Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[iCEBREAKER]

I support Satoshi's ideas.

I have never heard that Satoshi propose exponential growth of block. (doubling size every 2 years)

Satoshi would never trade trustlessness and resiliency for efficiency and adoption.

Bitcoin users might get increasingly tyrannical about limiting the size of the chain so it's easy for lots of users and small devices.  - Satoshi Nakamoto 2010

[1714054053]

1714054053

[1714054053]

1714054053

[1714054053]

1714054053

[1714054053]

1714054053

[1714054053]

1714054053

[Adrian-x]

I support Satoshi's ideas.

I have never heard that Satoshi propose exponential growth of block. (doubling size every 2 years)

that's a compromise Gavin did for you folk, Satoshi didn't support a limit at all.

[Adrian-x]

I support Satoshi's ideas.

I have never heard that Satoshi propose exponential growth of block. (doubling size every 2 years)

Satoshi would never trade trustlessness and resiliency for efficiency and adoption.

Bitcoin users might get increasingly tyrannical about limiting the size of the chain so it's easy for lots of users and small devices.  - Satoshi Nakamoto 2010

i dont think you understand what that Satoshi Quote says.

[SmoothCurves]

I will delete this post. This is perhaps my last FYI to try to help the fools here.

The catalysts. Some years ago I independently happenstanced on (discovered) Martin Armstrong's 78.9 (79) year cycle of real estate (which I also correlated to technological unemployment cycles). So when I later discovered Armstrong's cycle models and that he had back tested them to the Athenian empire and before (even as far back as Mesopotamia), I'm keen to accept that such a cycle does exist. Armstrong is the largest hedge fund manager in history, formerly managing $3 trillion in Japanese sovereign funds before he got unintentionally entangled in the USA bankster's involved in the LTCM and Russian bonds scam via Republic bank which involved some of the funds he was managing. It is with this wealth that he compiled the massive $billion (in today's money) historical economics and natural phenomenon database that enable his supercomputer system to correlate and find these patterns and repeating cycles.

It is with this system that he has been accurately predicting everything since the 1980s without fail. In fact, I have predicted the past 4 major moves in the Bitcoin price employing his model, including my recent prediction in May that BTC would rise to $315 in June and July, then crash back down to below $150 for the Octoberish bottom.

So the model for what you are concerned with has to do with we are in a cycle of shifting from Public (i.e. sovereign and municipal bonds) to Private (e.g. gold, Bitcoin, and until 2017 USA assets including stocks) assets. There are numerous others cycles converging at this time which is what will make this coming contagion so horrific. These include the Cycle of War (both intra- and international), Pandemic Cycle, and even the Little Ice Age cycle of sunspot minimums.

What is happening now is the peripheral (to the global reserve) markets are nearing the Minsky moment dominoes collapse coming October. This is evident with rising bond spreads in Europe and the increasing volatility in for example China. And you find similar examples in Venezuela, Argentina, etc..

The distinction from 2008 will be that instead of the USA flooding the world with dollars via QE-to-the-moon (forcing China at al to flood Yuan, Euro, etc to keep US$ from becoming too strong and destroying their exports), this peripheral capital will be stampeding back into the USA as the last standing safe haven and the US Fed will be raising rates because it will see a bubble from its perspective despite the contraction in the rest of the globe's economies. The US$ will become too strong, because the peripheral economies are all effectively short the dollar (via massive loans denominated in US$ because ZIRP forced dollar investors to look abroad for yield which is what caused these bubbles abroad which are now collapsing) and will become even more so as their dollar reserves run back to the USA.

Thus going into 2017, the US$ will become so strong that it will choke off the USA economy (and also the stampede of capital into the USA will have peaked), the last economy still standing by that time. As the USA falls into the abyss in 2018, the entire world will descend into a horrific economic collapse.

The USA would try to print more QE after it heads down into the abyss in 2018, but this will be too late for the rest of the nations which will have already imploded and the USA's domestic politics are going more radicalized third party (especially after Clinton wins the 2016 POTUS election), thus this will prevent another massive TARP bailout for banks, so the banksters will instead in cahoots with the government go for bail-ins which will be massively deflationary.

This is it folks. Cash is king. Get out while you still can. This may be my last warning.

Get out of what? Equities? Money in savings? Should we go all in on crypto and PM? Not trolling. Serious Qs

[TPTB_need_war]

I will delete this post. This is perhaps my last FYI to try to help the fools here.

Get out of what? Equities? Money in savings? Should we go all in on crypto and PM? Not trolling. Serious Qs

Go dollar cash now. After Oct go dollar, PMs, crypto, and US stock market. On the blowoff peak in 2017, sell dollar, stocks, PMs, and go exclusively crypto. Dollar and stocks will peak in 2017 and into the abyss after. Gold will be heavy taxed (expropriated when you sell it by various means) and there will not be black markets (after 2017), because cash will be phased out (the banks will retire all cash and none will be printed). Anonymous crypto will be your only chance to escape expropriation after 2017. I had already explained why real estate will be destroyed as an investment.

[NewLiberty]

I support Satoshi's ideas.

I have never heard that Satoshi propose exponential growth of block. (doubling size every 2 years)

that's a compromise Gavin did for you folk, Satoshi didn't support a limit at all.

The block size limit is a short term hack.  Someday we might get beyond such a limit, but it could be quite a while.  BIP100 looks promising though.

[lexuz]

I think Gold will carsh now i see in chart price want go to down same like bitcoin will goes down too

[thezerg]

I support Satoshi's ideas.

I have never heard that Satoshi propose exponential growth of block. (doubling size every 2 years)

Satoshi would never trade trustlessness and resiliency for efficiency and adoption.

Bitcoin users might get increasingly tyrannical about limiting the size of the chain so it's easy for lots of users and small devices.  - Satoshi Nakamoto 2010

Did you read the posting right above mine?  Its completely clear that he supported the idea that as the network grows the full nodes would need to be dedicated servers and most users would use SPV.  This is what you guys are calling "centralization".   But its really not, because it remains permissionless.  That's the most important thing, because if you don't like the full node choices you could always get a few people together and rent your own.

Additionally, the node centralization fear is simply stupid because we've already lost the fight.  Miners have 99% of the power in the Bitcoin network and they are much more centralized than full nodes.  You're closing the barn door after the cows have already gotten out!

@odalv: AFAIK Satoshi didn't say anything about whether increases should be pre-baked in or not.  But regardless I think the blocksize increase crowd would compromise on a static but significant (8MB or greater) increase.

[Erdogan]

Speaking of zero hedge as an information source, which we don't really do at the moment, anyway, I found these two near perfect articles today:

This is about mining, but the author nearly completely understands that in general, the low interest rate and money expansion distorts both production, by focusing on the investments that has a long time interval between investment and finished consumer goods, and consumption, because the consumer due to low interest has exhausted his resources in advance, and is now in a consumption reduction mode:

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-07-13/miners-buried-billions-debt-after-colossal-misjudgment-demand

And this, which reveals (to me, anyway) new details about the conditions in Argentina, and how the state's intervention in just about everything reduces productivity, running all kinds of value destructive enterprises, including the traditional export industries which are now unprofitable due to the managed peso dollar exchange rate. There is only one single important difference to conditions in greece, and that is that greece have relatively sound money. If anybody think that not joining the euro in 2001, but keeping the insane regulations, the outrageous spending on welfare, and the defense spendings, would change anything for the good, this article gives food for thought:

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-07-13/argentina-model-greece

[NewLiberty]

I support Satoshi's ideas.

I have never heard that Satoshi propose exponential growth of block. (doubling size every 2 years)

Satoshi would never trade trustlessness and resiliency for efficiency and adoption.

Bitcoin users might get increasingly tyrannical about limiting the size of the chain so it's easy for lots of users and small devices.  - Satoshi Nakamoto 2010

Did you read the posting right above mine?  Its completely clear that he supported the idea that as the network grows the full nodes would need to be dedicated servers and most users would use SPV.  This is what you guys are calling "centralization".   But its really not, because it remains permissionless.  That's the most important thing, because if you don't like the full node choices you could always get a few people together and rent your own.

Additionally, the node centralization fear is simply stupid because we've already lost the fight.  Miners have 99% of the power in the Bitcoin network and they are much more centralized than full nodes.  You're closing the barn door after the cows have already gotten out!

@odalv: AFAIK Satoshi didn't say anything about whether increases should be pre-baked in or not.  But regardless I think the blocksize increase crowd would compromise on a static but significant (8MB or greater) increase.

Most folks won't take an appeal to authority argument very seriously, but for those that might, it merits pointing out that it is not entirely clear that this means that node quantities should be expected to decline, or just that SPV users should increase at a much greater pace percentagewise.

[Adrian-x]

I support Satoshi's ideas.

I have never heard that Satoshi propose exponential growth of block. (doubling size every 2 years)

that's a compromise Gavin did for you folk, Satoshi didn't support a limit at all.

The block size limit is a short term hack.  Someday we might get beyond such a limit, but it could be quite a while.  BIP100 looks promising though.

"a short term hack" is how I see it, what concerns me is developers appear to be leveraging it to push through other hacks. (hacking the hack - postponing indefinably until such time as other hard fork changes could be bundled in with this one.)

BIP100 is good in that it removes the hard fork limit, my reservations though are that it does nothing to erode the centralized control system that has evolved. I prefer Bib 101 as it implies some central gate keepers need to eat humble pie, however nether are my first choice.  

At this stage I'd like to start seeing more decentralized development, the notion that Bitcoin is resilient in that if the protocol is modified the ideals will never be eroded because it is open source and can be forked to keep the original intent appears to only be valid so long as we share the same motives as the centralized development team.

The very idea of forking that was originally proposed to protect Bitcoin Values was vehemently opposed by the centralized developers who expressed disdain that they were not consulted and their process for seeking permission to propose change was not adhere too, even going so far as calling the idea of forking to remove the hard limit a threat to the very success of bitcoin.

I think there is a distortion of perception and lack of empathy all round. ultimately it is the people who put economic energy into the idea that make it viable, and while developers are important, they are not the gods who conduct this experiment, its the people who put in their economic energy.    

[NewLiberty]

I support Satoshi's ideas.

I have never heard that Satoshi propose exponential growth of block. (doubling size every 2 years)

that's a compromise Gavin did for you folk, Satoshi didn't support a limit at all.

The block size limit is a short term hack.  Someday we might get beyond such a limit, but it could be quite a while.  BIP100 looks promising though.

"a short term hack" is how I see it, what concerns me is developers appear to be leveraging it to push through other hacks. (hacking the hack - postponing indefinably until such time as other hard fork changes could be bundled in with this one.)

BIP100 is good in that it removes the hard fork limit, my reservations though are that it does nothing to erode the centralized control system that has evolved. I prefer Bib 101 as it implies some central gate keepers need to eat humble pie, however nether are my first choice.  

At this stage I'd like to start seeing more decentralized development, the notion that Bitcoin is resilient in that if the protocol is modified the ideals will never be eroded because it is open source and can be forked to keep the original intent appears to only be valid so long as we share the same motives as the centralized development team.

The very idea of forking that was originally proposed to protect Bitcoin Values was vehemently opposed by the centralized developers who expressed disdain that they were not consulted and their process for seeking permission to propose change was not adhere too, even going so far as calling the idea of forking to remove the hard limit a threat to the very success of bitcoin.

I think there is a distortion of perception and lack of empathy all round. ultimately it is the people who put economic energy into the idea that make it viable, and while developers are all important, they are not the gods who conduct this experiment, its the people who put in there economic energy.    

Your reasoning is interesting to me.  Mostly because your evaluation appears to contradict your conclusion.  And so, I suspect you have a some well thought out ideas and nuances that you've not yet communicated.

Both 100 and 101 provide a mechanism for more block size.  Choosing between the two may depend on your perspectives and assessment of different risk levels within the operating groups.

Do you see more centralized control among developers or miners?
- If development is more centralized, BIP100, (developers giving controls to miners).
- If mining is more centralized, BIP101, (developers retaining control over block size increases and schedules).

Both remain fairly centralized, though both are less so than they previously have been.  From your discourse, it would seem your evaluation would be the devs are more centralized and so would favor BIP100, (irrespective of who authored it).

[majamalu]

I support Satoshi's ideas.

I have never heard that Satoshi propose exponential growth of block. (doubling size every 2 years)

that's a compromise Gavin did for you folk, Satoshi didn't support a limit at all.

The block size limit is a short term hack.  Someday we might get beyond such a limit, but it could be quite a while.  BIP100 looks promising though.

"a short term hack" is how I see it, what concerns me is developers appear to be leveraging it to push through other hacks. (hacking the hack - postponing indefinably until such time as other hard fork changes could be bundled in with this one.)

BIP100 is good in that it removes the hard fork limit, my reservations though are that it does nothing to erode the centralized control system that has evolved. I prefer Bib 101 as it implies some central gate keepers need to eat humble pie, however nether are my first choice.  

At this stage I'd like to start seeing more decentralized development, the notion that Bitcoin is resilient in that if the protocol is modified the ideals will never be eroded because it is open source and can be forked to keep the original intent appears to only be valid so long as we share the same motives as the centralized development team.

The very idea of forking that was originally proposed to protect Bitcoin Values was vehemently opposed by the centralized developers who expressed disdain that they were not consulted and their process for seeking permission to propose change was not adhere too, even going so far as calling the idea of forking to remove the hard limit a threat to the very success of bitcoin.

I think there is a distortion of perception and lack of empathy all round. ultimately it is the people who put economic energy into the idea that make it viable, and while developers are important, they are not the gods who conduct this experiment, its the people who put in their economic energy.

Amen. They can cry all they want; the economic majority will prevail.

[tvbcof]

I support Satoshi's ideas.

I have never heard that Satoshi propose exponential growth of block. (doubling size every 2 years)

that's a compromise Gavin did for you folk, Satoshi didn't support a limit at all.

The block size limit is a short term hack.  Someday we might get beyond such a limit, but it could be quite a while.  BIP100 looks promising though.

"a short term hack" is how I see it, what concerns me is developers appear to be leveraging it to push through other hacks. (hacking the hack - postponing indefinably until such time as other hard fork changes could be bundled in with this one.)

BIP100 is good in that it removes the hard fork limit, my reservations though are that it does nothing to erode the centralized control system that has evolved. I prefer Bib 101 as it implies some central gate keepers need to eat humble pie, however nether are my first choice.  

At this stage I'd like to start seeing more decentralized development, the notion that Bitcoin is resilient in that if the protocol is modified the ideals will never be eroded because it is open source and can be forked to keep the original intent appears to only be valid so long as we share the same motives as the centralized development team.

The very idea of forking that was originally proposed to protect Bitcoin Values was vehemently opposed by the centralized developers who expressed disdain that they were not consulted and their process for seeking permission to propose change was not adhere too, even going so far as calling the idea of forking to remove the hard limit a threat to the very success of bitcoin.

I think there is a distortion of perception and lack of empathy all round. ultimately it is the people who put economic energy into the idea that make it viable, and while developers are important, they are not the gods who conduct this experiment, its the people who put in their economic energy.

Amen. They can cry all they want; the economic majority will prevail.

Suit yourself.  A subordinate chain ecosystem needs a reserve or balancing currency, but that doesn't need to be Bitcoin.  Go ahead and get everyone buying coffee and a grand total of 5 copies of the blockchain worldwide (assuming that the 'economic majority' will obtain the best coders money can buy) and we'll have no choice but to use something else.  To me that will be at the very worst a mixed blessing because Bitcoin itself has some serious inherent design deficiencies which makes it questionable about whether it really could be distributed and defensible over the long term even at the current 1MB setting.

I would still rather give Bitcoin a shot but every time one of you guys open your mouths it takes something away from my even wanting to.  I've still got a decent number of BTC but I'm pretty confident that I will have a window of opportunity to dump them off on imbeciles who think that making Bitcoin be the 'one-size-fits-all' has any long term hope at being anything worthwhile.

[Zarathustra]

I will delete this post. This is perhaps my last FYI to try to help the fools here.

The catalysts. Some years ago I independently happenstanced on (discovered) Martin Armstrong's 78.9 (79) year cycle of real estate (which I also correlated to technological unemployment cycles). So when I later discovered Armstrong's cycle models and that he had back tested them to the Athenian empire and before (even as far back as Mesopotamia), I'm keen to accept that such a cycle does exist. Armstrong is the largest hedge fund manager in history, formerly managing $3 trillion in Japanese sovereign funds before he got unintentionally entangled in the USA bankster's involved in the LTCM and Russian bonds scam via Republic bank which involved some of the funds he was managing. It is with this wealth that he compiled the massive $billion (in today's money) historical economics and natural phenomenon database that enable his supercomputer system to correlate and find these patterns and repeating cycles.

It is with this system that he has been accurately predicting everything since the 1980s without fail. In fact, I have predicted the past 4 major moves in the Bitcoin price employing his model, including my recent prediction in May that BTC would rise to $315 in June and July, then crash back down to below $150 for the Octoberish bottom.

This is it folks. Cash is king. Get out while you still can. This may be my last warning.

Your prediction will be wrong.

And I think his prediction will be correct. Anonymint has pin pointed the last 2 years or so of bitcoin movement better than anyone I know on this forum. With his help I sold before the dip to $150 and re-bought and sold again yesterday at $315. I think he should get much more credit. His macro economic predictions are probably also going to be correct. On the basis of Armstrongs models (who has been consistently correct for decades) I think it is very likely we have some very dark times ahead.

Armstrongs models ...

http://www.silverdoctors.com/martin-armstrong-the-stock-market-will-double-by-2015/

[HarHarHar9965]

I think Gold will carsh now i see in chart price want go to down same like bitcoin will goes down too

Gold is not going to crash for a couple decades, sure its position might weaken but if Gold crashes, people panic and the whole economy is damaged. Besides, Gold is also used for jewelry and that market is very big, constant trade taking place continuously. New people also keep investing in Gold, yes its position is weakening but crash is way overstated.

[iCEBREAKER]

[extensive wailing]

[gnashing of teeth]

The 1MB "short term hack" got Bitcoin to where it is today.

Go ahead and make all the noise you want.  Stamp your feet and hold your breath.

Enlist Reddit as your personal army.  Issue threats.  Spin up XT nodes.

It won't make a difference; the block size is staying at 1MB for the foreseeable future.

Nobody except your fellow Gavinistas cares how many times you fatuously repeat 'ZOMG TEMPORARY 1MB LIMIT IS TEMPORARY RAISE IT NOW.'

[Zarathustra]

[extensive wailing]

[gnashing of teeth]

The 1MB "short term hack" got Bitcoin to where it is today.

Go ahead and make all the noise you want.  Stamp your feet and hold your breath.

Enlist Reddit as your personal army.  Issue threats.  Spin up XT nodes.

It won't make a difference; the block size is staying at 1MB for the foreseeable future.

Nobody except your fellow Gavinistas cares how many times you fatuously repeat 'ZOMG TEMPORARY 1MB LIMIT IS TEMPORARY RAISE IT NOW.'

It won't stay, because the Gavinistas are the majority and you represent a minority.

[iCEBREAKER]

The 1MB "short term hack" got Bitcoin to where it is today.

Go ahead and make all the noise you want.  Stamp your feet and hold your breath.

Enlist Reddit as your personal army.  Issue threats.  Spin up XT nodes.

It won't make a difference; the block size is staying at 1MB for the foreseeable future.

Nobody except your fellow Gavinistas cares how many times you fatuously repeat 'ZOMG TEMPORARY 1MB LIMIT IS TEMPORARY RAISE IT NOW.'

It won't stay, because the Gavinistas are the majority and you represent a minority.

Is that why Gavin's 20MB proposal got #REKT like Stannis at Winterfell?  

The Gavinista's supposed numerical superiority is irrelevant, because they don't have as many Bitcoins as the 1MB defenders.

Even if they had more (and were willing to risk/spend/lose them), the leverage provided by the Gavincoin Short allows Team 1MB to survive extended siege by swarming plagues of redditards.

Make all the grandiose claims and populist appeals you wish.  Like you, they have no power here.

The Gavinistas will continue to discover what it means to attack a system that is defensible, diffuse, diverse, and resilient.

I hope these teachable moments will educate them on the principles of Bitcoin Sovereignty!  

[NewLiberty]

[extensive wailing]

[gnashing of teeth]

The 1MB "short term hack" got Bitcoin to where it is today.

Go ahead and make all the noise you want.  Stamp your feet and hold your breath.

Enlist Reddit as your personal army.  Issue threats.  Spin up XT nodes.

It won't make a difference; the block size is staying at 1MB for the foreseeable future.

Nobody except your fellow Gavinistas cares how many times you fatuously repeat 'ZOMG TEMPORARY 1MB LIMIT IS TEMPORARY RAISE IT NOW.'

It won't stay, because the Gavinistas are the majority and you represent a minority.

Democracy is over rated.