Topic: Bitcoin XT - Officially #REKT (also goes for BIP101 fraud) - page 27. (Read 378980 times)

First you argue...


to which I reply...


hdbuck, always the sharp guy, understands what is being insinuated...


By now I'd expect your are still clueless as to what it is I'm trying to lead you to so, to be clear, the argument goes:

Something does not need to be "mass adopted" for it to become a "world reserve currency".

It just needs to be the predilect form of money for relevant* economic actors in the society. Case in point: gold.

*masses != relevant

That's good advice.  VS's word economy is atrocious.  I can read the first 5 words, then glaze over and tl;dr the rest of his rambling.

Maybe he just likes to hear himself talk.   

Brevity is the soul of wit, qualities VS is lacking in spades.

Great so you admit you were wrong.

That took some time!

(ps. you need to sharpen up on your writing style, reading you is akin to watching paint dry. have some character and don't be such a dull robot, will ya?)

O RLY?

https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/3us1kl/free_jstolfi/

https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/3us1kl/free_jstolfi/cxioupa

Trollfi is welcome on /r/bitcoin (subject to the normal moderation/rules) but banned for no apparent reason from /r/btc.

So much for your "uncensored place."  That sensor ship has sailed.  

Not all money is currency, but all currency is money. Aristotle defined currency as being durable, portable, fungible and that it should have intrinsic value.

This is why I mentioned the history of money earlier in this thread, since for the majority of known human history we have had commodity money. Which is not based on debt, fiat or money by authority is only a relatively recent development. Bitcoin represents a return to true commodity money, Bitcoin is an asset based currency not a debt based currency like fiat.

One important factor when comparing Bitcoin to gold in terms of its value, is actually its utility, it is this utility that gives Bitcoin the advantage as a store of value compared to gold. After all we can not sprinkle gold dust down a phone line and send it across the world cheaply in a matter of seconds without relying on third parties.

I have repeatedly stated that different types of precious metals where used, including silver and bronze. Which poor families could afford, often coins where also divided, this is where the term quarter comes from for example. Currency has been used by most people for the majority of our known history, it is as old as civilization itself.

Good to know.  I have 'unlimited' service (150 GB/month) for which I pay about $1400/year.  The cap is a summation of both upload and download I believe.  It drives me nuts when people have these adolescent fantasies about Bitcoin being robust 'because satellite'.  Nothing could be more absurd and in multiple ways.

The last time I actually helped the network was when I ran bitcoind on my i586 based 1/2G router.  When that became impractical due to traffic growth I never did bother to set up a port forward (and sure as hell was not going to run UPnP!)

If people could at least break even by providing service in the transfer network (which I mistakenly thought was on the drawing board when I read the whitepaper) I doubt that we'd be facing issues.  Addressing this issue would be the prime area I'd like to see focused on.  As I've mentioned, a dedicated sidechain to apportion reward in a 'segregated' manner seems to me the most likely way to achieve this.

I have similar speeds (faster download, same upload) and our discussion convinced me to increase the maxconnections allowed by my node to 50 (from 30). In a span of 6 days, my node downloaded 5 GB and uploaded 110 GB of block chain data.

The problem is that during this span, I often have a noticeable slow down of other internet traffic. During these times of heavy Core uploading, web traffic slows to a crawl and streaming video is out of the question. If my ISP offered a faster (upload) tier, I would purchase it, but I do not have the option. I live in a relatively (to the rest of the world) developed location. If I lived in a more remote (less developed) area, or had to send all of my Bitcoin traffic through ToR (I shouldn't need to explain why that could become a reality), I would have an even more difficult time running a full node. If the amount of data I need to share is drastically increased, I would have a difficult time at my current location.

I'm not great with the QoS settings on my router or perhaps I could improve my experience. Perhaps some of the changes coming to Core that I've read about will help. In the meantime, I've had to reduce the maxconnections allowed. I just can't see how anyone would want to drastically increase the amount of data needed to be shared while going through the same user experience as me.

I think Core should remain something that a Bitcoin enthusiast (willing to spend a decent amount of money doing so) like myself can continue to run semi-easily, even if circumstances arise which may make that more difficult (certain groups deciding that Bitcoin data should be censored, for example).

In other words, the network should remain robust ("lite and tight" as tvbcof would say).

I'd be remiss not to remind everyone, as an aside to this discussion as it pertains to gold and debt and money, that money and currency are not the same thing, that gold is (among other things) that which extinguishes debt, and that bitcoin shares some properties with gold, such as fungibility and scarcity (i.e., cannot be created via debt or other fiat mechanisms; must be mined), as well as other properties that still need to time to gain confidence and acceptance, such as bitcoin's ability to function, much like gold can, as a unit of account and globally as a supranational commodity-currency. Moreover, bitcoin, like gold, is cannot borrowed into existence.

An euphemism of an uncensored place. The infiltration failed. Sensor ship destroyed.

The foundation and essence of all kind of money is DEBT.

Dr Paul C. Martin:

Private property as de iure institution needs a foregoing state to come into existence.
The state needs foregoing power and foregoing power needs armed force.
The ultimate “foundation of the economy” thus is the weapon, where possession and property are identical
because the possession of it guarantees property of it.
Armed force starts additional production (surplus, tribute).
The first taxes are contributions of material for the production of attack weapons (copper, tin).
Thus non-circulating money begins. Taxes as “census” and money are the same.

https://bitco.in/forum/threads/gold-collapsing-bitcoin-up.16/page-178#post-6388

Probably I have for either trolling purposes or otherwise.  I don't troll as much these days since I'm getting genuinely alarmed about the days ahead.  Economically I've always been a 'capitalist' and fairly staunchly so relative to other options associated with ownership, means of production, etc, though I've been genuinely frustrated at the simplistic ways that some of these issues are cast by my Libertarian peers.  Or more that the legitimate problems which do exist in capitalist systems seem to be ignored I suppose.

With the above as a foundation, and to answer your question, the best bet as a feedback mechanism to control the propensity for the 'winners to end up with all the chips' (and thus produce liquidity problems) in Bitcoinland would be to have there be a real danger that it would fail, and fail in such a manner that it would be 'swapped out' with a different backing store.  This would not be so much a matter of trying to 'rob the rich and give to the poor' as it would be leveraging the risk management attributes of those who end up on the winning side.  In other words, they would want to diversify both for self preservation purposes and because not doing so would introduce a risk of it's own.

I've argued that the one place where privacy and anonymity is NOT very desirable is in holding the backing store associated with subordinate chains.  Basically, an entity who would put a bullet in one's head (e.g., one's government) in order to shake one out of their position is probably going to track down the stash anyway so a better defense is to be scare or powerful (in geo-political terms.)  A second reason is that in choosing a sidechain currency to use, I will pay quite a lot of attention to who provides the backing and if they can be verified to be reliable.  I assume that I will be able to fully understand the money supply of a sidecoin (else I won't bother with it) but if it is subject to large liquidity swings that would make it undesirable to me.  Thus, I would like to know who's boat I'm getting into (even if failure is mostly an inconvenience.)

Putting these two things together, it would be nice to see the most likely thing one would do with a giant pile of chips would be to make choices about sidecoin parking which would foster a stable ecosystem.  In my mental model of such a thing, I see the basic magnetic forces going the right direction to make a system work, and also enough dampening to have it not go nutso.  I could be wrong though...I often am.

Craftily selected the wedge issue of governance and placed capital corporate power versus State. Knowing full well tvbcof has expressed anti-capitalist sentiments in the past?

Good post! Thanks for repeating the points. I have a small question.

An anti-fragile, censorship-resistant money ought to have no single points of failure and no central authority. The state isn't the only center of power in society. Concentrated private capital is another, and in many ways the state is our protector from its excesses.

What kind of governance model do you think is best suited to protect Bitcoin from abuses by private capital (corporate interests)?

Thanks again

To be honest I consider myself a 'fanatic' but this is mostly because of the minority views I hold.

The single most important thing to me is that the actual core of the system is defensible against extreme attacks.  I'm sure I've stated this 1000 times so forgive me, but the reasons are simple.  If/when Bitcoin is actually needed (which would correspond to huge value increases) it is utterly certain to be attacked with everything the world can throw at it.  At that time the global internet itself will go through abrupt and startling changes (if not before.)  This is a environment where Bitcoin (or some related backing store) will need every advantage it can get, and being 'lite and tight' would be a primary one of these.

As I always say, PayPal 2.0 is not something which interests me at all.  The threat of Bitcoin being shoved into that slot has been demoralizing enough that I've not even run the software for some time.  If/when an effort to get serious about defensibly gets legs I'm fairly likely to lend support of various types.  I kind of hoped that Blockstream would make this a focus in addition to their work on the very critical subordinate chains solutions which make Bitcoin actually usable and scalable.  I actually don't know how serious they are on such a thing in part because I've been busy with non-related things and not following them all that closely.

From what Maxwell and Back have said here and there I take it that they are fairly aware of some of the potential future threats.  Peter Todd also.  I'm sure that all of the main devs are cognizant of them with the possible exception of Gavin who seems to be a starry-eyed imbecile, and maybe lukedashjr who doesn't seem to have an eye for such things.  Certainly Hearn understands these things well...and builds his attack strategies on Bitcoin around them.

+1


The influence of the reddit XT fanatics and their venom should not be overestimated though. Its just a very small but vocal part of community. Most average users just want some reasonable compromise and do not have any of these extreme views. They like all devs and their contributions.

Most of the fanatics dont run nodes, dont have many coins, dont contribute much and therefore their influence in Bitcoin is minimal. They are just loud.

The tiny popularity of XT; nodes, hashing power, development is evidence for their low influence.

i think that already the fact that each message doesn't have a positive score speaks for itself about the fact that nobody trusts what this btcdrak wrote and again, about xt/bip101 that now is becoming a real pain not because is still alive but because people decides to make more chaos for nothing real.....

Thanks to /u/bitcoinworld for demonstrating /r/btc is a haven for witch hunting, public lynchings, and mob rule.

How silly of btcdrak to assume otherwise and cast his lot with Bitcoin Judas.


WRONG!  /r/btc *is* a political platform, specifically a pro-XT/101, anti-Core organ of aggrandizement.  That is obvious to everyone who ever existed and even most fictional characters.



WRONG!  Attacking others in /r/btc is a good way to get them removed as moderator, and sometimes replaced by the attacker.


You should have supported the resistance to XT, and this is why instead of shedding tears for you I laughed my ass off as you got thrown under the /r/btc bus (and backed over, twice).



BWAH HAW HAW!!!  Tell us more about the "potential" of Bitcoin Judas's rump sub for malcontent Gavinistas!   



More wishful thinking.  You can't polish a turd; you can't make a silk purse out of a pig's ear.  Etc.


And for Le Grande Finale:


No, it's time you got the message about collaborating with Gavinista shitlords like Bitcoin Judas.

CAN YOU HEAR ME NOW?   

Unlike other open-source project, bitcoin is money, everything happens here have direct economy impact, so it is suicide to do a hard fork without major consensus, since that is simply Mutually Assured Destruction - MAD

Imagine that Blockstream devs and chinese exchanges formed an alliance of no block size increase, while Gavin and western exchanges formed an alliance of BIP101. The moment following a hard fork, all pre-fork coins can be spent on both chain. So chinese miners will dump all their pre-fork coins on Bitstamp/Coinbase (which will be running XT by that time), and western miners will dump their pre-fork coins on BTCC/OKCOIN.

It seems the money supply only increased by 100% following a hard fork, but currently only less than 10% of the coins are in circulation, over 90% of them are hoarded as long term storage. Daily net sell volume on all exchanges combined is estimated to be around 5000-10000 coins. But after a hard fork, those hoarders suddenly get a double of their coins over night, so they will immediately sell their coins on the chain that they don't support. Putin said: "when a fight is inevitable, you hit first"

Then exchanges will face a sell volume counted in millions of coins, 1000x larger than the daily sell pressure, this will quickly send bitcoin value back to cents or in case of lack of liquidity, zero. And game over

Then investor confidence for bitcoin is all gone, no one will talk about it in years, and banks all laugh about the miserable fate of decentralized currency. And even if you managed to pull up another coin which prohibiting any hard fork to core protocol, it might still never succeed because the public image of cryptocurrency is totally destroyed, it will become the biggest scam in human history (instead of fiat money )

Anyone with a little bit literacy will understand this scenario, so let's hope it will never happen. However, if bitcoin succeeded and start to threaten banks, they would really like to see this happen. So any attempt to divide the core devs and trying to persuade some major exchange to use different forked versions can be regarded as highly malicious. And I doubt those exchanges really fully understand this yet, otherwise Bitstamp would never claim to support XT

+1