's the sound policy under ignorance and epistemic opacity. To those who say "we have no proof that we are harming nature", a sound response is "we have no proof that we are not harming nature either" --the burden of the proof is not on the ecological conservationist, but on someone disrupting an old system.

http://www.blackswanreport.com/blog/2010/01/opacity-3/

The assumption of either position for or against as absolute, is anti-science.
Science is the process of questioning the 'experts' and testing.  
It is when we stop questioning, that science ends.

In this case you are both more right than wrong.  
Climate change science is useful for statists to increase authority and that questioning this scientifically is discouraged (TPTB's point).  
Avoiding pollution and waste is the key to sustainability, and so it is prudent to avoid it (Zarathustra's point).
Where you are both wrong is in recognising that these points are not necessarily in conflict.

Learn the difference between climate and environment. A dictionary can be helpful.

I was 100% correct as usual. And I didn't even present the unarguable physical science arguments that compelled me to my position on CLIMATE.

I never said a damn thing about environment. It will be rare to catch me in a category error. Yeah shitting in your backyard environment is really smart. And no one here was conflating CLIMATE with generally adverse affects to the environment such as heavy metal or bromides contamination of the fish and soils. Putting fluoride in our water which competes for the same receptors sites in the body as a necessary nutrient iodine is really smart.

Both I and Armstrong were making that distinction between climate and environment long ago.

And you are incorrect to assume that Zaradude was arguing about environment. He is not. He doesn't have a clue about making such a distinction (nor much of anything else ... I've been arguing with him for years now ...) and certainly isn't limiting his arguments to the environment.

The reason humans can't impact the CLIMATE with CO2 is because our release of CO2 is miniscule in comparison to the CO2 absorbed and released by for example the oceans due to changes in the sea temperature due to the Sun. Even volcanos release C02 faster than humans can (not sure if they release more CO2 overall over any long period but make sure you include the undersea volcanos if you try to calculate this and include all the ones we don't know exist). That Taleb didn't apparently distinguish C02 as not being a pollutant, shows that he doesn't know how to apply his Black Swan and Anti-fragility math to the real world. The risk for the Black Swan w.r.t. to C02 is the assumption that taxing carbon can't cause a massive collapse in both the economy via the concomitant corruption. Taleb should realize which side of the argument is centralized meddling in a large scale system preventing anti-fragility.

P.S. I am not angry at you, hehe, I am just making drama with my words for the fun of it.

[1713974182]

1713974182

[1713974182]

1713974182

[1713974182]

1713974182

[1713974182]

1713974182

[1713974182]

1713974182

[cypherdoc]

awemany continuing to pound on /u/nullc

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3a5f1v/mike_hearn_on_those_who_want_all_scaling_to_be/csaku38

[TPTB_need_war]

Wow you just proved you are an idiot (or presumptuous which is the same thing). Do some research on the science. I did. And so did 9,000 PhDs.

Lazy people love to boast and we who are not lazy realize you are idiots. That is why you get the NWO enslavement that you deserve.

Wow! 9000 quacks who find themselves in opposition to physical logic, against 9 Million who don't ...

Wow! 9000 people (with PhDs) who are capable of pressing the keys on a calculator and who are not so beholden to their paycheck or otherwise too lazy, to actually do some calculations and form a scientific conclusion that is unarguable.

Or at least 9000 people who argue that the junk "science" on human climate change is worse than not compelling, and it is better to err on the side of caution instead of foisting carbon taxes on utility companies which for example has lead to Obama closing down utilities so his buddies could rake in more profits either as competitors or via extortion.

When the USA, Germany, etc are experiencing massive brownouts in the coming years, you can thank yourself.

Of course, you will at the time prefer to delude yourself and blame the collapse on the complexity of modern society or some other hairbrained  argument which is why all you fools are headed into the NWO outcome and there is nothing I can do to save you from yourself. Those of us who are wise, will fork away from you and create a glorious untrackable knowledge age economy.

[thezerg]

Check out the linear buy ramp on bitfinex.  Anyone think a whale is accumulating?

http://www.bitcoinity.org/markets/bitfinex/USD

[Zarathustra]

The reason humans can't impact the CLIMATE with CO2 is because our release of CO2 is miniscule in comparison to the CO2 absorbed and released by for example the oceans due to changes in the sea temperature due to the Sun.

Complete Bullshit. That is the natural carbon circulation. Taking carbon out of the ground and transport it into the atmosphere and the ocean means to enrich the atmosphere and the ocean with additional carbon. Every child understands it.

[8up]

The reason humans can't impact the CLIMATE with CO2 is because our release of CO2 is miniscule in comparison to the CO2 absorbed and released by for example the oceans due to changes in the sea temperature due to the Sun.

Complete Bullshit. That is the natural carbon circulation. Taking carbon out of the ground and transport it into the atmosphere and the ocean means to enrich the atmosphere and the ocean with carbon. Every child understands it.

Thanks for calling this bullshit out.

[Zarathustra]

And you are incorrect to assume that Zaradude was arguing about environment. He is not.

I was arguing about the climate of the environment, just as Nassim Taleb:

But the skepticism about models that I propose does not lead to the same conclusions as the ones endorsed by anti-environmentalists, pro-market fundamentalists, quite the contrary: we need to be hyper-conservationists ecologically, super-Green, since we do not know what we are harming with now.

[vokain]

And you are incorrect to assume that Zaradude was arguing about environment. He is not.

I was arguing about the climate of the environment, just as Nassim Taleb:

But the skepticism about models that I propose does not lead to the same conclusions as the ones endorsed by anti-environmentalists, pro-market fundamentalists, quite the contrary: we need to be hyper-conservationists ecologically, super-Green, since we do not know what we are harming with now.

I think we can all agree that "green initiatives" can lead to greater environmental harm through subsidies and waste, and that systems like carbon credits probably serve to enrich and empower such regulators, but it is still crucially importantly to be aware of our individual and collective impact upon Mother Earth (for example, realizing everything's means to their ends) regardless of said political pandering.

[Zarathustra]

And you are incorrect to assume that Zaradude was arguing about environment. He is not.

I was arguing about the climate of the environment, just as Nassim Taleb:

But the skepticism about models that I propose does not lead to the same conclusions as the ones endorsed by anti-environmentalists, pro-market fundamentalists, quite the contrary: we need to be hyper-conservationists ecologically, super-Green, since we do not know what we are harming with now.

I think we can all agree that "green initiatives" can lead to greater environmental harm through subsidies and waste, and that systems like carbon credits probably serve to enrich and empower such regulators, but it is still crucially importantly to be aware of our individual and collective impact upon Mother Earth (for example, realizing everything's means to their ends) regardless of said political pandering.

I think we can all agree that Nassim Taleb is saying: We should not enrich the atmosphere with additional carbon, since we do not know the result of such crazy experiments.

[vokain]

And you are incorrect to assume that Zaradude was arguing about environment. He is not.

I was arguing about the climate of the environment, just as Nassim Taleb:

But the skepticism about models that I propose does not lead to the same conclusions as the ones endorsed by anti-environmentalists, pro-market fundamentalists, quite the contrary: we need to be hyper-conservationists ecologically, super-Green, since we do not know what we are harming with now.

I think we can all agree that "green initiatives" can lead to greater environmental harm through subsidies and waste, and that systems like carbon credits probably serve to enrich and empower such regulators, but it is still crucially importantly to be aware of our individual and collective impact upon Mother Earth (for example, realizing everything's means to their ends) regardless of said political pandering.

I think we can all agree that Nassim Taleb is saying: We should not enrich the atmosphere with additional carbon, since we do not know the result of such crazy experiments.

My guess is that if increased carbon creating more of a greenhouse effect raises temperature (entropy) on Earth, it raises the carrying capacity of Earth for CO2 sequestrating plants and microbes, increasing the collective metabolic activity of such organisms to eventually check such emissions. I think that the emissions systems we have now do not account for the public cost of emissions and general tragedy of the commons (if demonstrable), and if that were priced in somehow fairly, that might check and smooth carbon emissions and eliminate more serious pollutants. I don't 100% trust Gore's carbon credits though. It also does not account for pollutant emissions really as far as I don't know.

[NewLiberty]

This is why I know only my design can scale the network effects.

I do not view Bitcoin as much of a threat. The only thing that compete with me is a pegged BTC side chain.

Each day before your genesis block, the Bitcoin network effect grows.
Maybe Bitcoin isn't a threat to your proposal today, but what day can we mine yours?

[bronan]

I think the green industry is kinda a farce anyway.
I myself have bought solars on the roof and am trying to hold back on plastic use if its possible at all.
However the industry has found a nice loophole.
They simply can buy mass fake green certificates which are available with huge numbers from countries who never ever can make up that numbers EVER.
Especially the power producers still hide the fact that most of the energy is coming from not so clean cool, gas and nuclear plants.
The fact that several countries and mostly companies do not give a rats ass what happens to the planet does show where it will lead.
Everyday you read about mass dying of animals, birds and fish but only a few care...
If humanity does not make a choice on the right path soon, the planet will eventually become a death one.
Look at huge parts of the oceans where once huge schools of fish where swimming. Now science shows only a certain yelly fish is capable of survive there.
Does this involve mining crypto coins, yes it does. The miners should at least try to get geothermal, wind ,water ,solar or any means possible to get it without burning massive amounts of oil, gas, coal or other massive polluting energy.
Because i still am sure that most of the largest energy burning industry on the planet do not care one bit about that.  

[TPTB_need_war]

The reason humans can't impact the CLIMATE with CO2 is because our release of CO2 is miniscule in comparison to the CO2 absorbed and released by for example the oceans due to changes in the sea temperature due to the Sun.

Complete Bullshit. That is the natural carbon circulation. Taking carbon out of the ground and transport it into the atmosphere and the ocean means to enrich the atmosphere and the ocean with carbon. Every child understands it.

Thanks for calling this bullshit out.

I never heard the misused term 'enrich' abused to mischaracterize trace amounts.

Other than syntactical strawmen, do you have any scientific point?

[TPTB_need_war]

And you are incorrect to assume that Zaradude was arguing about environment. He is not.

I was arguing about the climate of the environment, just as Nassim Taleb:

But the skepticism about models that I propose does not lead to the same conclusions as the ones endorsed by anti-environmentalists, pro-market fundamentalists, quite the contrary: we need to be hyper-conservationists ecologically, super-Green, since we do not know what we are harming with now.

I think we can all agree that "green initiatives" can lead to greater environmental harm through subsidies and waste, and that systems like carbon credits probably serve to enrich and empower such regulators, but it is still crucially importantly to be aware of our individual and collective impact upon Mother Earth (for example, realizing everything's means to their ends) regardless of said political pandering.

I think we can all agree that Nassim Taleb is saying: We should not enrich the atmosphere with additional carbon, since we do not know the result of such crazy experiments.

My guess is that if increased carbon creating more of a greenhouse effect raises temperature (entropy) on Earth, it raises the carrying capacity of Earth for CO2 sequestrating plants and microbes, increasing the collective metabolic activity of such organisms to eventually check such emissions.

Indeed global warming is positive (instead we are actually facing global cooling due to the Sun spot activity declining and the magnetic pole moving from Siberia towards North America). They were growing grapes in the UK instead of skating on ice in the Thames river.

Anyone who has survived a winter in the Arctic and a summer in the tropics understands warmer is more prosperous and easier for mankind. Airconditioning is such a miniscule cost compared to the entropy of the earth.

And indeed the earth is a self-regulating system, except for the external heat transferred from the Sun. So there is nothing we humans can do that the Earth can't incorporate into what is 'natural'. Even Chernobyl has shown the animals come back and flourish if we nuke the planet.

The Malthusians (and their fear mongering FUD) have ALWAYS been wrong and ALWAYS will be. Their FUD is always about foisting some collectivism on us, so they can implement their other politically correct ideological crap such as feminism, gay-rights, etc.. (hey gays and heterosexuals don't need any rights, if they want to fornicate then go right ahead, and who gives a flea's arse about a marriage certificate that is for slaves...haven't you read even in the Bible it says once they are bonded in the flesh, let no man undo what God aka nature hath done).

[TPTB_need_war]

Everyday you read about mass dying of animals, birds and fish but only a few care...

And you never hear about the mass birth of animals, birds, and fish ongoing as we speak (in fact the population of animals on this planet is increasing...you just might not like that many are farm raised...so change your food buying habits!!). Nor do you study the history of repeating mass deaths of everything throughout recorded history.

FUD, FUD, FUD.

[justusranvier]

http://sourceforge.net/p/bitcoin/mailman/message/34220013/

[TPTB_need_war]

http://sourceforge.net/p/bitcoin/mailman/message/34220013/

I would not and did not offer that advice to supporters of Core. I instead advised they try to use their remaining clout to get consensus around an increase where they still have commit access.

Core supporters should immediately release a fork with 8Mb blocks or some automated schedule of block size increases.

This is the only way they can diffuse the power grab which they are most likely going to lose otherwise (MPEX's Gavinshort as one potential wildcard).

But they painted themselves into a corner by saying that no changes should come without entire consensus before hand. They really lost the chess match. I could see precisely what Hearn et al was baiting Adam to write. And damn if he fell right into the trap.

I am sending a link of this post to both Adam and Greg. Then I won't bother them again.

Your advice is teaching them how to lose. Clever. But I am calling you out.

[justusranvier]

http://sourceforge.net/p/bitcoin/mailman/message/34220013/

I would not and did not offer that advice to supporters of Core. I instead advised they try to use their remaining clout to get consensus around an increase where they still have commit access.

Core supporters should immediately release a fork with 8Mb blocks or some automated schedule of block size increases.

This is the only way they can diffuse the power grab which they are most likely going to lose otherwise (MPEX's Gavinshort as one potential wildcard).

But they painted themselves into a corner by saying that no changes should come without entire consensus before hand. They really lost the chess match. I could see precisely what Hearn et al was baiting Adam to write. And damn if he fell right into the trap.

I am sending a link of this post to both Adam and Greg. Then I won't bother them again.

Your advice is teaching them how to lose. Clever. But I am calling you out.

Hopefully at least some of them won't be so unable or unwilling to understand this isn't a either-or situation.

The relevant question is: who is going to produce the software which the Bitcoin economic majority will choose to use?

The answer could be the existing Bitcoin Core developers.
The answer could be Mike and Gavin.

The answer could just as easily be none of the above.

Anybody involved who does not act with that understanding in mind is very likely to lose any ability they would otherwise have to do good things for Bitcoin.

[cypherdoc]

Check out the linear buy ramp on bitfinex.  Anyone think a whale is accumulating?

http://www.bitcoinity.org/markets/bitfinex/USD

talk about bullish posturing:

[thezerg]

http://sourceforge.net/p/bitcoin/mailman/message/34220013/

Well said!