Topic: Any counter-proof that Satoshi Nakamoto did not design a ponzi scheme on purpose (Read 7693 times)

You make a good point, I should have locked this thread already.  In my own defense, I'm inclined to let posters speak their mind as much as possible, even those who too readily let their crazy out for all to see.

But with that, this thread is now locked.

Question posed and answered.

Anyway, why is this thread still growing? Anony rage quit on page 8 (twice)..yet still comes back to argue the same points (this time with a global mod)?

http://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/876/how-much-will-transaction-fees-eventually-be/8749?noredirect=1#comment11471_8749


I don't understand all the vested interests here.

I suppose you just have a lot of money in Bitcoin and mining hardware.

I suppose most of you don't believe there is a real threat of corporations taking over all control of your ability to transact.

I don't think it will help for me to force it down your throat.

MoonShadow, I appreciate that information very much. You confirmed my fears. Occam's Razor was telling me that it had to be so, and you confirmed it. Now I realize that many of you will think I am paranoid or delusional. That is okay. By the time it is too late, you will say "I wish I listened to Shelby".

But of course it will be too late then. So there is nothing I can do.

I wish all of you the best. I wish no harm will come to you. And I don't wish to destroy your speculations. I wish you good luck with them.

















New Zealand Prepares to Stealsthe Moneys

Last week we notified our clients that plans have been in place for some time in New
Zealand to be able to declare a bank holiday and instantly haircut all depositors.
As it turns out, this can be done with as little as “a few mouse clicks.”

AFE’s inside source (a senior developer for one of New Zealand’s largest banks)
confirms that these plansstarted some time ago. According to this source’s personal
knowledge of the system’s implementation, which facilitates instant theft on behalf
of the government, this project was initiated years ago. Interestingly, it was the
Reserve Bank of New Zealand that instructed all banks to put this system in place as
well as providing the deadline as to when it had to be implemented.

AFE’s Duncan Cameron says, “You don’t build bridges to nowhere with no plan on
walking them.”

“If depositor’s funds are protected up to €100K, and anyone holding deposits over
that amount has to bail out their bank if that bank  gets into trouble, it will set
a precedent for other banks’ depositors worldwide who have deposits over the
insurable amounts within those nations!

In Australia and the USA, the insurable amount is $250K for any single entity
(person); therefore, any one entity over the insurable limit could be subject to
similar scenarios.

Basically, from a legal standpoint, this has shifted the liability of customer banks
deposits from central banks to the banks’ depositors themselves. The legality of
this shift in liability will have a significant effect in the days ahead, I am
sure.” - comments AFE's Treasury Director, Simon Heapes, in the office this morning
regarding the current situation.

Few Places Still Safe for Substantial Wealth

How many other jurisdictions already have these type of plans either on the drawing
board or in process? I think it is a legitimate question to ask at this point.Anyone
who has followed what we have said over the years knows we have warned people to
take measures to protect their wealth:

1.       Place a core position of wealth in gold and/or silver, which is purchased
and held outside of the banking system. This prevents such “instant confiscations,”
protects from bank failures, and allows a person to weather inflation and still have
access to liquidity if cash is needed quickly.

2.       Diversify wealth internationally so if the government of your jurisdiction
feels it is necessary to confiscate the wealth within its reach, at least they won’t
get all of it.

3.       Open bank accounts in other jurisdictions to allow options and access to
cashflow should the banks you hold your cash with go into a bank holiday, and you
find yourself with limited options.

It is important to ask yourself some very serious questions. If you have more than
the government-insured limit in any bank, have you diversified your wealth
geopolitically to where you will not lose everything from the failure of one
nation’s banking system? Have you taken steps to protect yourself versus the
confiscation of wealth that occurs when governments are out of options?

If you have not, we encourage you to take the necessary action needed now while you
still can.History shows that capital controls and increased taxation are always put
in place as a government’s fiscal situation continues to deteriorate. At some point
you may not be able to legally secure your wealth at all outside the reach of a
failing government if you do not take the needed steps today.

Kind regards,
Alex Stanczyk
Chief Market Strategist
Anglo Far-East

History doesn't matter.

Gold could crash any day just like Bitcoin.

Do you not understand that if you give the mega-corporations control over Bitcoin transaction block mining, you've given them the control over everything in your life?

They will run your life as a digital slave.

I'm sorry, are you arguing that we should be for, or against Bitcoin, here?

In a decade or three, you will be wishing you were only fool.

Have you guys not studied the history of fascism?

Do you not understand what is going on now in shift in the world with the sovereign debt crisis and how the big banks are doing a reverse takeover of our governance?

Where do you think the mega-corporations get their loans for expansion?

And when the global economy goes into stall velocity circa 2017, these mega-corporations are going to be owned by the banks, because the sales will collapse.

Haven't you seen the many mergers and mega-corporations under mega-mega-umbrella groups?

You use the word "fool" a lot.  Remember that MoonShadow is relatively new to this thread and perhaps hasn't earned the scorn that the rest of us have

Mining at a loss is a barrier to entry.

When the corporate-fascists spend $10 billion on ASICs, you will never be relevant again. They will control everything.

Then they can take over the protocol, through their cartels.

Are you blind to history fool?

This has Rockfeller's fingerprints all over it.

Don't you understand fool, that the corporations are the same monopolists who own the banks and government?

Don't you understand that you are helping them build the 666 system?

Dentralization of the debasement is absolutely essential. Without that, you go directly to 666 within 10 - 20 years.

In particular:


ONLY the pool operators or solo ("professional") miners have to support that level of bandwidth.  Individual miners simply work on the block headers, which involve minimal bandwidth.

If any pool gets too big, people will naturally migrate to the underdog pools:
(A) because they're aware of the problems inherent with any pool getting too large, and
(B) because shucks, everyone loves an underdog!

I predict (without any facts to back me other than our experience BTD [Bitcoin-to-date]) that no solo entity will be able to compete with the larger pools.

Nonsense.  The innovation of Bitcoin isn't it's decentralized nature.  Paper cash is moreso.  The innovation is that the transaction settlement system is automated, unstoppable and cannot prevent new players from entering into the network.  Anyone can offer mining services, even when Walmart has a mining cluster, if they are willing to mine at a loss.  Many are and can.  I do, as I have a GPU based mining rig I bought used last fall that is offsetting a portion of my heating demands for my detached garage.  I'd be using that electricity anyway, but I can't make a business model out of waste heat from a mining rig.  Even if Walmart and Target are fighting over half of the network, they can't stop me from participating at whatever level I desire.  Central banking is about control, not centralizatin per se.  If you really view it as a problem, don't use it.  No one is asking you to, much less compelling you to.  Just go back to your legal tender and go pay your taxes like a good little socialist/capitalist/Morman/whatever.  That's real slavery, and you don't even realize you're already part of your own solution.

So now thanks to our gracious global moderator MoonShadow, we see the true model for Bitcoin.

This is a model where debasement ends, and the large corporations control our lives.

You've just proven which answer is correct to my question. And it wasn't my answer.

Thanks for the slamdunk! Wow you couldn't have made it any easier for me.     

The mining pools we use today exactly fit this description, yet I don't feel threatened.
He did not elaborate on why, but I will probably be one of those miners.  Can you elaborate on why?  Hint: we may have different value systems.

Until recently, much of the mining I did was at a loss.  ...Well, ex-post-facto, it wasn't at a loss.  But I had no reasonable expectation it wouldn't be at a loss.  I just think Bitcoin is really ridiculously cool from its premise to its implementation.  What I like to call a "Fonzie scheme."

But I'm sure we can both agree that the recent growth in Bitcoin FX value defies "reasonable" as a description.

It amazes me that you couldn't see that what I was expecting from Satoshi is exactly what you have written below.


Thank you very much! So you just proved my point that he was expecting the fascist-corporatism model for our future!

Where did he actually write that? I just deduced in my own mind that he was expecting a govt+corporate takeover of society. Or is that some interpretation you all sorted out independent of him saying it?


That is exactly the problem.

You are not building freedom. You are building slavery.

He is not using the bandwidth as the reason the mining will become centralized. He says it will become centralized any way. That is why I say the reason is the economics of fixed-capital investment.

If you have 1 million transactions per day with 1KB each, that is only 1GB per day bandwidth for each peer. With a 10Mbps connection, that is only 15 - 20 minutes per day. And bandwidth is increasing.

Satoshi believed that there would be few professional mining outfits, and that most users would not often have to pay a transaction fee, because in a future that bitcoin had adoptence and success near the level of a minor national currency, most businesses would be accepting them.  For major retailers such as Wal-Mart or Target, accepting bitcoins via free transactions would be a comparative advantage they could wield over smaller competitors because these major retailers could afford to either build their own mining farm or sponsor a professional mining outfit by contract, so that their free transactions could be favored by those same contract miners in the same way that fee paying transactions can be expected to be favored over free transactions now.  The same kind of arrangement could occur between bitcoin "banks", who agree to transact off-network between their members whenever feasible and to mutually favor each other's userbase regarding free transactions within their own transaction/mining pools.  Thus, the market for transaction fees was expected, from very early on, to compete with partial trust parallel payment networks built up specificly to avoid direct blockchain transaction fees.

Therefore, few professional miners as mining without sponsors or some other off-network method of income would eventually become difficult; and mostly free transactions (to consumers) because the primary burden of paying for the network would shift to the corporations that desire to get you to spend in their stores.

And, yes, that is the short version.

Oh, I doubt that.  There are not many assholes quite like me.  I havn't even put any effort into this one.


Because it's not a problem, and you don't see why.  Start with the above summary, but there is much more to it.

Satoshi said mining would become centralized:

http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg09964.html

Here he said there would probably always be nodes willing to process for free after debasement ends. He did not elaborate on why:

http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg10142.html

Another reason to centralize mining is the communication overhead, which I implied in my prior post where I said Satoshi was discussing the 100GB bandwidth.

I linked it twice before within the past several posts.

So if you are not going to read the thread, then don't falsely accuse.

If you are going be an asshole, then don't be surprised if I am an asshole to you.


Give me the terse summary please. Because I suspect you are full of shit, based on the fact that you didn't even read the thread you were replying to as proven above.

Being "here" doesn't impress me. I've seen many logic fails on this site.

You've already demonstrated that you don't always have a high comprehension level.

P.S. Don't try that shit on me. I know how to deal with assholes like you.

---

Also why are you shifting the discussion from the debasement, which is the major fucking problem for funding mining for transactions going forward?

Of course not.  How could I?  You had not provided such a link in the post I quoted!  Do you really think that you're opinion is so highly valued that we actually read everything you write?  I still won't read it, and I still know you didn't get it, because of this statement...


Yes, I do.  Hell, I was here.


Not even close, buck.  I've had this conversation so many times, I feel like a third grade teacher ready for retirement.  You really have no idea.  Please, for the love of God, use the search function!

I am waiting MoonShadow? Where is your proof to back up your accusation?

Don't get shy now.