Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[klee]

ETH Up. Bitcoin collapsing.

 

[1714112511]

1714112511

[Erdogan]

ETH Up. Bitcoin collapsing.

 

Bitcoin collapsing. Stupidity up.

[klee]

ETH Up. Bitcoin collapsing.

 

Bitcoin collapsing. Stupidity up.

Your ass up!

[Erdogan]

ETH Up. Bitcoin collapsing.

 

Bitcoin collapsing. Stupidity up.

Your ass up!

Up fork creek. No paddle.

[Erdogan]

Regarding money, where liquidity is the all and everything, 75% majority sure is consensus, or shortly develop into consensus.

[iCEBREAKER]

In the remote possiblity XT becomes a matter of more importance than the hype, mirth, and scorn it generates at present, MPex and other 1MBer Elder Whales are prepared to use substantial (possibly exhaustive) portions of their extraordinarily massive war chests to repel 8MBer attacks.  To them, this is Holy War, with barbarian Gavinista hordes clamouring for a Free Shit Junta at the gates of their bespoke civilization.  They are more of a mood to impale heads atop spikes than reward with compromise Hearn's attacks on decentralization, Tor, and the consensus process.

Are you still sure you want to risk your tiny stash playing Hard Fork Poker with such ultra-high-rollers?

If you are relying on simple bullying tactics to defend your position then I fear that you are already tacitly accepting a high possibility of defeat.

I like your analagy of Gavin as Freedom Fighter (Sandinista). It is, in an oldskool fashion, quite apt.

The Sandanistas took on the american hegemony in South America, and despite the best (illegal) efforts of the CIA with the Contras, they prevailed.

Daniel Ortega is president of Nicaragua today.

Pointing out one would be foolish to attempt to undermine Bitcoin's economic majority is not "bullying tactics."

The Sandinistas are Marxist-Leninists, the "oldskool" Free Shit Army.  Do you really need me to explain what happens to freedom fighters (and everyday people) under Marxist-Leninist regimes?

The main reason Castro-wannabe Ortega seeks to be another Marxist Dictator For Life is to maintain his immunity from prosecution for the crimes of raping and abusing his daughter from the time she was 11 until 21.

From the Guardian, hardly a right-wing source:

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2006/nov/07/thecomandantewhobecameaca

On top of all this shady dealing, Ortega still stands accused of raping and sexually abusing his stepdaughter from the age of 11. In 1998, when the young woman concerned, Zoilamerica Narvaez, first made public these allegations, Ortega denied them; but he has refused to give up his political immunity to contest the charges in court. Various Ortega cronies have subsequently tried to discredit Narvaez, most notably her own mother (and Ortega's wife), Rosario Murillo, who called her daughter "a slut". But Narvaez has never withdrawn the allegations and very few who know her think that she is lying.

Meanwhile, apparently in return for standing by her husband, Murillo's position and influence has conspicuously grown in the Sandinista camp. She was everywhere on the Ortega campaign, triumphantly raising her arm in support of "women's rights".

While 16 years of free-market capitalism has dramatically improved the lot of a minority of Nicaraguans, the overwhelming majority remain trapped in subsistence poverty. The tax system is a joke, which corporations avoid with impunity. "And that," as MRS leader Edmundo Jarquin told me, "is a result of an agreement between the old oligarchy and the new Sandinista oligarchy."

It takes a special kind of blinkered wishful thinking to ignore the financial, political and moral corruption of Daniel Ortega, the comandante who became a caudillo. But history shows us that, in the treasured name of anti-imperialism, anything is possible.

#REKT

[smooth]

Edit: "He used satoshin@gmx.com (from original Bitcoin whitepaper) and satoshi@vistomail.com (from email logs). gmx.com is a free email service that may or may not have had location based restrictions on registration at the time. vistomail.com is an email service from anonymousspeech, the domain registrar proxy he used to register bitcoin.org"
http://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/5319/what-is-the-email-of-satoshi-nakamoto

Ah, I wasn't aware that he ever used anything other than gmx.

Of course one email being hacked might lead to the other one being hacked too (by similar credentials being used, a recovery process, etc.)

But as you say maybe he doesn't care if people believe the message is legit.

[Erdogan]

UnREKT the cripplecoin. Break the ICE. Go XT.

[cypherdoc]

Ken Friece bitcoin-dev:

What are you so afraid of, Eric? If Mike's fork is successful, consensus is reached around larger blocks. If it is rejected, the status quo will remain for now. Network consensus, NOT CORE DEVELOPER CONSENSUS, is the only thing that matters, and those that go against network consensus will be severely punished with complete loss of income.

I'm not sure who appointed the core devs some sort of Bitcoin Gods that can hold up any change that they happen to disagree with. It seems like the core devs are scared to death that the bitcoin network may change without their blessing, so they go on and on about how terrible hard forks are. Hard forks are the only way to keep core devs in check.

Despite significant past technical bitcoin achievements, two of the most vocal opponents to a reasonable blocksize increase work for a company (Blockstream) that stands to profit directly from artificially limiting the blocksize. The whole situation reeks. Because of such a blatant conflict of interest, the ethical thing to do would be for them to either resign from Blockstream or immediately withdraw themselves from the blocksize debate. This is the type of stuff that I hoped would end with Bitcoin, but alas, I guess human nature never changes.

Personally, I think miners should give Bitcoin XT a serious look. Miners need to realize that they are in direct competition with the lightning network and sidechains for fees. Miners, ask yourselves if you think you'll earn more fees with 1 MB blocks and more off-chain transactions or with 8 MB blocks and more on-chain transactions...

The longer this debate drags on, the more I agree with BIP 100 and Jeff Garzik because the core devs are already being influenced by outside forces and should not have complete control of the blocksize. It's also interesting to note that most of the mining hashpower is already voting for 8MB blocks BIP100 style.

[brg444]

http://www.mail-archive.com/cryptography@metzdowd.com/msg09968.html

Worth a read for all you SPV nodes & pruning fans out there.

[iCEBREAKER]

The "populism of the 1MBers" is not your concern.

Your concern is the multi-year duration and multi-billion-dollar magnitude of Bitcoin's current economic majority.

Are you going to be the first brave fellow to defect from that imposing majority by accepting Gavin-tainted XTcoins?  No?  Then you are just a poser.

In the remote possiblity XT becomes a matter of more importance than the hype, mirth, and scorn it generates at present, MPex and other 1MBer Elder Whales are prepared to use substantial (possibly exhaustive) portions of their extraordinarily massive war chests to repel 8MBer attacks.  To them, this is Holy War, with barbarian Gavinista hordes clamouring for a Free Shit Junta at the gates of their bespoke civilization.  They are more of a mood to impale heads atop spikes than reward with compromise Hearn's attacks on decentralization, Tor, and the consensus process.

Are you still sure you want to risk your tiny stash playing Hard Fork Poker with such ultra-high-rollers?

Before you answer, please take into account that nodes by default prioritize tx moving older coins, and the Royalty of La Serenissima possesses, in great quantities, very old coins.

What will you do when the limit isn't raised within the next 12 months?  Continue to cry wolf?  Self harm? Or admit being wrong?  

You know iCE, I also am concerned by the idea of a hostile fork, but reading your propaganda it just dawned on me that the only hostilities are coming from people like you. Everyone of any worth agrees we need to increase the block size, it's just there is a hostile minority who feel they are in power who are wanting to pick a fight.

Accommodating bigger blocks over a 12 month period given Bitcoin's exponential growth is not a hostile act, it's not rushing in a controversial change, it's a practical prudent approach.

You are part of the minority who are making it controversial and calling it hostile. I just don't see why you're opposed to letting Bitcoin grow free of manipulation and control.

I am only describing the battlefield and war gaming possible outcomes.  Those purely verbal speculative actions are not "hostilities."

This is what "a hostile minority who feel they are in power who are wanting to pick a fight" actually looks like:

https://medium.com/@octskyward/why-is-bitcoin-forking-d647312d22c1

[iCEBREAKER]

[..]

In the remote possiblity XT becomes a matter of more importance than the hype, mirth, and scorn it generates at present, MPex and other 1MBer Elder Whales are prepared to use substantial (possibly exhaustive) portions of their extraordinarily massive war chests to repel 8MBer attacks.  To them, this is Holy War, with barbarian Gavinista hordes clamouring for a Free Shit Junta at the gates of their bespoke civilization.  They are more of a mood to impale heads atop spikes than reward with compromise Hearn's attacks on decentralization, Tor, and the consensus process.

[...]

So you suggest the Elder Whales will buy up bitcoins from their stash of xtcoins? Just like a central bank would do? Well that is going to be interesting. But there is a risk of losing it all, so I would not bet that it plays out that way.

What are you smoking, crack?  Elder Whales exercising their GavinCoin Short option is nothing like what central banks do.  Your confused, sketchy understanding of the situation continues to surprise and baffle me with its surreal assumptions and bizarre conclusions.   

[Adrian-x]

The real Satoshi has never signed anything.

Can more people corroborate this? I am not familiar with his public history too much.

That writing is not Satoshi it lack understand of how Bitcoin works. If anything Satoshi would just clarify how he though his imposed limit should be dealt with.

[tvbcof]

http://www.mail-archive.com/cryptography@metzdowd.com/msg09968.html

Worth a read for all you SPV nodes & pruning fans out there.

Most of the 'fans' will read the warnings and say "Ya, that's the idea."

Another fair fraction will say "Whatever.  Where's my paycheck for shilling?"

Yet a third group will say "Whatever.  At least my tax evasion charges have been dropped in exchange for my shilling."

[vokain]

The real Satoshi has never signed anything.

Can more people corroborate this? I am not familiar with his public history too much.

That writing is not Satoshi it lack understand of how Bitcoin works. If anything Satoshi would just clarify how he though his imposed limit should be dealt with.

You seem so sure.

In any case, I think the messenger supported the block increase if and only if full consensus for such a fork was achieved meritoriously.

[Adrian-x]

Holy hell, is this real?

http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-August/010238.html

Does he have a PGP key?

Bitcoin private keys can be used to sign a message. I believe there are some which are known to have been held by the original SN (though one can never rule out that they were later compromised), but I'm not sure.

They can, but if he's never before, surely he doesn't value proving himself to anyone aside from through his words and actions, so why would the behavior suddenly change so drastically?

Let's see. 4+ year absence. Writing from a different email (old one hacked), environment vastly different than when he left, nature of the message that is purportedly being sent, etc.

But you're right in a sense. Since appeal to authority is supposed to not exist in Bitcoin and "his" new message contains no constructive input we should just ignore it.

I'd agree with this analysis, your thoughtful consideration is why I enjoy reading your posts.

[Erdogan]

[..]

In the remote possiblity XT becomes a matter of more importance than the hype, mirth, and scorn it generates at present, MPex and other 1MBer Elder Whales are prepared to use substantial (possibly exhaustive) portions of their extraordinarily massive war chests to repel 8MBer attacks.  To them, this is Holy War, with barbarian Gavinista hordes clamouring for a Free Shit Junta at the gates of their bespoke civilization.  They are more of a mood to impale heads atop spikes than reward with compromise Hearn's attacks on decentralization, Tor, and the consensus process.

[...]

So you suggest the Elder Whales will buy up bitcoins from their stash of xtcoins? Just like a central bank would do? Well that is going to be interesting. But there is a risk of losing it all, so I would not bet that it plays out that way.

What are you smoking, crack?  Elder Whales exercising their GavinCoin Short option is nothing like what central banks do.  Your confused, sketchy understanding of the situation continues to surprise and baffle me with its surreal assumptions and bizarre conclusions.   

So how do they defend the cripplecoin. Pitchforks?

[Odalv]

Ken Friece bitcoin-dev:

What are you so afraid of, Eric? If Mike's fork is successful, consensus is reached around larger blocks. If it is rejected, the status quo will remain for now. Network consensus, NOT CORE DEVELOPER CONSENSUS, is the only thing that matters, and those that go against network consensus will be severely punished with complete loss of income.

I'm not sure who appointed the core devs some sort of Bitcoin Gods that can hold up any change that they happen to disagree with. It seems like the core devs are scared to death that the bitcoin network may change without their blessing, so they go on and on about how terrible hard forks are. Hard forks are the only way to keep core devs in check.

Despite significant past technical bitcoin achievements, two of the most vocal opponents to a reasonable blocksize increase work for a company (Blockstream) that stands to profit directly from artificially limiting the blocksize. The whole situation reeks. Because of such a blatant conflict of interest, the ethical thing to do would be for them to either resign from Blockstream or immediately withdraw themselves from the blocksize debate. This is the type of stuff that I hoped would end with Bitcoin, but alas, I guess human nature never changes.

Personally, I think miners should give Bitcoin XT a serious look. Miners need to realize that they are in direct competition with the lightning network and sidechains for fees. Miners, ask yourselves if you think you'll earn more fees with 1 MB blocks and more off-chain transactions or with 8 MB blocks and more on-chain transactions...

The longer this debate drags on, the more I agree with BIP 100 and Jeff Garzik because the core devs are already being influenced by outside forces and should not have complete control of the blocksize. It's also interesting to note that most of the mining hashpower is already voting for 8MB blocks BIP100 style.

1. LN - it is not a protocol change. It was (and ever will be) possible to use LN.  It is win-win  b/c
 a) it saves network resources
 b) it brings more anonymity

2. SC - it does not move transaction fees to Blockstream. Same miners who lose fees from MC can earn this fees from SC. It is again win-win strategy
 a) miners can earn fees by mining more chains
 b) those who are not interested in mining bloat-chain are not forced to keep all the world transactions forever.

[cypherdoc]

XT nodes moving up quickly. 

despite a tighter chart filter measuring ONLY hard bigger block acceptance via 0.11A which knocked down the # measured nodes earlier this morning from 207 --> 80'ish, by this afternoon the # is back up to 206 currently.

[vokain]

Edit: "He used satoshin@gmx.com (from original Bitcoin whitepaper) and satoshi@vistomail.com (from email logs). gmx.com is a free email service that may or may not have had location based restrictions on registration at the time. vistomail.com is an email service from anonymousspeech, the domain registrar proxy he used to register bitcoin.org"
http://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/5319/what-is-the-email-of-satoshi-nakamoto

Ah, I wasn't aware that he ever used anything other than gmx.

Of course one email being hacked might lead to the other one being hacked too (by similar credentials being used, a recovery process, etc.)

But as you say maybe he doesn't care if people believe the message is legit.

If it's not a breach of privacy, we could possibly see if the email server operator has logged any such recovery requests re: the second scenario.