Pages:
Author

Topic: Economic Totalitarianism - page 19. (Read 345758 times)

newbie
Activity: 28
Merit: 0
May 12, 2016, 03:53:04 AM
BTC will moon regardless of this.

I have never taken the position that BTC will never go higher than $1000 again. I believe it is possible it has not yet formed a bottom, but that is not saying it has seen its highest top.

If I were TPTB, I would want the maximum number of people to incriminate themselves by moving their assets into Bitcoin, before going after confiscations for money laundering and other fine prints in the laws.

So yes I see another big runup of the Bitcoin price and the regulation will come later perhaps 2018 or even after 2020, and then they will start to confiscate the Bitcoins with the control over mining. And I expect clawbacks too meaning if you divested of Bitcoin, they will come seize your other assets. Or jailtime if you can't pay up. Debtors' prisons will return. Why? Because the governments are bankrupt, socialism is bankrupt, but the world is mostly socialists and they will not stop trying to take money from other people, so they will go find the money every place they can to steal it. This is the way socialism works. No one can defect. It is until death do us part.

We are headed into a clusterfuck. Many of you are delusional labeling me a Chicken Little because you don't want to admit the clusterfuck the world is in now. Enjoy.

Even if they wanted to, I don't see governments being competent enough to take over Bitcoin in the near future when the world economy implodes.  That's why I say no matter what you think about Bitcoin, it's going to play a vital role as a life raft to get to whatever is on the other side of "the great reset".  You can nitpick about random metrics of Bitcoin if you're able to survive past that point.  All I know is, Bitcoin will either be extremely useful and valuable then, or everyone will be killing each other in the street for cans of soup and no currency will have value.

Socialism will not die. I had predicted this in my widely syndicated 2010 essay which predicted the EU would not breakup:

Collectivism is a power vacuum and the argument is always about who gets to steal for and from whom.

Bernie: "Socialism can be repaired as long as I can be in charge of the stealing to insure it is fair".
Trump: "Stealing can be optimized if I am Dicktator-in-chief"
Clinton: "You'll tolerate my theft (for myself and my cronies) because as a Democrat I'll steal some for you too (and not remind you I funded it all by expanding an egregious future debt on your children's back)"
newbie
Activity: 28
Merit: 0
May 11, 2016, 06:11:11 AM
Does anyone agree or disagree with this presumption of mine?

Of course I disagree with it, otherwise I wouldn't own any Bitcoin.  The marginal cost over time of Bitcoin shows an ever increasing percent being energy costs.  This means sha256d will likely be commoditized.  There is no Chinese monopoly after that happens.

r0ach I like you, but you wrote nonsense.

Amazing to me that you still don't understand why Satoshi's design will always centralize.

One crucial point you are not getting your mind wrapped around, is that the need to set a block size to control the level of transaction fees earned, is a power vacuum that forces an oligarchy to take control over the mining. ArticMine and I had explained that in great detail. I also I summarized that point again in the "Bitcoin IS basically DESTROYED" thread.

Orthogonal to the prior paragraph, you also don't seem to understand that commoditization and leveling the access to ASICs can't stop the centralization and concentration of Bitcoin mining into an eventual oligarchy of a dozen or so ASIC mining farms. Even if we assume that ASIC mining farms in China don't enjoy an unfair advantage due to ostensibly receiving State subsidized cheap (or free) electricity due to corruption, the centralization of Satoshi's profitable proof-of-work design remains inexorable and unavoidable (and regardless of geographical location of its occurrence). I had already explained why in great technical detail in the my decentralization and your "Satoshi didn't solve the BGP" threads, and here follows an incomplete summary quoted from the "Bitcoin IS basically DESTROYED" thread:

Most of these Chinese mining firms are pools, so like most pools that are extremely big, if they get too big, miners will hop to a different one.

It isn't just the pools that are the problem, but that the mining farms are large and concentrating the 51+% amongst a few oligarchs. This will only grow more centralized over time, because TPTB_need_war explained in his technical analysis, that profitable proof-of-work always accrues over time to maximum economies-of-scale. There are several reasons for that including propagation advantages of being the first to win more blocks, so don't waste hashrate mining on the wrong fork for a short period, which over time gradually depletes the other miners of relative profits. It is more complex than that. You need to read his entire analysis to understand.


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

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.




Of course, China being the top producers of Bitcoin isn't even a Bitcoin problem in the first place.  It's a symptom of China controlling manufacturing for everything on earth as corporations use their slaves for global labor arbitrage.

China being the current location of the centralization and concentration of Bitcoin mining is irrelevant to the point that profitable proof-of-work will always centralize into an oligarchy and thus offers us no long-term advantage to remove the evils and risks we normally have with fiat. The powers-that-be will be able to enforce capital controls even more effectively on Bitcoin transactions with the oligarchy control over mining, as compared to cash fiat transactions. So don't assume your Bitcoin can't be confiscated by the government. With control over the protocol with the oligarchy on mining, the powers-that-be can do what ever they wish. If the masses who are using Bitcoin don't stop using Bitcoin, then no one will be able to stop the-powers-that-be from doing what they want to Bitcoin's protocol given the oligarchy control over mining. No rational person is arguing that Bitcoin will stop functioning or that the price will collapse to 0 (although the chance of that happen does exist but quite small chance), but rather we are saying that Bitcoin as a decentralized asset which could be relied on as being impervious to control by any one, is "basically destroyed". All the clueless n00bs (or disingenuous trolls) who build strawmen arguments accusing of us saying that Bitcoin is destroyed and won't function, are just inane arguments which deflect the focus away from our factual point about the aspect of Bitcoin that is actually destroyed.

What Europe typically did in the past was cancel the fiat currency quite often, as way to force the existing cash under mattresses to come back to the banks for exchanging to the newly issued currency, wherein the State could confiscate most of it. At least we always had gold as a money that the government couldn't cancel, but now the pervasive "Big T false flag" police state spreading all over the globe means one can't even transport gold any more without it at great risk of being confiscated under the false allegation of money laundering or terrorism.

We are headed into a clusterfucked world. I sure hope you all stop deluding yourselves.
newbie
Activity: 28
Merit: 0
May 11, 2016, 05:09:34 AM

He was not careful w.r.t. running arguably afoul of laws preventing the use the word "dollar" in ways that might offend the US Treasury.

This is one of the reasons I created the following linked thread to make sure I understood well the laws that might govern the creation of an altcoin:

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/the-altcoin-topic-everyone-wants-to-sweep-under-the-rug-1218399
legendary
Activity: 2940
Merit: 1865
May 09, 2016, 04:54:15 PM
...

One way that some have used to escape Economic Totalitarianism (but, really, more to escape TAXES) has been to use offshore entities in "user friendly" countries.  Panama has been a favorite for decades.

Well, the journalists who broke the "Panama Papers" story have released their online-searchable database.  See if any of your friends are there!

More info on thread I just started:

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/general-panama-papers-discussion-1466739
newbie
Activity: 28
Merit: 0
May 08, 2016, 10:12:45 PM
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.



Economic Totalitarianism taking form in this forum perhaps... any way this is the last I will say on this matter ...

Well gleb gamow and SebastianJu both got temp banned too for similar reasons not too long ago.   At least the forum rules are being enforced somewhat fairly.

Which similar reasons?

Tisk tisk. Keep your posts in Meta or ...

"Tsk. Tsk" are the words I expect to hear from your grandmother calling you to have your daily scolding. I don't cowtail to theymos' delusions, technical incompetence, and censorship.

If I may express some frustration w.r.t. to desire to troll and censor, "Fuck you and theymos too". TPTB_need_war doesn't care. He can always subvert any ban.

Any way, TPTB_need_war is too busy programming. He has provided a public service.

And yes he was banned for revealing a potential back door in Bitcoin[1]. Just goes to show how theymos and gmaxwell are protecting you.

And yourself, how about you grow up and learn to tolerate open dialogue.

P.S. permanently banning TPTB_need_war is perfect for his plans. I hope theymos has the balls and the technical knowledge to attempt it.

Also I didn't start this thread. I didn't ask for this thread. I wasn't intending to post in this subforum at this time. Blame the person who created this thread. I read so much misunderstanding and slander of TPTB_need_war that required clarification and correction.


[1] In the ban message and in theymos's private message which is quoted by TPTP_need_war, theymos indicated the reason for the ban in addition to his incorrect claim of spouting technical nonsense, he also alleged spamming of messages in several threads and the ad hominem attacks against others. Theymos appears to be protecting Foxpop who hurled ad hominemfirst, and CIYAM who also hurled ad hominem first. TPTB_need_war had stated that the reason for posting in numerous threads, is because the mods allowed people to make numerous duplicate threads on the same topic about Craig Wright claiming to be Satoshi Nakamoto. Do take note that at the time he was having the debate with CIYAM, he had thought that Craig's signature had matched the hash of the Sartre text because he was misled by sloppy reporting and sloppy writing of those who did the technical analysis. It was only later that he learned that was not the case. And after all, his alleged back door in Bitcoin remains potentially true. You don't ban people for these incorrect reasons and expect to remain respected and expect others to not want to overcome inappropriate use of influence. There is too much ignonymous influence in Bitcoin.



...absolutely petrifying.    Cry

You did it to yourselves. Now you will reap what you have sown.

I am an American who doesn't share your looney European Marxism. Last time it was a million in the gas chambers. Let's see how it goes this round.

Shut up and get back to work on building your copy-leftist clusterfuck.

I don't associate with scum like you. I compete and overcome. Bye. Unless that is you want to say those words about my kids to my face. Otherwise we have nothing more to discuss. Enjoy your life.
legendary
Activity: 2940
Merit: 1865
May 08, 2016, 02:08:24 PM
...

sockpuppet1

Well, I guess you may want consider some gold after all.

Spending some BTC on gold is OK with me.  If BTC has deep flaws (I don't know!), then gold is a great purchase.

*   *   *

An interesting Zero Hedge today piece on the apparently failed LBMA "gold market", if this is true, yow...:

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-05-08/death-gold-market-why-one-analyst-thinks-run-london-gold-vaults-imminent
newbie
Activity: 28
Merit: 0
May 08, 2016, 01:03:10 PM
I am speaking on behalf of TPTB_need_war aka AnonyMint, who is quoted in the OP, because he is currently banned for 9 more days due to calling theymos and gmaxwell out on their censorship of a potential technical back door in Bitcoin. There is a simpler explanation of Satoshi's obviously intentional technical error. It is obviously intentional because it was quite well known by 2009 that the HMAC formulation is more secure yet Satoshi used the more suspect double hashing everywhere in BitCON.

I will be editing this post and adding answers and rebuttals to the various incorrect posts that litter this thread. Please check back and read this post, because I will not be posting again in this thread, and instead I will edit this post to add new information as others continue to make posts that need to be refuted.

Please quote my post because the mods will probably delete it and ban me again.

"Blockstream implementing their SegWit soft fork Trojan Horse"

Lmao this guy is losing it. The blockstream FUDsters know no limits on their nonsense. The trojan horse was the Bitcoin XT, then Bitcoin Classic hard fork attempts, not segregated witness, segwit is actual advance in scaling Bitcoin. Whatever, it's a waste of time dealing with this shit.

Segregrated Witness is not the problem. The problem is that Blockstream is sneaking in a new soft fork versioning protocol at the same time. This new versioning protocol when combined with collusion with China's oligarchy control over mining, will insure together the elite can change the protocol of Bitcoin at-will any time. Why do you think Blockstream has received $70+ million in investor funding from the financial community. Blockstream has no viable way to make a profit. The company exists as a way to take control over Bitcoin. Note that Classic and XT didn't really solve the centralization problem either, but at least they didn't hand soft fork versioning control to the devil.

They will send their propaganda machine here to discredit me. They always do that. Then they ban me. They don't want you to know the truth. I don't care anymore. You fools are doomed. This is my last post on this matter. I have other programming work to do. It is up to you fools to get organized and stop being useless eaters and cattle for the elite. I can lead you to water, but I can't teach your dumb asses to drink. I tried to teach, but I get drowned out by the trolls and propaganda who are hired to keep the truth from you.

Instead of a tinfoil hat, I swear the guy has an entire tinfoil skull.  The sky is perpetually falling every day and it's always Armageddon forever.  A healthy dose of skepticism is fair enough, but don't take it to extreme, bordeline-crackpot, levels.

Bitcoin is just fine.

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

So how many years from now china will own 98 % of mining power HuhHuh??

Here is a link to the cryptocoinnews.com article and also an estimate follows in the linked thread. Realize that is just one former cattle farmer who currently mines 50 of the 1200 BTC per day and he plans to increase that to 200 BTC of the 600 mined per day after the halving. Just one cattle farmer will be mining 30% of Bitcoin.

Why would they do anything detrimental to Bitcoin? It would hurt them more than anyone financially.

With an oligarchy in control of the mining, they can choose to increase transaction fees to the maximum the market can bear, not the competitive rate for transaction fees. They could also work together with Blockstream to increase the 21 million coin limit, so they can earn more coins. None of this would hurt Bitcoin, because obviously none of you care. You will suck BitCon's cock because you think it is a "better gold" as Satoshi advertised it to you in the white paper.

Additionally these mega mining farms in China don't attain their loans and nearly free electricity without returning favors to the elite who are in charge. In effect, this means Bitcoin has become just another fiat system. They can KYC identification requirements on it the future and pretty much do what ever they want. And you will lick their balls because you have no other choice. Don't tell me you will switch coins, because no other coin will have the adoption and mining security.

I find it really hilarious how you think you are supporting something that will change the world in a better way, yet it is just more of the same oligarch controlled BS that we've always had.

how is that centralised? there's over a billion chinese  Huh

It is rather good for Bitcoin, if a lot of people in China have some bitcoins

A billion aren't mining, only a few very well connected few. An oligarchy is taking form. The coins are only going to a few oligarchs

why they should destroy their own business? 51% will never happen, with their cheap electricity they are earning a shitload of money...

They want to maximize their profit and be in control of their destiny.

Most of these Chinese mining firms are pools, so like most pools that are extremely big, if they get too big, miners will hop to a different one.

It isn't just the pools that are the problem, but that the mining farms are large and concentrating the 51+% amongst a few oligarchs. This will only grow more centralized over time, because TPTB_need_war explained in his technical analysis, that profitable proof-of-work always accrues over time to maximum economies-of-scale. There are several reasons for that including propagation advantages of being the first to win more blocks, so don't waste hashrate mining on the wrong fork for a short period, which over time gradually depletes the other miners of relative profits. It is more complex than that. You need to read his entire analysis to understand.

I don't care if China controls most of the mining market, if people do care about that, they can purchase the mining power and start mining.

That is an incorrect understanding. As I explained above, the mining hashrate economically accrues to those miners with the greatest economies-of-scale. No one can buy mining equipment to offset that, because the miners in China are ostensibly getting nearly free electricity and nearly 0% interest loans. It is a corruption charged to the collective. Don't you understand how Communism works? We have this system now in the West too. Capitalism is dead. Long live Marxism!

I really don't care because I agree with you and many of us still don't sell our Bitcoins because if it goes mainstream in China or even a little popular, we'll be all rich/millionaires. The whole idealistic anarco utopia many still think Bitcoin is long dead, that's why Ethereum and other cool projects are emerging (even if they end up having the same fate eventually).

Look to be straightforward BTC hasn't been destroyed yet. It is very much living. I would suggest you to not worry about China and mining and focus on making profit with this system now.  Wink

Exactly. You guys don't care whether Bitcoin ends up as a totalitarian digital hell. You only care about making a profit hell or highwater, come what may.

So if China owns a large portion of the system, we're doomed? But what if bitcoins are centralized in America or in Europe? It's going to be an entire story, right? I mean, once again western power has an influence to this point.

Why are you building a strawman argument to deflect the debate away from the important issue. Obviously it doesn't matter where the oligarchy on mining is located. The only thing that matters is that profitable proof-of-work will always end up entirely centralized. TPTB_need_war has explained why this is the case because he an expert on the economics and technology, despite what some trolls might want to mislead you to believe.

BTC will do right when there will be decentralized exchangers.

And that will only happen because of my work to fix the jamming problem that plagued all DE designs. The trolls want to ridicule me, and I don't yet get the recognition. But that is okay. I just want you to know the truth.

.... with their cheap electricity they are earning a shitload of money...

What you mean is they're stealing a shitload of money. 

Taxpayer money converted into electricity by government-owned power utility.

Electricity converted into bitcoin and bitcoin into privatized money by miners.

In China bitcoin mining is essentially just a channel to steal tax money.  The fact that it hasn't been forced to shut down or use non-subsidized electricity by now is probably evidence that someone is taking bribes.  (What a surprise!  That NEVER happens in China!   Cheesy)

Finally someone with a brain stem! Congrats!

Yeah it is more of charging the expenses to the collective and keeping the profits for themselves. Same as the banksters did with the bailouts.

$1 million of your investor money every day going to those fat cats. And circulating back around as $70 million in grease money for Blockstream to rape you with.

Like the Capitalist West have been doing for years? The Chinese took a opportunity when they saw it and they used it... How can you blame them?

Yeah why care if the banksters keep the profits and charge the bailouts to the people. Love that Communist/Fascism, don't you?

well good for them if they are able to steal unfair and legal scam from government, called tax

Yeah it was great when the banksters stole the bailouts from the government! Excellent logic.  Roll Eyes

Good to see you want BitCON to be all about stealing. Nice world you want to promote.

Personally I'd be more worried if the hashrate was under NSA's jurisdiction.

Chinese miners have acted OK so far

You haven't studied the history of oligarchies. They can only act one way. Give it a little time. The collusion is taking form. By the time, you realize it, it will be too late to do anything about it or to change. Bitcoin will be too well established by that time, just like fiat is now. You will bend over and take in your ass, because you didn't think it was a problem when I told you and then when you realize you will have no more choice nor options to pursue.
newbie
Activity: 28
Merit: 0
May 08, 2016, 03:25:46 AM
Personally, I don't think Craig is Satoshi, and not because of his looks. I don't care what he looks like. the thing is he isn't providing enough information to give enough proof that he is actually Satoshi.

The lack of a signed message, saying he'll publish documents and not have them available immediately, it all seems just a bit too sloppy and drawn out for him to really be Satoshi.

What is so ironic from my perspective (and I suspect the elites are also having a good chuckle about the blindness of you "useless eaters/cattle") is that once you review all the facts (<--- click to know what Satoshi Nakamoto really is), the fools are those who even entertain any thought that Satoshi could be a person.

The elites are playing us like a fiddle with BitCON. Seriously. I didn't reach this conclusion without extensive thought and rationality.

my assume if Nick szabo is the one of the team

Zero chance. Nick is both not smart enough and doesn't code prolifically enough.

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.14456412
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.13239420 (Craig Wright was correct, Szabo was incorrect)
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.14196266 (did Nick ever create any s/w?)
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.14464292
newbie
Activity: 28
Merit: 0
May 07, 2016, 12:37:35 PM
Click to the word "Quote" read more:

I don't share your romantic guess of who created BitCON.

Btw, Craig says the name Satoshi comes from "the book" about the House of Morgan:

https://forum.bitcoin.com/bitcoin-discussion/the-name-satoshi-comes-from-satoshi-david-character-from-the-house-of-morgan-t7619.html

And Nakamoto means "in the book" in Japanese.

And Julian Assange knew Craig in 1996:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/4hozs5/wikileaks_on_twitter_wed_like_to_thank_satoshi/d2rdg7u

Don't forget that (I was told) a House of Rothschild person was sheltering Assange when he was still free in the UK. And note now how the UN is attempting to supercede the UK's authority on the case. There is always a globalist plan for these pawns, including Edward Snowden.

I think someone paid off Craig to discredit Matonis and Gavin. Gavin has now lost commit access.

The danger is not that BitCON fails, but that it becomes the new totalitarian digital currency.

Hope you are aware that ostensibly the Dr. Craig Wright can't be proven to have made the blog posts, which implicate him:

http://craigswright.com/

Meaning a failure of Bitcoin is not the big problem we face...
newbie
Activity: 28
Merit: 0
May 07, 2016, 12:05:43 AM
[...]
 
So why did Satoshi add the incorrect form of double hashing to Bitcoin  Huh

If you were correct, then every brother and his uncle should be trying to find a cryptographer help them crack Bitcoin and become $millionaires by spending old coins that were allegedly mined by Satoshi and may otherwise never be spent if Satoshi is truly dead.

I tried to be nice to theymouse and Gmaximus and discuss in an open forum about how it might be possible to break Bitcoin so that it could not make one person very wealthy. But they want to play hardball, so...

Please kindly quote my post in case it is deleted by the mods.

P.S. My personal opinion is I speculate Craig Wright was hired by core to discredit Matonis and Gavin. And I was hired by myself to do the same to "core"; and I speculate "core" appears to be affiliated with the aforementioned individuals. Velvet gloves are off. No more nice guy. Bitcoin is a failed clusterfuck with 70% of the hashrate attributed to China, and one former cattle farmer in China planning to increase that to 98%. The miners and Blockstream are ostensibly colluding to put soft fork versioning into SegWit. There is $1 million per day flowing from n00bs into this raping system that ends up in miner's pockets and other connected parties. Electricity likely charged to the collective via State funded hydroelectric infrastructure. And the ecosystem has no real utility outside of gambling, scams, and other nefarious use cases.
legendary
Activity: 1050
Merit: 1001
May 06, 2016, 08:40:47 PM
There's no misunderstanding, read the thread/s for yourselves.
hero member
Activity: 490
Merit: 520
May 06, 2016, 07:58:38 PM
Back door in Bitcoin? Click link to find out...

Here is a few morsels of technical kryptonite for the "meme image self-masturbation" trolls[ducks]cock-suckers to gag on:

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.14766916

Post that on /bitcoin reddit, i would like if other mathematicians would look at it. It could be an interesting finding you got there.

And if what you said there is possible then it could compromize bitcoins security.

Yeah posting it elsewhere where they don't have vested interests may be more productive, the powers that be on bitcoin talk just enjoy fucking with you.

IDK maybe it was just a misunderstanding, but posting it on reddit so that more people can see it and examine it.

If there is a legitimate problem with bitcoin, people need to know about it.
I am fairly confident it is a misunderstanding, but it might be a good idea to submit this to the core devs just in case. I am fairly confident that there isn't a backdoor, but it might just be a good idea to show it to them, just in case. Maybe they already know or have a patch for it, but we'll see.

Good find I guess, glad to see someone found something that could be incredibly detrimental.
hero member
Activity: 854
Merit: 1009
JAYCE DESIGNS - http://bit.ly/1tmgIwK
May 06, 2016, 07:44:14 PM
Back door in Bitcoin? Click link to find out...

Here is a few morsels of technical kryptonite for the "meme image self-masturbation" trolls[ducks]cock-suckers to gag on:

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.14766916

Post that on /bitcoin reddit, i would like if other mathematicians would look at it. It could be an interesting finding you got there.

And if what you said there is possible then it could compromize bitcoins security.

Yeah posting it elsewhere where they don't have vested interests may be more productive, the powers that be on bitcoin talk just enjoy fucking with you.

IDK maybe it was just a misunderstanding, but posting it on reddit so that more people can see it and examine it.

If there is a legitimate problem with bitcoin, people need to know about it.
legendary
Activity: 1050
Merit: 1001
May 06, 2016, 05:44:37 PM
Back door in Bitcoin? Click link to find out...

Here is a few morsels of technical kryptonite for the "meme image self-masturbation" trolls[ducks]cock-suckers to gag on:

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.14766916

Post that on /bitcoin reddit, i would like if other mathematicians would look at it. It could be an interesting finding you got there.

And if what you said there is possible then it could compromize bitcoins security.

Yeah posting it elsewhere where they don't have vested interests may be more productive, the powers that be on bitcoin talk just enjoy fucking with you.
hero member
Activity: 854
Merit: 1009
JAYCE DESIGNS - http://bit.ly/1tmgIwK
May 06, 2016, 12:16:12 PM
Back door in Bitcoin? Click link to find out...

Here is a few morsels of technical kryptonite for the "meme image self-masturbation" trolls[ducks]cock-suckers to gag on:

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.14766916

Post that on /bitcoin reddit, i would like if other mathematicians would look at it. It could be an interesting finding you got there.

And if what you said there is possible then it could compromize bitcoins security.
member
Activity: 116
Merit: 10
May 06, 2016, 11:26:21 AM
Nothing is safe forever, ever.

This is moving along quickly.
sr. member
Activity: 420
Merit: 262
May 06, 2016, 12:46:31 AM
Back door in Bitcoin? Click link to find out...

Here is a few morsels of technical kryptonite for the "meme image self-masturbation" trolls[ducks]cock-suckers to gag on:

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.14766916
hero member
Activity: 854
Merit: 1009
JAYCE DESIGNS - http://bit.ly/1tmgIwK
May 05, 2016, 04:14:01 PM
you still dont understand that the fundamental difference in bitcoin is that the mining algo can be switched anytime if the miners go rogue.

I've read this argument many times, I am not convinced it will be that easy and effortless to switch the mining algo. Hope you're right.

I`m not saying its easy, and i`m not saying it should be done. But as a last resort, there is always an emergency red button available for bitcoin if SHTF.

I hope the bitcoin miners dont screw it up, but if they do , then the current algo has to be switched to an ASIC resistant one, and then all ASICS will become worthless.

Thats a big financial punishment for the miners, and we can hold this leverage against them if they choose to do dirty things.

So fundamentally the bitcoin users and businesses control bitcoin, the miners are only delegates.
sr. member
Activity: 406
Merit: 250
May 05, 2016, 03:47:12 PM
you still dont understand that the fundamental difference in bitcoin is that the mining algo can be switched anytime if the miners go rogue.

I've read this argument many times, I am not convinced it will be that easy and effortless to switch the mining algo. Hope you're right.
Pages:
Jump to: