Topic: Any counter-proof that Satoshi Nakamoto did not design a ponzi scheme on purpose - page 5. (Read 7693 times)

There are several ways in which Bitcoin is a better currency for the internet age:
- It's not subject to inflation / quantitative easing
- Can be used for internet payments, with low fees (try 1 satoshi fees!)
- Wallet encryption makes it safer from theft than your credit card / cash
- It's extremely divisible

First we used seashells and leaves, the we used gold & silver coins, then we used paper banknotes and plastic cards - finally now we use Bitcoins!

Do you have a thread to discuss this?  If so, please respond there and link me to it from here.

1.  What's to prevent me from connecting to the network a thousand (or ten thousand) times so that I might improve my odds of being selected as the next block creator?  (An "attacker network" of one or more machines (sock puppet connections or a botnet) masquerading as many more than physically exist.)  I don't need to have 1tb available until i'm selected, and then only one instance of 1tb needs to exist behind all of the sock puppet connections.

2. Which peer throws the dice to 'randomly select' which other peer is selected to be the next block creator?  What if that peer is compromised to produce a non-random number that throws the next block to another member of an attacker network, thereby locking in the attacker network's indefinite control of the blockchain?

3. What happens if that selected block creator
a. fails / disconnects
b. generates an invalid proof-of-work
c. is continuously DDOS'ed as soon as it's selected?

4.  Is there a mathematical proof that your proof-of-work scheme cannot be simplified by a hitherto-unknown heuristic that allows for a proof-of-work with a much smaller storage requirement?

PS It's "DataPlumber" not "DataPlum". 

Hahahahaha I stopped seriously reading this thread and giving it merit after I put up my summary back on page 5. Since then it's just been a laugh-fest. I've literally been laughing out loud at your recent bout of paranoia.

Retorting here is a fruitless effort as you'll continue to pedal your ignorance against all voices of logic and reason (regardless of how sound and well thought out they are). It's incredibly clear that your sole agenda is instill doubt about Bitcoin in order to push your own coin.

Thankfully, many of us here see right on through your nonsense

I am saving this entire thread, so if any moderator deletes it, I still have a copy:

http://goldwetrust.up-with.com/t188p45-bitcoin-the-gold-will-save-us-ponzi-scheme#4825

Communist.  

(I expected you to do exactly that. I knew you were waiting for DataPlum to ask me to share my algorithm)

What is your retort now you fool?

Ahhh there it is. I was wondering how long it would take before you started advertising your own Alt-coin

Dunning-Krueger dolts can't see their ignorance. They will continue to spout illogic, and there is no logic they will ever accept. Nor will they ever admit defeat, because they don't have the logic to see when they are making a total fool of themselves.

I hope you prove me wrong. I would love to see that you can adjust to reason and logic.


Either you do not understand that the 3 items you presented were one of many possibilities that can (within statistical likelihood) fit the facts, thus by definition assumptions.

Or you do not agree that Occam's Razor is an accepted principle of the scientific method.

In either case I can only shrug. What can I do with an utter dolt?


Did you pass your Algebra 2 course?

If the latter debasement is mathematically adjusted to market conditions (in a decentralized manner with no SPOT of failure modes), the early adopters are continously diluted. If they hold forever, their value will asymptotically trend towards 0.

However, this will take a long-time, and in the meantime they will be rewarded by appreciation in value (both FX price and real productivity gains in the economy from transactional velocity as I explained in my prior post).

An honest and merit-based system, instead of ponzi scheme.


I want the honest and merit-based system, and I never said I would pre-mine coins and keep it secret. Everyone would be on an equal footing and can bring their Proof-of-Work to bear on it as it is released.


Yeah I am clever. Satoshi did not think of this perhaps:

http://anonycoin.org

Btw, I have better name coming soon...

but I don't know if I will implement this. I need to see some support and desire for it first.

Funny you quote the definition for insanity as you've been arguing your same conspiracy theories over and over again for 6 pages now...as if expecting a different response from the rest of us...

What you describe as "rationalizations" is just us being, y'know, rational.  You discard all simpler explanations that do fit facts as "baseless opinion" but then wave Occam's Razor around like it's a prison fight.

NO MATTER WHAT debasement scheme is used, all new market entrants will start at zero, and ALL EARLIER ADOPTERS will have ALL OF THE COINS.  Shocking, I know.

Except the one you want to design, which, of course, solves that problem for you.

BTW where's this description of your alternative system that can work based on how much hard drive space you have?  It's simple to show proof-of-work using cryptography, but I'd like to see how you can prove to the satisfaction of a neighbor how much drive space have.

This myopia is central to Satoshi's ability to create a market value with his "gold" (scarcity) design.

Gold has an intrinsic value because it is used as a physical commodity, and the most important use is central banks hold it. This is why although gold skyrockets, then crashes, it never crashes to 0. Silver is heavily used in industry, this is why it can never crash to 0.

The key is that the most astute and wealthy capitalists will hold gold and silver long-term, but they will not hold Bitcoin long-term, because they understand that the free market rewards those who correctly assess value. Ask Warren Buffet about value creation.

Bitcoin has very, very low instrinsic value, because of it can't be used as a stable unit-of-account.

IMO, like all ponzi schemes the believers will make denial rationalizations (and even get angry at people who present them facts) as to why it must have intrinsic value, and thus it will continue to skyrocket in price for as long as greater fools can bring more money into it.

But when the next general economic liquidity crunch comes, many of these fools who put too much of their networth into Bitcoin, will have to sell in a panic. This will pop the bubble (circa 2015 - 2017) and then the stampede will be on, because there will be stories in the news about how there is very insignificant transactional and unit-of-account usage of Bitcoin by businesses and the profitable and productive sectors of the economy who are the only sector that matters for generating value. Don't forget my point that spending money on goods and services drives value of the currency higher, because the businesses can reinvest in greater productivity gains from profits.

To understand money, you need to understand the economy, see How an Economy Grows and Why It Doesn't.

Bitcoiners will rationalize that gold is a superior money because they claim that no one can debase it. This so stupid. First of all, both inflation and deflation concentrate wealth to the rich. Secondly, because of this concentration of wealth under gold to the rich, the public will never allow it! You get a world war if necessary, but the public will always demand debasement, and there is no technical way to stop it (not even Bitcoin is immune, the government can easily subvert it when they are ready).

And this is the way it should be! A free-market does not mean that it is a merit to encourage non-productivity by erroneously assuming that BLIND capital can invest most efficiently in productivity. The larger the capital one has, the less knowledgably one can allocate it. This is a fact. This is because innovation is born in the small, and no person is omniscient. This is why the Bible says that money will fly away.

Storing past productivity and holding the future in chains with your past accomplishments, is the antithesis of prosperity.

Yes we need some savings, because this represents sacrifice and hard work, which is a merit based system.

But we also need to debase the capital over time, so that the rich don't have an unfair advantage to make the innovators slaves to the lack omniscience.

The philosophical paradigm of Bitcoin, is that the early adopters from first 4 years will have 50% of the money supply. That is insane and will never be allowed in a meritocracy. The free market will never allow this. Yes people should profit on their innovations, but they should not have 50% of all future production. Society will go to world war if necessary to remove those chains.

The technological innovation of Bitcoin that I love is that no person can control the debasement. However, with Bitcoin this is not true. Satoshi controls the debasement and he got some (large chunk) of that 50% of the money supply.

So I would like to take his technical innovation and put it in a new bitcoin-like system where the debasement is automatically adjusted by a mathematical algorithm designed to get a balance between transactional and unit-of-account usage versus store-of-value usage. To prevent it from sliding into the ponzi scheme outcome.

CAPICHE?

P.S. Dunning-Krueger dolts who think I don't realize that Satoshi can't change the preset debasement schedule, that is irrelevant. He alone decided it. And it is insane and not a merit-based duration as I explained the reasons why above.

Let me quote from my answer to my question:

http://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/8671/any-counter-proof-that-satoshi-nakamoto-did-not-design-a-ponzi-scheme-on-purpose/8709#8709

"The stability of a currency’s value is based on how many businesses can keep their unit-of-account in that currency, because business have to do valuations with longer-term planning for their inputs and outputs. If I ask you to go to the store to get some milk, then I ask you take 10 steps forward and 9.9 steps backward along the way, will you do it? Volatility is a cost. Even appreciation is a cost to a business, because they aren't not always going to be on the appreciation side of the equation with their inputs and outputs."

The participants there often disagree and argue with each other, so there is no One Direction.

And yes they do interact with me occasionally:

http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=4824&cpage=1#comment-396599 (warning humor ahead)

You either fail to understand Occam's Razor, or you fail to agree that Bitcoin is unarguably a ponzi scheme. You can review the links to why it is unarguably a ponzi scheme:

http://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/8671/any-counter-proof-that-satoshi-nakamoto-did-not-design-a-ponzi-scheme-on-purpose/8709#8709


In a forum yes, because can't ignore single person as it fills up the space. In voting, it is the stupidest group with the most voting power.

reading *some* posts in this thread is like inception >.> "looking" (as in "i dare you") for a counter-proof for theory that a not ponzi scheme economic bubble was not created on purpouse, which is really a ponzi scheme created by an evil camphor alike guy who allegedly has left his creation and his name and these are 2 things that we know about him. yay. conspiration theories <3

as for the group "intelligence", as bacon says, "the intelligence of the group equals the intelligence of the stupidest person in the group". how's that relevant to this convo anyway? neither economy nor any money/currency is based on group intelligence, group perception nor group's opinion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraordinary_Popular_Delusions_and_the_Madness_of_Crowds

And you did not address my point about the insanity of allowing popular opinion to decide the rate of debasement of our currency:

http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=984

(insanity defined as doing the same thing over and over again, and wondering why the same failure results)

You continue to make assumptions that are not true, and conflate things which are irrelevant. This is what people with lower IQ do.

I wrote an explanation which makes Satoshi a hero:

http://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/8671/any-counter-proof-that-satoshi-nakamoto-did-not-design-a-ponzi-scheme-on-purpose/8709#8709

Note that is not a counter-proof that he didn't do it on purpose.


These are assumptions because they are not at all required by the facts of the situation.

Whereas my explanation is the only one that can fit the facts.

My comments about your 3 assumptions:

1. I don't value my sleep and privacy more than recognition for my creations. We don't know if he did or not. Irrelevant.

2. Nonsense. Satoshi's design is the leader, everybody knows that it can't be modified. And Gavin Anderson is his selected general going forward.

3. Yeah so what? I never said he didn't nurture it and send it out. Irrelevant point.

♫♫♫So get out, get out, get out of my head And fall into my arms instead I do not, I do not, do not know what it is But I need that one thing And you've got that one thing ♫♫♫ - Bitcoins

LMAO

Just for fun, a market value list of gold for several decades passed: https://raw.github.com/datasets/gold-prices/master/data/data.csv

You seem to conflate "disagreeing" with "not understanding."  I understand your wingnut conspiracy theory, I just think you've been in your own feedback loop a bit too long.

So you think Satoshi is evil because you can't imagine a world where any developer would willingly pass a project off to the public, anonymously.  Then you look for evil reasons for evil things in Bitcoin based on that 'irrefutable' premise.

So, let's challenge that Assumption.

Non-Evil(tm) reasons to stay anonymous / drop involvement:
1. He thought long and hard about this, and realized that if the creator stayed involved, he'd never get any sleep, and he values his privacy.
2. Bitcoin has to lack a clear leader if it's to sustain credibility in its claim of being non-centralized.
3. The only way for his baby (to borrow your metaphor) to succeed is to raise it to young adulthood, then send it out into the world to make its own way.

Understanding any or all of these reasons, and probably some I haven't thought of, he set it free.

Here's the thing.  You can't disprove any of those reasons, just like we can't disprove that he's an evil guy in a high-collar cape skulking in the shadows, waiting for his time to strike.  Muhahahaha!

You dislike his inflation model.  I get that.  You ascribe that to a convoluted evil-conspiracy theory.  Here's my theory:

1.  He conflated wanting to distribute a fixed-supply currency over time with the need to incent miners in the time before transaction fees are significant.

That's a very simple reason, and is a complete explanation for the diminishing returns in block rewards.  So let's apply your much-vaunted Razor of Occam to this, shall we?  Wait, are we only supposed to pick simpler reasons when they support your dark world view?

Do you really think anyone with two brain cells to rub together doesn't understand that early adopters are in line for a windfall?  Guess who took the risks, spent the time spreading the word, spent months and months investing time and credibility and money into a system that would probably never be anything but a curiosity for nerds?  It's the early adopters.  That you're butthurt with envy about not being one of them isn't our problem.  That we're currently taking a risk that these early adopters might abuse that position is something we're all aware of.  We aren't children that you have to lead through the playground.  I haven't put one red cent toward Bitcoin that I can't afford to lose tomorrow.

And do the members of One Direction reply to your writings?