Topic: Bitcoin IS basically DESTROYED - page 33. (Read 47260 times)

Hahaha. Jim Ignatowski is my brother. 

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/70/Taxi_NBC_cast_final_season.jpg

Oh thank god. I don't have to come to this forum anymore.

China destroy btc? Omg lmao, if btc dead, then theres must be a new cryptocurrency :v

My prior post upthread has many much rebuttals and explanations.


If your assertion is correct, then that might be indicative of the true worth of the debt-driven BitCON bubble (debt for building State electricity sold at low cost to cronies, debt for 0% loans to cronies, etc):

---

Head over the Altcoin Discussion forum and read some of TPTB_need_war's analysis of the sordid state of altcoins. Please don't tell me you've fallen for the proof-of-stake delusion. Learn the technology from someone who is honest. You may also want to follow smooth's posts, as he is very honest and astute. Note Minecache and others will disagree. So go over there and read for yourself so you can form your own opinion.

I believe so far just about every crypto-currency is a scam, including Bitcoin. I have some respect for Monero, because it has an ASIC-resistant proof-of-work hash, strong privacy (not anonymity from the NSA!), and a fair distribution (no premine/instamine/ICO). But I don't think Monero is the solution either. I don't believe it can scale and remain decentralized, because profitable proof-of-work will always aggregate to economies-of-scale over time. TPTB_need_war will publish a white paper eventually, that will explain all of this. In any case, for the moment Monero is probably reasonably decentralized, but the volatility is huge and don't buy it expecting to reap gains. If you are into crypto-currency for profit, then ignore my posts. I am writing about our future as a society. Disclaimer: I don't own any crypto-currency at this time. I recently sold my BTC. TPTB_need_war is working on several projects, such as a new programming language, a new social network, and maybe a new crypto-currency but that is a long-time from now. So he speaks from some bias, but honestly.

---

There are several technical factors you need to take into account. For example, the greater the hashrate (of the pool if not solo mining), the more often the miner is mining on the block that won't be orphaned. The propagation delay of block announcements (or any group with 33+% of the hashrate colluding to delay block announcements, which was explained the research paper Majority is not Enough: Bitcoin Mining is Vulnerable), means that those with more hashrate are more profitable given the same unitized hardware and electricity costs. Ditto that every miner (or pool) has the same cost of validation regardless of their hashrate. This means that even if everything is fair and equal, naturally over time the mining will centralize to an oligarchy. This is a property of profitable proof-of-work and there is nothing that can be done to fix it. TPTB_need_war made an entire thread about this to discuss it in detail. The flaws of proof-of-stake are also discussed in that thread and I urge Minecache and others not to turn this thread into a PoS vs. PoW discussion. Bring the PoS vs. PoW debate over to that other thread, other such thread if you want to debate that.

What TPTB_need_war concluded is that the only design that can remain economically decentralized is UNprofitable proof-of-work. This means that every spender would send some PoW share with each transaction. The details are complex and it can't work the same as Satoshi's design. Most of the details are already explained in various posts that TPTB_need_war has made spread out over many different threads. But he is not implementing this design right now, because he is busy on the other programming priorities I mentioned.

Any way, there is no solution to that will remain immune to the fact that humans are manipulated like a herd when it comes to politics. And they are lazy. And they are easily duped by the elite. So even if TPTB_need_war implements his solution, it is likely that the people will still end up sending their PoW shares to an oligarchy of "pools" even though unprofitable PoW means no one gains by using a pool. People are just dumb. But we might have a fighting chance with this redesign of Satoshi's flawed design. Many people have criticized this UNprofitable PoW thinking it won't work because there is not the proper incentives and Nash equilibirum. TPTB_need_war says they are wrong and he will eventually publish a whitepaper to better explain all the details.

I don't know where we will end up with all this. But my guess is the elite will win and the people will lose. But some people are working on hard. Please don't disrespect TPTB_need_war. His is working as furiously as he can, and no one helps him. Maybe one day he will get some assistance and be recognized for his efforts. But he doesn't care! He is doing what he is doing as a labor of love and because he loves the challenge.

---

Please re-read the rebuttals I provided upthread, for I already explained that your logic is a strawman and a non-sequitur. It is a strawman because it is doubtful that China's oligarchy miners will destroy Bitcoin, rather they will maximize profit and control, turning Bitcoin into yet another defacto totalitarian fiat. You all will continue to support this totalitarian Bitcoin, because you ignore what you don't want to know because of your lust for profit and your ideological euphoria (and lots of ignorance as well).

It is also a non-sequitur, because if Bitcoin did die due to strangulation by centralized control, it would cause all the europhia to be gone and just like after the dot.com bubble died, it was several years before the bubble regained significant inertia. And we are heading into a global economic collapse in 2018, so there won't be any money floating around for speculation. The current massive debt bubble will be collapsing. BitCON is just to steal your money so you have nothing when the debt bubble collapses. And/or it will be a totalitarian digital currency during the coming capital controls and hard times. It is possible the-powers-that-be allow Bitcoin to be free for a longer period, in order to trap more people in it, before they use their centralized control over it to clamp down. It is going to be interesting to observe what happens.

Note I am not referring to a price decline per se, my point is about the other ways a fiat can be used against the people, such as forcing all our transactions to be tracked with digital identification when we sign our transactions. Forcing us to pay a tax to the world government on each transaction we sign, etc.

---

Mining altcoins to exchange value for BTC, does not decentralize the protocol of the Bitcoin block chain. Only the Bitcoin miners control the policies of the protocol.

If 51% of them decide to change the protocol and the Bitcoiners are unable to mount a successful political campaign to organize a fork, then the oligarchy wins. And if they do fork, they would need to change the hash algorithm, otherwise the oligarchy could simply take over the fork as well. The delusion about forking is the the Bitcoiners can't agree on anything, so they certainly couldn't agree on a new proof-of-work hash algorithm. Besides, no one cares. Everybody only cares about profit and using what is already popular. No one here has a clue about how to organize to make something widely adopted and popular. The elite are in control. Now get down on your knees and pray to the elite, because they own you.

---

No. Please go back to sleep.

Don't we all hope Xi Jinping, Putin, Merkel, Hellary, Craig Wright, Theymos, copy-leftist Gregory Maxwell, and globalist-ideologue Julian Assange control our future:

Uh uh, they're only interested in making money but then again, who isn't, but don't make the mistake of thinking they care about bitcoin, they're only in it to make the money and they're making a ton of it and when that changes, they'll drop it and move on.
It affects the security of the network.

Incorrect. Segwit is more like saying we only need 1 pilot fly an aircraft so let's scrap the copilot and cabin crew to fit x more passengers into the same sized aircraft. After all what's the worst that can happen?

segwit is how we make the code more sophisticated. rather than saying "not enough planes for people. let's make plane cabins twice as large and change nothing else about the design".

Node count is irrelevant, that's why few nodes in China; one is enough. The cost of throwing up a node is trivial compared to the costs of mining. This has been talked to death.

China definitely owns mining. But if you check the node count it's only 13th in the world. No one there has any real use for it. The trade volumes are garbage. 

Let's say the Chinese government does decide to shut it down. There's over 2000 nodes in the US and less than 100 in China. The rest of the world would catch up pretty rapidly.

if bitcoin controlled by china,why dont we move to china?or at least we can consolidate with china,and ask them have a good control. bitcoin on china was very ood,but i dont think they try to control bitcoin,because i'm sure china know that bitcoin is cannot controlled.

To me all this is is dirke dirke Mumining Jihad. I am the one who got the Greek Whale to creep this thing up, and I am the one who got him to make the NYC BTC center. Now enough about this irrelevant mining nonsense and let's just admit the glory days of BITCOIN ARE OVER!

Yeah you're confusing yourself with LITECOIN/ 51% attack not possible with BTC

Mining has nothing to do with anything.

The combination of Gox plus the regulatory after effect is what killed the momentum.

Now it's only uses are for drugs, ISIS to self-finance, and alt coin pump and dumps.

I blame Charlie Shrem most of all....he's the one who invited the devil to dinner (Ben Lawsky).......LITERALLY!

Maybe this is why satoshi holds a lot of bitcoin.  He can at least make sure that some of it doesn't get into the hands of anyone that wants to control 51%.

I can explain to you  cases that 80 and 90 % discounts are perfectly legal.  My friend rented on floor of an office building then sublet it to a printing business he kept 2 small rooms about 10 to 15 %  of the floor.  The sublet has the printing guy paying 80% of the 13 cent a kwatt power bill.

My friend has had the lease for 15 to 16 years.  He usually got a 1000 a month power bill that was paid 800 printer 200 him.

He got screwed on the deal for 11 years as the real power split should have been 910 to 90  the printer used more gear and more ac in the summer.  Since my friend  was getting the rent at 80% which was correct he never bother to say the power should be 90-10.

bitcoin came along now the bill was 1150 that is now paid 920 -  230.

So he is not stealing but paying 30 bucks for 150 worth of power.

So we first mined s-1's then mined s-3's now mine s-7's    perfectly legal and not stealing.

From the beginning, this has always been a possibility: A banker who can effectively create unlimited fiat money can easily acquire all the mining infrastructure and control the network hash power (Of course he don't need to do so through one single entity, it will look like that many people control the mining infrastructure, but when a vote happens people will discover that over 90% of hash power is controlled by a few entity and can go against majority of people's will)

PoW method is vulnerable to large capital taking over. This is the nature of PoW, so some people have suggested to use a PoW+PoS hybrid model for the future mining, but without major hash power, how do you implement this change into the network? Why miners should give up their dominance power today? It seems only a fork or re-design of a new coin can start afresh

The mining industry unbalance and possible forks that may happen are all dictated by amount of interest people have in them.
So far China has shown that they are in the very top, but nothing is stopping anyone else to counter-weigh the hashrate to their advantage.
Just because they are investing and developing cutting edge chips for miners should not be looked upon with hate (tho i personally think it has more to do with envy)

And in regards to clusterfuck as you put it, the only thing that made such thing possible is when ASICs came into play. Back in the day when only cpus and gpus were
able to mine bitcoins, it was much evenly and fairly distributed power available to everyone. After ASIC boom, it was manufacturers and tech developers that were
given an unfair advantage, and a huge one. Them and the people with enough money to buy the said industy, while average Joe got left behind for greed and desire for power.

Hello Arrakeen.

No, of course, China is mentioned. I was talking about the frequency of it being mentioned - it seems to be the center of discussion.

I would have expected many arguments to be found against China ruling Bitcoin, but there are little presented so far.

You have not contributed anything so far either