Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[TPTB_need_war]

No worries mates. I think I've said enough don't you?

Cheers.

[1714817879]

1714817879

[1714817879]

1714817879

[1714817879]

1714817879

[1714817879]

1714817879

[1714817879]

1714817879

[ssmc2]

We all think you've said more than enough.

[uvwvj]

We all think you've said more than enough.

 

ThePussyThatBullshits_needs_STFU

[sidhujag]

Anyhow, back to the shilling business. It seems to me that the multi persona/account copying and pasting shill shenanigans could well and truly be ascribed, in the context of Bitcointalk.org, not to cypherdoc, but to TPTB/Anonymint, surely.

He has exhibited all of the characteristics that, to my mind, a successful shill would have at his disposal :-  he has , for example, just enough knowledge in the field to hoodwink those among us who are suggestible and naive (but not enough knowledge to clearly and concisely contribute anything meaningful)  ;   he has multiple accounts (which are fairly easily recognisable) with which to endorse and give legitimacy to his own views    ; he promises an alternative, a better alternative, a nirvana, a shangri la - but never delivers;    but, most of all, his mission seems to be to implant doubt and create confusion.

A kind of crypto nihilist Pontius Pilate.

 And, in truth, ultra conservative and reactionary. He has aptly named himself in his latest incarnation, TPTB. He, and they (the real TPTB that is) don't want a decentralised democratic store and mechanism by which to transfer value - they require a means by which they are able to stop the masses accessing their illegitemately horded stashes via taxation. They don't give a monkeys toss about the ordinary Jo being "his own banker" - for that is a privilege that the ordinary Jo (the "sheeple")hasn't earned.

      Anthow, in the end I guess we all know that you judge a tree by its fruit - and in the context in which we are all operating this might best be ascertained by the strength of the argument. I mean, the strongest argument should carry the day - and who are we to judge wether that be put forward by someone with vested interests or not (ie. a shill) - would it, indeed, matter anyway ?

FWIW it seems to me that at present btc isn't seen as a threat precisely because of the limit on transactions - lift that limit and it becomes a serious player. I can see (I think) the arguments against lifting the block limit (centralisation), and the arguments for sc's etc - but I remain to be convinced.

thank you, thank you, thank you.

and i might add, he insults all of us in turn trying to create doubt in each and every one of us; w/o ever producing the promised coin.

notice the vision keeps changing too.  at first it was Bitcoin will become the NWO currency which upon that achievement would then be used to rape us all in the doomsday scenario.  then it morphed to "Monero might be a thing".  then, while at first being dismissive of Blockstream and SC's, he is now saying SC's will enable his perfect coin and Bitcoin is doomed here in the present.  also, his repeated claims to leave the thread to code.  must be a bored coder.  but of course tvbcof would latch on to him as his buddy.  they're both doom and gloomer socialist types.

finally, the consistent message is that we're all doomed and nothing we do can stop that.  except his coin that never shows up.

A year prior he was supposed to release his "coin" but instead worked with Monero and then suggested it isn't truly anon although he did contribute to the design discussion and perhaps not the coding, and now says Monero has fundemental flaws yet all the while still claims to have the design in his head ready to be wrapped up but IMO looking for a coder to create an alt coin with which he can do a nice P&D. His views keep changing based on latest bitcoin developments which he grasps on and either uses it to his advantage by saying it will "help" his new coin which never existed or never will exist or he says it will be the end of bitcoin because of this feature (or non existant feature ie: anon, and now "infinite" transaction speed). Let bygones be bygones and let us see what he may come up with, or disappear into the night.

[Odalv]

...

btw, you never answered why you're not rich yet doing your simultaneous double spends?

Hmm, I have no balls to sell HashFast BabyJets

... Looks like cypherdoc siphoned 3000BTC off Hashfast ...

[practicaldreamer]

...

btw, you never answered why you're not rich yet doing your simultaneous double spends?

Hmm, I have no balls to sell HashFast BabyJets

... Looks like cypherdoc siphoned 3000BTC off Hashfast ...

Oh - OK.

So Anonymint is definitely a shill - but with Cypherdoc, the jury is still out.

Come on doc, tell me it aint so.

The floor is yours.

BTW - tvbcof isn't a socialist moaner - that would be me - he is in fact a sceptic (in a grand English tradition). And on a forum dedicated to value (money) and its transference that is starting to look to me to be a very good philosophical standpoint to take (arguments re. blocksize notwithstanding).

[cypherdoc]

...

btw, you never answered why you're not rich yet doing your simultaneous double spends?

Hmm, I have no balls to sell HashFast BabyJets

... Looks like cypherdoc siphoned 3000BTC off Hashfast ...

Oh - OK.

So Anonymint is definitely a shill - but with Cypherdoc, the jury is still out.

Come on doc, tell me it aint so.

The floor is yours.

BTW - tvbcof isn't a socialist moaner - that would be me - he is in fact a sceptic (in a grand English tradition). And on a forum dedicated to value (money) and its transference that is starting to look to me to be a very good philosophical standpoint to take (arguments re. blocksize notwithstanding).

look up the definition of a shill.

[cypherdoc]

interesting vision for Bitcoin by Reid Hoffman, Blockstream investor:

Now, is bitcoin going to be great or not? I don’t know. I think the least interesting question about bitcoin is the current price. The most interesting thing about bitcoin is that it’s an open platform the way the Internets are an open platform, but for financial systems.

http://fortune.com/2015/07/02/reid-hoffman-greylock-qa/

[lucaspm98]

interesting vision for Bitcoin by Reid Hoffman, Blockstream investor:

Now, is bitcoin going to be great or not? I don’t know. I think the least interesting question about bitcoin is the current price. The most interesting thing about bitcoin is that it’s an open platform the way the Internets are an open platform, but for financial systems.

http://fortune.com/2015/07/02/reid-hoffman-greylock-qa/

The comparisons between the infancy of Bitcoin and the infancy of the Internet have always been obvious.

It's good to see mainstream journalists pick up on it, but hopefully Bitcoin can someday escape this comparison that it can almost definitely never completely live up to.

[cypherdoc]

interesting vision for Bitcoin by Reid Hoffman, Blockstream investor:

Now, is bitcoin going to be great or not? I don’t know. I think the least interesting question about bitcoin is the current price. The most interesting thing about bitcoin is that it’s an open platform the way the Internets are an open platform, but for financial systems.

http://fortune.com/2015/07/02/reid-hoffman-greylock-qa/

The comparisons between the infancy of Bitcoin and the infancy of the Internet have always been obvious.

It's good to see mainstream journalists pick up on it, but hopefully Bitcoin can someday escape this comparison that it can almost definitely never completely live up to.

my point is that Satoshi always meant for Bitcoin to be Sound Money or cash.  not a speculative platform for financial assets.  the whitepaper title:

"Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System"

[thezerg]

What if there were too many txns for any one computer to hold and process?  A full node could be implemented by a network of computers that trust each other but this would necessarily be costly and centralized.  But a more common situation analogous to todays P2P bitcoin network would be that every node knows a fraction of the txn history and can make statements like these UTXOs are confirmed by X amount of work.  Of course any node could request and verify the validity of any txn data it does not hold... so both of the above could coexist.

TL; DR Is it emotionally acceptable (as a holder of coins) that your node can't verify every txn that ever happened only those that it is interested in and so must rely on the network as a whole to validate the txns as a whole?

[justusranvier]

TL; DR Is it emotionally acceptable (as a holder of coins) that your node can't verify every txn that ever happened only those that it is interested in and so must rely on the network as a whole to validate the txns as a whole?

I think in any future arrangement of full/light nodes, Bitcoin is still Bitcoin as long as any attacker (including a miner with majority hashing power) has to pay the same proof of work cost in order to double spend as they currently have to spend today in order to get their double spend accepted by a full node.

SPV client security will be acceptable once there exist fraud proofs which an attacker can't bypass without paying the full cost of a history rewrite.

[tvbcof]

...
notice the vision keeps changing too.  at first it was Bitcoin will become the NWO currency which upon that achievement would then be used to rape us all in the doomsday scenario.  then it morphed to "Monero might be a thing".  then, while at first being dismissive of Blockstream and SC's, he is now saying SC's will enable his perfect coin and Bitcoin is doomed here in the present.  also, his repeated claims to leave the thread to code.  must be a bored coder.  but of course tvbcof would latch on to him as his buddy.  they're both doom and gloomer socialist types.
...

I rib the guy fairly regularly about showing us the beef and subtly imply that without this he seems to be quite possibly all hat and no cattle.  OTOH, it is true (and shameful) that I treat him with kid gloves and this is due in part to his being on my side of this particular battle.  Another thing is that he rivals you (cypherdoc) for the King-of-the-Tarbabies crown and I'd just as soon not get tied up in that right now.

IIRC, I had a monster fight with the guy in his anonymint rendition on the Bundy Ranch affair.  I'm pretty sure it was him.  The venom of that interaction rivaled the worst I've had with you if you can believe that.

[tvbcof]

Yes - multi persona shill software. If it isn't here already, and being used by TPTB (as in USG etc) then I would be very surprised.

I'm pretty sure it was the HB Gary Federal e-mail hack which expose the multi-persona shill software and the U.S. Govt's purchase of some of it.  There have been second-sources for this.  It at least comes pretty close to a known fact I believe.  Of course it's possible that they bought it but it sits unused on a dusty shelf.  I find that very unlikely to say the least.

I have to say that I've followed this thread for a while. I find it, in turns, funny (tvbcof's bull baiting of cypherdoc etc) and quite interesting. The technicals of the protocol are over my head I'm afraid, though I do believe I'm getting the gist.

I swear I believe I've learned more tech by following (and sometimes engaging in) cat-fights on the net than from any other mode.  Back before the world wide web in the precambrian days of the usenet we had little to do but argue with and antagonize one another.  Better people than I focused on coding but I found it more relaxing to be a troll and a dick-head and it took considerable time away from doing useful work.

[tabnloz]

Starting to believe more and more that September will be SHTF month.

yeah, usually it goes "sell in May and go away", then SHTF in the Fall.  most ppl think October is the worst month but it's really September.  right around the corner.

http://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/06/septworstmonth.asp

7 year collapse in Sept 2015?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0DP4499Bbhw&safe=active

Something like that. I don't necessarily believe the Shemitah theory, but I think the end of this year we will start seeing the economic bubble pop.

Personally, I want to see how a stock market/economic crises affects Bitcoin price. I can care less about the stock markets because I have nothing invested in it.

Let's take it out a step further. At the moment we have the technocrats of Europe sacrificing the people of Greece for the sake of the union. While I think the main effect this has on bitcoin is awareness (also some speculation and new people getting in), lets say an economic event occurred that wasn't years in the making or was tantamount to a declaration of war: say China attempted to boot a country out of the SWIFT system (as the US did to Iran). Say this country was a US ally. All of a sudden the financial system itself is under threat. Citizens of the 'sanctioned' country are worst hit. Those in neighboring / allied / opposed countries would probably start to fear retaliation. The question becomes where do those who are able to move their money put it? With bitcoin representing a parallel system and now increasingly in the public mind's eye, I think the conditions would be ripe for a mass influx.

[cypherdoc]

Starting to believe more and more that September will be SHTF month.

yeah, usually it goes "sell in May and go away", then SHTF in the Fall.  most ppl think October is the worst month but it's really September.  right around the corner.

http://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/06/septworstmonth.asp

7 year collapse in Sept 2015?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0DP4499Bbhw&safe=active

Something like that. I don't necessarily believe the Shemitah theory, but I think the end of this year we will start seeing the economic bubble pop.

Personally, I want to see how a stock market/economic crises affects Bitcoin price. I can care less about the stock markets because I have nothing invested in it.

Let's take it out a step further. At the moment we have the technocrats of Europe sacrificing the people of Greece for the sake of the union. While I think the main effect this has on bitcoin is awareness (also some speculation and new people getting in), lets say an economic event occurred that wasn't years in the making or was tantamount to a declaration of war: say China attempted to boot a country out of the SWIFT system (as the US did to Iran). Say this country was a US ally. All of a sudden the financial system itself is under threat. Citizens of the 'sanctioned' country are worst hit. Those in neighboring / allied / opposed countries would probably start to fear retaliation. The question becomes where do those who are able to move their money put it? With bitcoin representing a parallel system and now increasingly in the public mind's eye, I think the conditions would be ripe for a mass influx.

But we're not ready for it.

Blocks are getting full now much more frequently.

[TPTB_need_war]

A year prior he was supposed to release his "coin" but instead worked with Monero and then suggested it isn't truly anon

I will respond to statements of factual inaccuracy. If you can find a quote from any of my usernames which refutes any of the following, then please share.

I said and still maintain the following about Monero:

• I once joined the dev chat room for a few moments, and they were going on and on about Linux and networking esoterica, which is not my interest nor forte. Seemed far off from the things I would like to focus on and gets my juice pumping.
• there is no great scaling for it in use as a currency that I can see
• it can't scale decentralized
• it uses I2P (which along with Tor I don't trust) to obscure the user's IP address (and if IP addresses are revealed the ring mixing anonymity can be unmasked)
• it doesn't appear to group and force mandatory rings in a way that prevents unmasking the anonymity
• the PoW hash function is not optimal for minimizing the differential between future ASICs and CPUs, i.e. I measurably know this because I have a better PoW hash function implemented
• In Cryptonote, the mixes have to be equal value which forces balances to be preloaded into powers-of-10, which complicates wallets, leads to more chances for combinatorial unmasking, and explodes the transaction data sizes (which has impacts on scaling, orphan rate, etc).
• afaik they have no coins to offer bounties because there was no ICO reserved for such (instead I heard the devs were mining the shit out of the egregiously front loaded debasement curve and rumor was the guy who optimized the PoW hash netted himself $150,000 before releasing the optimizations), nor would they like a rancorous dev coming in and rearranging the house
• I've heard (not verified) they inherited a sloppy C code base and I hate C and C++, even I am very proficient in those programming languages
• fluffypony (is he Australian?) was nasty to me from the get go (perhaps I was to him but I was just expressing my opinions similar to what I am saying now), which turned me off since he is apparently the most active dev. I've had respectful exchange with him since, and I retain no animosity towards even people who appear to have lost their mind.
• over a year ago, rpietila was telling everyone to buy more BTC at $600 and XMR was the greatest thing since sliced bread and I was turned off by the lack of cooler heads and objectivity. Since then, I come to respect smooth and realized that rpietila isn't the key voice of XMR (and I don't dislike rpietila, he is my friend and even a potential token amount seed investor of my controlling group... no I am would not pull rpietila away from XMR, he just likes small diversifications and he is my friend after all).
• XMR was a coin for those devs who already had money to invest, not for a dev like me who exhausted his former 18,000 oz stash and needs to strike it big one more time in life coming to old age without a retirement, blind in one eye, teenage dependents, and diagnosed with a chronic, progressive illness Multiple Sclerosis.
• it feels like most in Monero are Europeans and I am an American. This seems to be related to their major boasting about how the coin was launched "fairly" as a collectivist mining (with front loading no less ) instead of as an ICO. Seems even though we can probably work together technically if we have some independence and orthogonality in modules, there do exist some cultural attitude differences. Americans (of yore and I am a throwback X gen) tend to be adamantly capitalist, anti-collectivist, very "can do", etc.. My best friend from high school was a Lt. Colonel in USAF and he lamented to me once that he hated meeting with the NATO counterparts because mostly all they did was talk. Obviously Germans are perfectionists and I have some German ancestry.
• I was very ill most of 2013 and 2014
• they basically took someone else's work and capitalized on, convincing the market that other Cryptonotes were inferior. For me this felt more like freeloading than capitalism. Even if Boolberry was sort of instigating them by trying to make comparisons, the entire Cryptonote outcome felt like a clusterfuck to me. What innovations did Monero do? I recalled Michael Jordan's criticism when Lebron joined with Dwade and LongNeck in Miami, "I didn't want to join Larry Bird and Magic Johnson, I wanted to beat them." Competition and innovation makes the world a better place. Lebron is athletically nearly as gifted as MJ was, but he doesn't appear to have the same mental gifts. On the flip side, whatever made MJ great as a player, makes him a horrible GM/owner[1].
• probably lots of other reasons I am not thinking of off the top of my head

There were other things I had written and later retracted such as for example in debates with smooth. For example, I once had asserted that off chain mixing could have some advantage in that the mixes were not seen by the public, but smooth pointed out that if the NSA is truly recording every packet, then all the unmasking can be done if ever for example Tor's encryption is broken. There were other examples of issues that I retracted during discourse, such as formerly thinking Cryptonote rings could not be pruned, yet recently I revealed how to do that.

My main issue with Monero right now is that I can't see that they've solved all the issues and have momentum on its use as an anonymous currency. They are apparently making progress with a new web wallet coming, rpietila is making a game to potentially drive use as a currency. They probably have other initiatives in the works and I know also they feel that once the debt contagion accelerates, then they will be a beneficiary. We will see.

Also Monero doesn't precisely fit my goals which are to get rich, work on something interesting, and to solve the totalitarianism I believe we are facing. One aspect of "interesting" for me, is to rock the boat and make big waves. I love shocking people. Think of me as Michael Jordan or Dennis Rodman, in that I want to shoot the ball with my eyes closed or win doing it my way.

Yeah I am an American. That doesn't mean I can. Lots of loud mouthed loser Americans,  . America is at the top of the mountain and headed down the backside, but Europe is already more than halfway down from its former glory. The Asians will be taking over for us by 2032. I am in Asia now trying to adjust.

I have absolutely no desire to be involved in any pump and dump, nor do I want to own 1% of the economy (what a major responsibility and nearly impossible to allocate resources optimally at that scale).

You can be sure if ever I am involved in something it will be a fight to the finish (or unification), very high quality, and very serious. For me it is as much about making a mark on my life before I go, the challenge of competition, the wonderment of try to build something, as it is gaining some fortune to enjoy the time I have remaining.

[1]	http://swarmandsting.com/2015/06/26/reports-hornets-turn-down-four-1st-rounders-from-celtics/ http://www.seasonsover.com/nba/the-path-to-prosperity-the-timely-death-of-the-bobcats

Edit: also there some personal redemption involved in my motivation. For example, there is a certain Bitcoin core dev who seems to have a difficult to categorize what appears to be from my perspective an attitude problem about me. Perhaps it has something to do with the conjecture that math conquers creativity or something along those lines. Again I don't hold grudges, for me life is more fun if moveon, but some guys incessantly remind me that they do (hold grudges or repeat the same traits that rub me the wrong way). That is the food I love to eat.

[iCEBREAKER]

Blocks are getting full now much more frequently.

Good.  Even Gavin confirms that won't cause the sky to fall; BTC was designed to thrive under load (and duress).

Let a thousand fee markets bloom!   

[rpietila]

afaik they have no coins to offer bounties because there was no ICO reserved for such (instead I heard the devs were mining the shit out of the egregiously front loaded debasement curve and rumor was the guy who optimized the PoW hash netted himself $150,000 before releasing the optimizations), nor would they like a rancorous dev coming in and rearranging the house

The community is offering bounties, of course it is a different game as we don't have "free coins" but everyone must surrender actual value to get something done. On the other hand, this is called "voluntarism", which is the antithesis of "communism" practised by the premined coins.

I haven't heard that the devs could be "mining shit out of it". Mining Monero is somewhat tedious, because there is no ASIC, and GPU is not specifically good return. The only advantages you could get are using Amazon instances (mostly difficult, or else possible for all), botnets (not accessible by people except their owners, so a mandatory nuisance), or optimized miners (this era ended a year ago).

The emission schedule is a bit front-loaded, in part worse even than Bitcoin. At least Monero has perpetual emission (0.9%), which takes care of the network security and makes the game fairer. Less than half of the coins are mined, cf. 70% with BTC.

As for the ability to capture egrecious value by joining in now - yes, it is very much there. 1 XMR = 0.50 USD, and less exist than there exist BTC. So we are talking about BTC in 2010, and that's the year when many could have placed a sidebet worth a few $grand, yet did not do it, causing some gnashing of teeth for themselves.

Especially there is no need to care about mining, the coins can just be bought in surprisingly liquid markets.

I've heard (not verified) they inherited a sloppy C code base and I hate C and C++, even I am very proficient in those programming languages

According to Latapie (core team member), the codebase is 84% rewritten for security reasons (although no malicious things have been found in the code).

over a year ago, rpietila was telling everyone to buy more BTC at $600 and XMR was the greatest thing since sliced bread and I was turned off by the lack of cooler heads and objectivity. Since then, I come to respect smooth and realized that rpietila isn't the key voice of XMR (and I don't dislike rpietila, he is my friend and even a potential token amount seed investor of my controlling group... no I am would not pull rpietila away from XMR, he just likes small diversifications and he is my friend after all).

That guy is like a broken record (or at least turns v e r y slowly): he was instructing to buy silver 5 years in a row and now he's been bullish on BTC constantly since it was $3, and still is. Despite his incessant shilling of XMR, he does not even have such a high % of his wealth invested (way less than the castle he owns in Estonia anyway - at the current valuation, the castle is nearing XMR marketcap).

I think it is correct to invest small amounts in many promising, +EV projects, Bitcoin and Monero (and Newcoin) included.

XMR was a coin for those devs who already had money to invest, not for a dev like me who exhausted his former 18,000 oz stash and needs to strike it big one more time in life coming to old age without a retirement, blind in one eye, teenage dependents, and diagnosed with a chronic, progressive illness Multiple Sclerosis.

XMR is the "rich get richer" coin in the sense that the rich who grok it, can buy 100k XMR without sacrifice. The poor can only buy a few k.

Nevertheless, if it makes big, both will never need to work again.

Complaining about "devs" buying the coin at an early mover price is ludicrous as the price here and now is about -75% compared to last summer average ($0.50 vs. $2). In reality those who buy now, are the ones to be envied if it takes off. Are you in?

nor do I want to own 1% of the economy (what a major responsibility and nearly impossible to allocate resources optimally at that scale).

The guys who buy 1% of the coin supply and still have it, are rather few and far between. I don't know anyone in the world, except Satoshi, who still has his maximum amount of BTC.

If XMR would even to become as big as BTC, it would need to go up 2^10 times. Every time it doubles, statistics say, people tend to sell 17% of their holdings, distributing the coins to the newcomers whose interest is the cause for the price to double.

(1-17%)^10 = 0.15

After 1000-times upsurge, on average only 15% of coins still belong to the original guys. If we are talking about hindering the global economy with your wealth, we need a 1,000,000 times appreciation, at which point your holding is not 1% anymore but 0.01%, still a massive stash but not a disruptive one.

[TPTB_need_war]

rpietila, thanks for your clarifications and explanations. Apologies for the overly aggressive wording "mining the shit out of it". What I am trying to get at there is that if some people will shill very aggressively that the only equitable way to do initial distribution to investors is via PoW, then another group can retort that front loading the emission curve is essentially the same outcome as an ICO (he who has capital and insight gets some shares) except for the differences:

• it gives the capital away to utility and hardware companies instead of the coin ecosystem (that is if network security is a non-issue), except the wealth effect which is not centralized with a leader
• it rewards technically astute over those investors with more money than time to mess around collecting coins in small morsels from exchanges, especially when clients require command line level skills and mining on Amazon EC requires a much greater level of skill
• it arguably can provide more anonymity, although an ICO via decentralized exchange between two anonymous coins could probably match that
• it front loads the requirement that the PoW hash has to exquisitely optimized right at launch, which is almost never the case.

One of the key reasons a typical PoW coin needs to do initial distribution via PoW is the threat of 51% attack and the need to rapidly scale up network security.

On the issue of volunteerism vs. collectivization of ICO funds with a leader, there are tradeoffs. The former is very difficult to incentivize radical innovation and also nearly impossible to seed fund deeply into the ecosystem, but is actually superior at the refinement stage as it doesn't overcommit to egregious error, i.e. it is more anti-fragile. The latter loads trust into a system that is aiming to be trustless, thus although expedient it is anti-fragile and can't scale well, but it can be very effective at making key investments of scale that couldn't be accomplished with the same efficiency (communication overload trying to organize and convince the politics, etc). In other words, the former has a trajectory that can't be altered (e.g. Monero and Bitcoin) and the latter is agile (e.g. NXT) but can diverge (e.g. Ethereum).

My thought it is possible to combine the best of both. One is better at the refinement stage and the other is better at the seed stage if the leader can demonstrate the ability.

Edit: I am surprised rpietila replied so quickly. I didn't know he was lurking. There was no coordination nor premeditation.

Edit#2:

Subsidies are great if you want to get applicants who qualify, It should be called a subsidiary not a reward for good reason, the problem is there are developers who feel the economics are wrong and Bitcoin needs to be fixed, I may not be able to express why but to my understanding the mechanism seems well balanced and considered in my view, the onus is on the people who have a problem with how Bitcoin works to prove its broken, and build a better mousetrap not change this one.

My position is that it would be great if we could have started Bitcoin up without a block subsidy, but since the currency has to be issued via some method, and since the only way to produce a truly optimal initial distribution would require an entity that was both omnipotent and omniscient, issuing the currency via block subsidy spread out over time is the least terrible way to do it.

Other than the wealth effect, much of the real capital (at least initially until the NWO-directed ecosystem was bootstrapped) went to the utility, hardware, and usury industry to which miners are beholden. If that was the optimum way to bootstrap an ecosystem, then it was correct.

In my view, it was the only way to build a global ecosystem amongst conflicting interests because it is unassailable until it scales to the point where it becomes distributed but centralized, then at that point it can only be assailed by the TPTB.

One would prefer a completely decentralized process (thus in theory no politics) such that we didn't have to rely on some individuals holding the private keys for proceeds derived from the ICO. But as Monero and Bitcoin have demonstrated, a decentralized process lacks leadership and unless you are entirely done and all is on auto-pilot, then the lack of leadership leads to paralysis, fragmentation, dearth of innovation, etc.. Thus I see no other way to proceed to build an anonymous, bearer-style (a.k.a. permission-less autonomy) ecosystem other than to concentrate some investment from the ICO and then redistribute it with leadership.

The problem is who will do that leadership and the resultant vulnerabilities and pitfalls.

Ethereum made the huge mistake of having too many managers. And choosing a problem set that is arguably intractable (Turing complete on a replicated verification).

Blockstream is ostensibly much more well focused; they've delivered alpha code at breakneck speed.

Thus it is cleverly designed (seemingly with military precision of forethought) to disrupt the existing financial disorder (entropy) and converge it to one NWO controlled morass at the end game. I couldn't have designed it better for that purpose.

Whereas, if you want to create an alternative ecosystem, such as the Knowledge Age that I argue is replacing the dying Industrial Age NWO-directed, establishment system, then the coins must be distributed to the targeted ecosystem.

I hope this post is not lost in the shuffle because it may be one of the most poignant, salient, and critically important insights I have shared...