Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[marcus_of_augustus]

you have to admit the "blockchain not bitcoin" soundbite has been a very effective message for the braindeads who are never going to expend the energy into figuring out why any form of money has value ... they just needed an easy, even if incorrect, idea to hang it on.

You see it a lot in science and math at the early levels, give them an easy narrative to get past the hard, nuanced concepts and move on to stuff they actually might learn and make use of. Like Father Christmas, tooth fairy, quantum mechanics, etc

[molecular]

Back to the gold topic.

There is a referendum in Switzerland, in November, which is likely to secure a yes vote that the SNB holds 20% of its assets in gold (currently at 7.6%). As soon as this passes the bank will have five years to reach the 20% target. There is no legal escape for it. Considering that the SNB balance sheet has recently blown out Fed/BoE/BoJ-style - it will have to buy up to 1,700 tons of gold in the open market - and take delivery!

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-10-28/things-make-you-go-hmmm-swiss-gold-status-quo-showdown

I really think this will put a floor under the current gold price, and maybe even spark another medium-term rally.

Will be interesting to watch the weasels at the SNB try to wriggle out of it ... after the shit they pulled with the EUR peg anything is possible.

Shit is being pulled again! Seems like this...

 ...On the top floor of PayPal HQ the legendary Black Phone is ringing...
 Nervously the execs crowd around until one of them summons enough courage to pick up the receiver.
 There are no pleasantries, a voice just hisses: "Remember Wikileaks? Now its the Swiss Gold Initiative"
 Drrrrrrrrr. The caller has hung up, the unseen world bankster network hath spoken.

https://goldswitzerland.com/swiss-gold-initiative-2014/

On Wednesday, October 29, we have received notification from PayPal that they can no longer receive donations on behalf of Matterhorn Asset Management AG. The reason is that we are not a formally registered charity in Switzerland and that we must seek a different approach to raising funds for this extremely important Initiative campaign. During the past two weeks we have received donations from various parts of the world and many from the United States of America. We and the Initiative Committee, chaired by Luzi Stamm of the Swiss National Parliament, are extremely greatful for the contributions that we have received to date and this setback will not stop our effort and our commitment to go through with the Social media promotional campaign that will in fact start on November 1 in Switzerland.

what BS but ... bitcoin to the rescue!

This could make for some great publicity for both bitcoin and the Swiss Gold initiative.

yes, for example if they put a f..cking bitcoin address instead of this:



behind their donation link.

EDIT "the recipient is unable to receive money"... LOL! I guess the recipient has no problem, paypal is unable

[coric]

Did the SVP (right-wing populist party) endorse the gold initiative yet? Can't imagine another party, and the conservative establishment would certainly oppose it for fear of hurting the export industry (NZZ which I sometimes read does)

[Adrian-x]

you have to admit the "blockchain not bitcoin" soundbite has been a very effective message for the braindeads who are never going to expend the energy into figuring out why any form of money has value ... they just needed an easy, even if incorrect, idea to hang it on.

You see it a lot in science and math at the early levels, give them an easy narrative to get past the hard, nuanced concepts and move on to stuff they actually might learn and make use of. Like Father Christmas, tooth fairy, quantum mechanics, etc

I would agree, and laughed it off, but in my understanding that reality can now be distorted to that narrative with SC.

[cypherdoc]

we really haven't focused on the ethics of what gmax and the other core devs are doing.

i know the argument goes like this; they're the brightest minds in Bitcoin who have done so much for us we should be thankful, they have "positions" in BTC so they would NEVER do anything to harm Bitcoin, they deserve it, we should WANT them to be paid, SC's are neutral and are just trying to help Bitcoin, all you skeptics "just don't get it", etc.

well, the fact of the matter is we do get it.  we've flushed out alot right here in this thread.  and all of this technical babble has ignored the fact that what they are doing is unethical.  abusing one's privileged position as a core dev and pushing for a very specific and unique change in the source code, while simultaneously creating a for-profit company that seeks to profit off said change is unethical.  i asked gmax in the AMA whether he thought he should step down as core dev due to what is to any objective person a conflict of interest.  he said he thought that was "unreasonable" followed closely by LukeJr who said the same. LukeJr then launched off on a rant about how we should "want them to get paid".  nice spin Luke.  i don't have a problem with you starting a private company but not while taking advantage of your position. at least in the real world of banksters, there are plenty of examples where ppl step down b/c of conflicts of interest for reasons even more remotely unrelated than this.  these guys don't get it.  Satoshi spent at least 2 yrs of his life developing Bitcoin without being paid, so there. AND he hasn't cashed in any of his BTC that we know of to profit from Bitcoin.  now that's public service for you.  one might argue that should be the standard for Bitcoin.  maybe we need/deserve core devs who don't have gmax or Luke's attitudes?  Bitcoin has the potential to become a global currency so an argument can be made that it should be maintained for the public good. i for one think there are plenty of devs who would love to step up and replace those guys.

alarm bells should be going off in all Bitcoin holders heads right now.  this isn't right even if the SC concept were valid, which i don't think it is.

[btcney]

Satoshi should dump once Bitcoin turns corrupt.

[lebing]

we really haven't focused on the ethics of what gmax and the other core devs are doing.

i know the argument goes like this; they're the brightest minds in Bitcoin who have done so much for us we should be thankful, they have "positions" in BTC so they would NEVER do anything to harm Bitcoin, they deserve it, we should WANT them to be paid, SC's are neutral and are just trying to help Bitcoin, all you skeptics "just don't get it", etc.

well, the fact of the matter is we do get it.  we've flushed out alot right here in this thread.  and all of this technical babble has ignored the fact that what they are doing is unethical.  abusing one's privileged position as a core dev and pushing for a very specific and unique change in the source code, while simultaneously creating a for-profit company that seeks to profit off said change is unethical.  i asked gmax in the AMA whether he thought he should step down as core dev due to what is to any objective person a conflict of interest.  he said he thought that was "unreasonable" followed closely by LukeJr who said the same. LukeJr then launched off on a rant about how we should "want them to get paid".  nice spin Luke.  i don't have a problem with you starting a private company but not while taking advantage of your position. at least in the real world of banksters, there are plenty of examples where ppl step down b/c of conflicts of interest for reasons even more remotely unrelated than this.  these guys don't get it.  Satoshi spent at least 2 yrs of his life developing Bitcoin without being paid, so there. AND he hasn't cashed in any of his BTC that we know of to profit from Bitcoin.  now that's public service for you.  one might argue that should be the standard for Bitcoin.  maybe we need/deserve core devs who don't have gmax or Luke's attitudes?  Bitcoin has the potential to become a global currency so an argument can be made that it should be maintained for the public good. i for one think there are plenty of devs who would love to step up and replace those guys.

alarm bells should be going off in all Bitcoin holders heads right now.  this isn't right even if the SC concept were valid, which i don't think it is.

Cypher, let it go man. You are entitled to your opinion but the fact is that pretty much noone agrees with you on this one. The horse is dead already. No need to keep hitting it.

[cypherdoc]

we really haven't focused on the ethics of what gmax and the other core devs are doing.

i know the argument goes like this; they're the brightest minds in Bitcoin who have done so much for us we should be thankful, they have "positions" in BTC so they would NEVER do anything to harm Bitcoin, they deserve it, we should WANT them to be paid, SC's are neutral and are just trying to help Bitcoin, all you skeptics "just don't get it", etc.

well, the fact of the matter is we do get it.  we've flushed out alot right here in this thread.  and all of this technical babble has ignored the fact that what they are doing is unethical.  abusing one's privileged position as a core dev and pushing for a very specific and unique change in the source code, while simultaneously creating a for-profit company that seeks to profit off said change is unethical.  i asked gmax in the AMA whether he thought he should step down as core dev due to what is to any objective person a conflict of interest.  he said he thought that was "unreasonable" followed closely by LukeJr who said the same. LukeJr then launched off on a rant about how we should "want them to get paid".  nice spin Luke.  i don't have a problem with you starting a private company but not while taking advantage of your position. at least in the real world of banksters, there are plenty of examples where ppl step down b/c of conflicts of interest for reasons even more remotely unrelated than this.  these guys don't get it.  Satoshi spent at least 2 yrs of his life developing Bitcoin without being paid, so there. AND he hasn't cashed in any of his BTC that we know of to profit from Bitcoin.  now that's public service for you.  one might argue that should be the standard for Bitcoin.  maybe we need/deserve core devs who don't have gmax or Luke's attitudes?  Bitcoin has the potential to become a global currency so an argument can be made that it should be maintained for the public good. i for one think there are plenty of devs who would love to step up and replace those guys.

alarm bells should be going off in all Bitcoin holders heads right now.  this isn't right even if the SC concept were valid, which i don't think it is.

Cypher, let it go man. You are entitled to your opinion but the fact is that pretty much noone agrees with you on this one. The horse is dead already. No need to keep hitting it.

evidence please?

so you want to ignore the thrust of my post, the ethics of the situation?

[justusranvier]

I'm still waiting

https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/2k3u97/we_are_bitcoin_sidechain_paper_authors_adam_back/clhni79.

[railzand]

followed closely by LukeJr who said the same. LukeJr then launched off on a rant about how we should "want them to get paid".  nice spin Luke.  i don't have a problem with you starting a private company but not while taking advantage of your position.

I don't like nor trust Luke jr. He's the biggest criminal of the lot. Seriously, did non-one follow his actions in the past years?

Luke, I'd pay for you NOT to work on Bitcoin. I don't trust you at all.

Your money might be better spent on the current project ( http://therealbitcoin.org/ ) to write a better bitcoin: http://log.bitcoin-assets.com/?date=28-10-2014#899422

*: asciilifeform would sign code, if some loony were to pay what the kind of labour that is involved in honestly signing 'will die by this' actually costs...

[lebing]

we really haven't focused on the ethics of what gmax and the other core devs are doing.

i know the argument goes like this; they're the brightest minds in Bitcoin who have done so much for us we should be thankful, they have "positions" in BTC so they would NEVER do anything to harm Bitcoin, they deserve it, we should WANT them to be paid, SC's are neutral and are just trying to help Bitcoin, all you skeptics "just don't get it", etc.

well, the fact of the matter is we do get it.  we've flushed out alot right here in this thread.  and all of this technical babble has ignored the fact that what they are doing is unethical.  abusing one's privileged position as a core dev and pushing for a very specific and unique change in the source code, while simultaneously creating a for-profit company that seeks to profit off said change is unethical.  i asked gmax in the AMA whether he thought he should step down as core dev due to what is to any objective person a conflict of interest.  he said he thought that was "unreasonable" followed closely by LukeJr who said the same. LukeJr then launched off on a rant about how we should "want them to get paid".  nice spin Luke.  i don't have a problem with you starting a private company but not while taking advantage of your position. at least in the real world of banksters, there are plenty of examples where ppl step down b/c of conflicts of interest for reasons even more remotely unrelated than this.  these guys don't get it.  Satoshi spent at least 2 yrs of his life developing Bitcoin without being paid, so there. AND he hasn't cashed in any of his BTC that we know of to profit from Bitcoin.  now that's public service for you.  one might argue that should be the standard for Bitcoin.  maybe we need/deserve core devs who don't have gmax or Luke's attitudes?  Bitcoin has the potential to become a global currency so an argument can be made that it should be maintained for the public good. i for one think there are plenty of devs who would love to step up and replace those guys.

alarm bells should be going off in all Bitcoin holders heads right now.  this isn't right even if the SC concept were valid, which i don't think it is.

Cypher, let it go man. You are entitled to your opinion but the fact is that pretty much noone agrees with you on this one. The horse is dead already. No need to keep hitting it.

evidence please?

so you want to ignore the thrust of my post, the ethics of the situation?

I dont actually see it as entirely unethical. If they were the ones that actually made the decision which code was run, then yes I would see it as a problem, but the fact is that the miners make the final call which they want to run and there will be plenty of time to vet the code before that happens. If they were to release something questionable, it simply wouldnt be accepted by the community and the old code would run until a better one would be found.

[NewLiberty]

Satoshi should dump once Bitcoin turns corrupt.

Dump for what?
Is there something less corrupt, even with this?

On the conflict of interest position...
Is it a conflict of interest if a company sponsors a developer to work on Bitcoin Core?
Is it a conflict of interest if TBF sponsors a developer?
I would say that it is, but the conflict is not necessarily a horrible thing in all cases, just sometimes.

What it does do is encourage me to question the authority of the developer more than otherwise. 
I've been doing a good bit of that over the MAX_BLOCKSIZE issue vs. Gavin's proposal to patch it rather than fix it.

[Adrian-x]

followed closely by LukeJr who said the same. LukeJr then launched off on a rant about how we should "want them to get paid".  nice spin Luke.  i don't have a problem with you starting a private company but not while taking advantage of your position.

I don't like nor trust Luke jr. He's the biggest criminal of the lot. Seriously, did non-one follow his actions in the past years?

Luke, I'd pay for you NOT to work on Bitcoin. I don't trust you at all.

so i know many prominent Bitcoin celebrates have dubious reputations, but i haven't followed Luke jr.

not to raise any accusations in what issues has he been involved that caused you to lose trust?

I'm only aware of some name calling between CGMiner and BFGMiner, to be honest I never got to the bottom of it all, and went with CGMiner dare i say it because i didn't trust Luke's slanted eyed avatar.

[cypherdoc]

followed closely by LukeJr who said the same. LukeJr then launched off on a rant about how we should "want them to get paid".  nice spin Luke.  i don't have a problem with you starting a private company but not while taking advantage of your position.

I don't like nor trust Luke jr. He's the biggest criminal of the lot. Seriously, did non-one follow his actions in the past years?

Luke, I'd pay for you NOT to work on Bitcoin. I don't trust you at all.

so i know many prominent Bitcoin celebrates have dubious reputations, but i haven't followed Luke jr.

not to raise any accusations in what issues has he been involved that caused you to lose trust?

I'm only aware of some name calling between CGMiner and BFGMiner, to be honest I never got to the bottom of it all, and went with CGMiner dare i say it because i didn't trust Luke's slanted eyed avatar.

numerous run ins with Gavin, famously BIP 16:  https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=61705.30;wap2

Luke is actually not a core dev specifically b/c Gavin won't let him b/c of trust issues

Luke-Jr. attacks and kills Coiledcoin alt-currency using the Eligius mining pool:

http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/o6qwx/lukejr_attacks_and_kills_coiledcoin_altcurrency/

[cypherdoc]

On the conflict of interest position...
Is it a conflict of interest if a company sponsors a developer to work on Bitcoin Core?
Is it a conflict of interest if TBF sponsors a developer?
I would say that it is, but the conflict is not necessarily a horrible thing in all cases, just sometimes.

What it does do is encourage me to question the authority of the developer more than otherwise. 
I've been doing a good bit of that over the MAX_BLOCKSIZE issue vs. Gavin's proposal to patch it rather than fix it.

i don't have a problem with any of those relationships.

i said it earlier, i wouldn't mind the current bunch of guys proposing SC's be employed by individual companies like Garzik.
it's the banding together under one company that can cause a block of competitors and monoculture.

Gavin's in a special category more pristine under TBF as i'm sure he isn't being paid the big bucks, let alone have equity in a for profit. 

[NewLiberty]

On the conflict of interest position...
Is it a conflict of interest if a company sponsors a developer to work on Bitcoin Core?
Is it a conflict of interest if TBF sponsors a developer?
I would say that it is, but the conflict is not necessarily a horrible thing in all cases, just sometimes.

What it does do is encourage me to question the authority of the developer more than otherwise. 
I've been doing a good bit of that over the MAX_BLOCKSIZE issue vs. Gavin's proposal to patch it rather than fix it.

i don't have a problem with any of those relationships.

i said it earlier, i wouldn't mind the current bunch of guys proposing SC's be employed by individual companies like Garzik.
it's the banding together under one company that can cause a block of competitors and monoculture.

Gavin's in a special category more pristine under TBF as i'm sure he isn't being paid the big bucks, let alone have equity in a for profit. 

I am less black and white on the issue.  Everyone has conflicts, some are very serious, others are less so.
I'm not sure TBF is as pristine as all that either.  Its shades of grey, and yes, the SC issue is seriously conflicted.

[Erdogan]

Ok, I'm really getting sick of this fundamental misunderstanding making the rounds these days that "its the Blockchain stupid" that makes Bitcoin valuable and not the currency. I put the blame for this misperception squarely at the feet of Andreas as he's the one who's been most public and vocal spreading this view. After all, he is one of the geeks.

See 4:30 with Arthur Levitt :

http://mobile.bloomberg.com/video/arthur-levitt-on-sec-s-edgar-filing-system-and-bitcoin-YVtI25q8Tn~vJ2NWIawrpw.html

Let me flip this argument around and say "no stupid, it's the currency that makes Bitcoin,  not the Blockchain". After all, because it's a fixed supply and can't be inflated,  THAT is what is resonating with freedom minded people worldwide who are tired of having their money devalued. And because these people have thrown their hard earned fiat money at Bitcoin, precisely  for this reason,  this is what has caused the price  to rise and therefore has facilitated the mining industry to thrive and therefore the Blockchain has been allowed to become the immutable ledger it has become. The Blockchain would be nothing without the currency. Stupid.

Now those who know me best realize I'm saying this partly in jest because what I really believe is that the 2 are inextricably linked as Bitcoin is its own self contained financial  system.

Which is why I disagree with the core assumption of the SC concept too, btw, which assumes they can be separated.

Yep, it's bitcoin, the money.

[cypherdoc]

well now, i'm glad i didn't buy a ticket:

http://online.wsj.com/articles/virgin-galactic-spaceship-crashes-1414781841

[Erdogan]

we really haven't focused on the ethics of what gmax and the other core devs are doing.

i know the argument goes like this; they're the brightest minds in Bitcoin who have done so much for us we should be thankful, they have "positions" in BTC so they would NEVER do anything to harm Bitcoin, they deserve it, we should WANT them to be paid, SC's are neutral and are just trying to help Bitcoin, all you skeptics "just don't get it", etc.

well, the fact of the matter is we do get it.  we've flushed out alot right here in this thread.  and all of this technical babble has ignored the fact that what they are doing is unethical.  abusing one's privileged position as a core dev and pushing for a very specific and unique change in the source code, while simultaneously creating a for-profit company that seeks to profit off said change is unethical.  i asked gmax in the AMA whether he thought he should step down as core dev due to what is to any objective person a conflict of interest.  he said he thought that was "unreasonable" followed closely by LukeJr who said the same. LukeJr then launched off on a rant about how we should "want them to get paid".  nice spin Luke.  i don't have a problem with you starting a private company but not while taking advantage of your position. at least in the real world of banksters, there are plenty of examples where ppl step down b/c of conflicts of interest for reasons even more remotely unrelated than this.  these guys don't get it.  Satoshi spent at least 2 yrs of his life developing Bitcoin without being paid, so there. AND he hasn't cashed in any of his BTC that we know of to profit from Bitcoin.  now that's public service for you.  one might argue that should be the standard for Bitcoin.  maybe we need/deserve core devs who don't have gmax or Luke's attitudes?  Bitcoin has the potential to become a global currency so an argument can be made that it should be maintained for the public good. i for one think there are plenty of devs who would love to step up and replace those guys.

alarm bells should be going off in all Bitcoin holders heads right now.  this isn't right even if the SC concept were valid, which i don't think it is.

Cypher, let it go man. You are entitled to your opinion but the fact is that pretty much noone agrees with you on this one. The horse is dead already. No need to keep hitting it.

So a majority, thrown out from nowhere, as evidence, trumps an argument based on ethics?

[Cortex7]

Do any of you guys know of a worked out p2p marketplace with a democratic escrow system?

I've read some posts on reddit etc talking of how it might be done and I've seen some altcoin creators have it on their roadmap, but I'm not aware of anything real yet.