Author

Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. - page 104. (Read 2032266 times)

legendary
Activity: 1260
Merit: 1008
July 21, 2015, 07:15:01 AM
Yes, Monero is considered by many legendary/hero members to be the next step in crypto.  No other coin even comes close.

citation needed?


https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.8737736


thanks for the link.

I have to main points about it, firstly I don't know how thread ranks distribution is correlated to users opinion about the thread itself.

Secondly, even if we get some way to say that a particular ranks distribution means a general approval for the thread among hero/legendary users, going from this to say that "Monero is considered by many legendary/hero members to be the next step in crypto" is quite a big jump, isn't it?

Your request for citation was reasonable.

Gainsaying and nit-picking at the requested citation, upon it it being graciously provided, is not reasonable.

Nobody is stopping you from investigating "how thread ranks distribution is correlated to users opinion about the thread itself."

RTFA.  Stop moving the goal posts because you don't like the fact my assertion has a reasonable basis, demonstrated with empirical data.

I'll save you the trouble.  The Hero/Legendary posts in the XMR thread are positive and supportive, while the ones in the other threads are significantly less so.

Notice the number of hero and legendary members? Darkcoin has 57 (2.23%) hero and 9 (0.35%) legendary versus Monero with 56 (3.94%) hero and 12 (0.85%) legendary. Percent wise monero has attracted more than twice legendary members and almost twice hero members.

In other words, it seems oldtimers gravitate towards monero/cryptonote and ignore darkcoin.

Sorry but posts frequency don't say anything about the opinions of thread's participants.

TheKoziTwo's chosen the right word: gravitate.

Mind you even JorgeStolfi gravitates a lot towards Btctalk "Speculation" section with more than 4K posts, but this does not mean that he's a bull... on the contrary.

I'm not moving the goal posts I'm just saying that posts frequency by hero/legendary members can't say anything about the contents of such posts.

As you already acknowledged to estimate if those hero/legendary users support the thread you need to perform a qualitative analysis, I.e. you have to read those posts.

That said if you're interested in my opinion I wouldn't touch DRK with a ten foot pole, and as I've already said, a mix of due diligence and gut feeling, ascribe myself among the group of people that have a quantity > O of XMR in their crypto currencies portfolio.

I've read the posts, and so can you.  I also wrote many of them, as I was participating in the thread.

Yes, Monero is considered by many legendary/hero members to be the next step in crypto.  No other coin even comes close.

so we agree on the fact that posts freq are useless to validate the affirmation at hand, whilst a qualitative measures (i.e. read the posts) is needed. fair.
hero member
Activity: 544
Merit: 500
July 21, 2015, 07:10:02 AM
de-dollarization continues

Brics countries launch new development bank in Shanghai

http://www.bbc.com/news/33605230
legendary
Activity: 1204
Merit: 1002
Gresham's Lawyer
July 21, 2015, 05:35:13 AM
How would the block be accepted by nodes and other miners if the block was validated using different policies than the attacking miner? IE the size policy would invalidate that block on the rest of the nodes.

Isn't that the point? To introduce extra validation that eventually all the nodes will use (once super-majority threshold reached).
Why cant they simply be discarded because they are too big? No sig checks.

The threat block is not "too big", it gets validated.

We are discussing one of the implications of an increased block size, and noticing one of the issues that may be compounded by the prospects of larger blocks being valid.
legendary
Activity: 1204
Merit: 1002
Gresham's Lawyer
July 21, 2015, 05:29:57 AM
The evolution of "shill" etymology is going in the directing of deprecating the old 'deceitful carny' connotation, in favor of the more modern 'paid spokesperson' although preserving the negative aspect by substituting a 'sell-out' implication for the 'fraud' of yore.

OK.  Entrench away.  It is a weird place to plant a flag, and entirely dependent on the future yet to be seen.
In a broader social commentary, your expected future of the diminishing notion of deception attached to the word may have more to do with an increase in shamelessness.  As if the deception is always everywhere anyhow.
The pendulum may swing back the other way on that, and I'm rooting for this.


The success of my entrenchment is not "entirely dependent on the future yet to be seen."

The locus of common usage of "shill" has moved from describing a carny's trick, to a paid endorser, and now is heading towards endorsers who are probably not even be paid (secretly or otherwise).

EG, I'm called a Monero shill for my advocacy, even though nobody seriously thinks the CEO of Monero pays me.

Maybe you should correct them on their improper use of the word?
legendary
Activity: 2156
Merit: 1072
Crypto is the separation of Power and State.
July 21, 2015, 04:24:54 AM
Yes, Monero is considered by many legendary/hero members to be the next step in crypto.  No other coin even comes close.

citation needed?


https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.8737736


thanks for the link.

I have to main points about it, firstly I don't know how thread ranks distribution is correlated to users opinion about the thread itself.

Secondly, even if we get some way to say that a particular ranks distribution means a general approval for the thread among hero/legendary users, going from this to say that "Monero is considered by many legendary/hero members to be the next step in crypto" is quite a big jump, isn't it?

Your request for citation was reasonable.

Gainsaying and nit-picking at the requested citation, upon it it being graciously provided, is not reasonable.

Nobody is stopping you from investigating "how thread ranks distribution is correlated to users opinion about the thread itself."

RTFA.  Stop moving the goal posts because you don't like the fact my assertion has a reasonable basis, demonstrated with empirical data.

I'll save you the trouble.  The Hero/Legendary posts in the XMR thread are positive and supportive, while the ones in the other threads are significantly less so.

Notice the number of hero and legendary members? Darkcoin has 57 (2.23%) hero and 9 (0.35%) legendary versus Monero with 56 (3.94%) hero and 12 (0.85%) legendary. Percent wise monero has attracted more than twice legendary members and almost twice hero members.

In other words, it seems oldtimers gravitate towards monero/cryptonote and ignore darkcoin.

Sorry but posts frequency don't say anything about the opinions of thread's participants.

TheKoziTwo's chosen the right word: gravitate.

Mind you even JorgeStolfi gravitates a lot towards Btctalk "Speculation" section with more than 4K posts, but this does not mean that he's a bull... on the contrary.

I'm not moving the goal posts I'm just saying that posts frequency by hero/legendary members can't say anything about the contents of such posts.

As you already acknowledged to estimate if those hero/legendary users support the thread you need to perform a qualitative analysis, I.e. you have to read those posts.

That said if you're interested in my opinion I wouldn't touch DRK with a ten foot pole, and as I've already said, a mix of due diligence and gut feeling, ascribe myself among the group of people that have a quantity > O of XMR in their crypto currencies portfolio.

I've read the posts, and so can you.  I also wrote many of them, as I was participating in the thread.

Yes, Monero is considered by many legendary/hero members to be the next step in crypto.  No other coin even comes close.
legendary
Activity: 1260
Merit: 1008
July 21, 2015, 03:51:09 AM
Yes, Monero is considered by many legendary/hero members to be the next step in crypto.  No other coin even comes close.

citation needed?


https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.8737736


thanks for the link.

I have to main points about it, firstly I don't know how thread ranks distribution is correlated to users opinion about the thread itself.

Secondly, even if we get some way to say that a particular ranks distribution means a general approval for the thread among hero/legendary users, going from this to say that "Monero is considered by many legendary/hero members to be the next step in crypto" is quite a big jump, isn't it?

Your request for citation was reasonable.

Gainsaying and nit-picking at the requested citation, upon it it being graciously provided, is not reasonable.

Nobody is stopping you from investigating "how thread ranks distribution is correlated to users opinion about the thread itself."

RTFA.  Stop moving the goal posts because you don't like the fact my assertion has a reasonable basis, demonstrated with empirical data.

I'll save you the trouble.  The Hero/Legendary posts in the XMR thread are positive and supportive, while the ones in the other threads are significantly less so.

Notice the number of hero and legendary members? Darkcoin has 57 (2.23%) hero and 9 (0.35%) legendary versus Monero with 56 (3.94%) hero and 12 (0.85%) legendary. Percent wise monero has attracted more than twice legendary members and almost twice hero members.

In other words, it seems oldtimers gravitate towards monero/cryptonote and ignore darkcoin.

Sorry but posts frequency don't say anything about the opinions of thread's participants.

TheKoziTwo's chosen the right word: gravitate.

Mind you even JorgeStolfi gravitates a lot towards Btctalk "Speculation" section with more than 4K posts, but this does not mean that he's a bull... on the contrary.

I'm not moving the goal posts I'm just saying that posts frequency by hero/legendary members can't say anything about the contents of such posts.

As you already acknowledged to estimate if those hero/legendary users support the thread you need to perform a qualitative analysis, I.e. you have to read those posts.

That said if you're interested in my opinion I wouldn't touch DRK with a ten foot pole, and as I've already said, a mix of due diligence and gut feeling, ascribe myself among the group of people that have a quantity > O of XMR in their crypto currencies portfolio.
legendary
Activity: 1162
Merit: 1004
July 21, 2015, 03:28:25 AM
Tribal people don't have private property rules because they don't want it and because they don't need it. They live within an egalitarian community. Nobody there produces beyond consumption needs. Private property rules are always guaranteed by organized violence of the state mafia. It is a thing of the society, which is collectivism, which is the perversion of the community .

Spare us the anti-industrialist New Left's romanticized version of primitivism.


Spare me your collectivist BS, thanks.

Ayn Rand is a collectivist?  I don't even how you would think that.   Huh

Have you been smoking monerijuana again?   Grin

Is she an anarchist? Libertarians are not anarchists. They are aristocratic collectivists who need and call the state to defend their property.
legendary
Activity: 2156
Merit: 1072
Crypto is the separation of Power and State.
July 21, 2015, 01:26:40 AM
The evolution of "shill" etymology is going in the directing of deprecating the old 'deceitful carny' connotation, in favor of the more modern 'paid spokesperson' although preserving the negative aspect by substituting a 'sell-out' implication for the 'fraud' of yore.

OK.  Entrench away.  It is a weird place to plant a flag, and entirely dependent on the future yet to be seen.
In a broader social commentary, your expected future of the diminishing notion of deception attached to the word may have more to do with an increase in shamelessness.  As if the deception is always everywhere anyhow.
The pendulum may swing back the other way on that, and I'm rooting for this.


The success of my entrenchment is not "entirely dependent on the future yet to be seen."

The locus of common usage of "shill" has moved from describing a carny's trick, to a paid endorser, and now is heading towards endorsers who are probably not even be paid (secretly or otherwise).

EG, I'm called a Monero shill for my advocacy, even though nobody seriously thinks the CEO of Monero pays me.
legendary
Activity: 2044
Merit: 1005
July 20, 2015, 11:47:02 PM
How would the block be accepted by nodes and other miners if the block was validated using different policies than the attacking miner? IE the size policy would invalidate that block on the rest of the nodes.

Isn't that the point? To introduce extra validation that eventually all the nodes will use (once super-majority threshold reached).
Why cant they simply be discarded because they are too big? No sig checks.
legendary
Activity: 1078
Merit: 1006
100 satoshis -> ISO code
July 20, 2015, 11:35:16 PM
How would the block be accepted by nodes and other miners if the block was validated using different policies than the attacking miner? IE the size policy would invalidate that block on the rest of the nodes.

Isn't that the point? To introduce extra validation that eventually all the nodes will use (once super-majority threshold reached).
legendary
Activity: 2044
Merit: 1005
July 20, 2015, 11:15:49 PM
Gavin is already on the case with negating excessively cpu-intensive "bloat tx" which are a concern.

http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-July/009494.html

Quote
Mitigate a potential CPU exhaustion denial-of-service attack by limiting
the maximum size of a transaction included in a block.

==Motivation==

Sergio Demian Lerner reported that a maliciously constructed block could
take several minutes to validate, due to the way signature hashes are
computed for OP_CHECKSIG/OP_CHECKMULTISIG ([[
https://bitcointalk.org/?topic=140078|CVE-2013-2292]]).
Each signature validation can require hashing most of the transaction's
bytes, resulting in O(s*b) scaling (where n is the number of signature
operations and m is the number of bytes in the transaction, excluding
signatures). If there are no limits on n or m the result is O(n^2) scaling.

This potential attack was mitigated by changing the default relay and
mining policies so transactions larger than 100,000 bytes were not
relayed across the network or included in blocks. However, a miner
not following the default policy could choose to include a
transaction that filled the entire one-megaybte block and took
a long time to validate.
How would the block be accepted by nodes and other miners if the block was validated using different policies than the attacking miner? IE the size policy would invalidate that block on the rest of the nodes.
legendary
Activity: 1246
Merit: 1010
July 20, 2015, 10:19:12 PM
yep tvbcof and iCEBLOW have always been suckers.  they can't even get their facts straight:

The sad part is that gold always has been a sucker’s bet.

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/why-gold-is-falling-and-wont-get-up-again-2015-07-20

Woah.  QED.  Cypherdoc, your labor is complete.
legendary
Activity: 1204
Merit: 1002
Gresham's Lawyer
July 20, 2015, 09:30:47 PM
The evolution of "shill" etymology is going in the directing of deprecating the old 'deceitful carny' connotation, in favor of the more modern 'paid spokesperson' although preserving the negative aspect by substituting a 'sell-out' implication for the 'fraud' of yore.

OK.  Entrench away.  It is a weird place to plant a flag, and entirely dependent on the future yet to be seen.
In a broader social commentary, your expected future of the diminishing notion of deception attached to the word may have more to do with an increase in shamelessness.  As if the deception is always everywhere anyhow.
The pendulum may swing back the other way on that, and I'm rooting for this.
legendary
Activity: 1078
Merit: 1006
100 satoshis -> ISO code
July 20, 2015, 08:45:51 PM
Gavin is already on the case with negating excessively cpu-intensive "bloat tx" which are a concern.

http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-July/009494.html

Quote
Mitigate a potential CPU exhaustion denial-of-service attack by limiting
the maximum size of a transaction included in a block.

==Motivation==

Sergio Demian Lerner reported that a maliciously constructed block could
take several minutes to validate, due to the way signature hashes are
computed for OP_CHECKSIG/OP_CHECKMULTISIG ([[
https://bitcointalk.org/?topic=140078|CVE-2013-2292]]).
Each signature validation can require hashing most of the transaction's
bytes, resulting in O(s*b) scaling (where n is the number of signature
operations and m is the number of bytes in the transaction, excluding
signatures). If there are no limits on n or m the result is O(n^2) scaling.

This potential attack was mitigated by changing the default relay and
mining policies so transactions larger than 100,000 bytes were not
relayed across the network or included in blocks. However, a miner
not following the default policy could choose to include a
transaction that filled the entire one-megaybte block and took
a long time to validate.
legendary
Activity: 2156
Merit: 1072
Crypto is the separation of Power and State.
July 20, 2015, 08:02:34 PM
Shill

A person engaged in covert advertising. The shill attempts to spread buzz by personally endorsing the product in public forums with the pretense of sincerity, when in fact he is being paid for his services.

The "covert" attribute is not in the normal definition.  Why didn't you give us a link to your dictionary?

Here the one to mine: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/shill

Quote
to act as a spokesperson or promoter

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shill

Wikipedia/UrbanDictionary vs Merriam Webster?  What's next, KnowYourMeme vs Britannica?   Cheesy

"Shill" often connotes deceptive lack of disclosure, but only compensation to the endorser is required to meet the definition.

Connotation is not definition.

Webster's not good enough for ya?  Fine...

Try OED: "a megamillionaire who makes more money as a shill for corporate products than he does for playing basketball"

Obviously the shill in that example cannot be covert about his infamous corporate compensation.

QED you got rekt son.   Wink

Arguing with me about English is as silly and futile as arguing with gmax about Bitcoin internals.

Well maybe not futile, as both create a teachable moments.   Smiley

You ought not get entrenched on this one.  Its a living language, and I'd hazard a guess that it would be a minority of people that would associate "shill" with an honest spokesperson.   You may wish to maintain that shills are honest, but none of these do:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/shill

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/shill

http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1O999-shill.html

http://dictionary.babylon.com/shill/

decoy, one who poses as a customer in order to lure other customers (in gambling houses, games of chance, etc.)

You may have found the only modern dictionary brief enough to not include such a definition.

I will get entrenched on this one.  Thanks for your concern, but I am in the right here and don't need you to lecture me on 'living languages.'

You missed my point here:

Quote
If you care to check OED and Webster, you'll find they subsume your "entire" Wiki entry by including the deceit-connotated definition along with the broader compensation-only one.

The evolution of "shill" etymology is going in the directing of deprecating the old 'deceitful carny' connotation, in favor of the more modern 'paid spokesperson' although preserving the negative aspect by substituting a 'sell-out' implication for the 'fraud' of yore.
legendary
Activity: 1652
Merit: 1000
July 20, 2015, 07:54:57 PM

You ought not get entrenched on this one.  Its a living language, and I'd hazard a guess that it would be a minority of people that would associate "shill" with an honest spokesperson.   You may wish to maintain that shills are honest, but none of these do:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/shill

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/shill

http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1O999-shill.html

http://dictionary.babylon.com/shill/

decoy, one who poses as a customer in order to lure other customers (in gambling houses, games of chance, etc.)

You may have found the only modern dictionary brief enough to not include such a definition.

How dare you challenge our beloved leader Kim Jong-iCE?

The only correct definition is the one he prefers. The same applies to block size.
legendary
Activity: 1204
Merit: 1002
Gresham's Lawyer
July 20, 2015, 07:14:08 PM
At least one of them made out like a bandit tho...

assuming one of them actually did something wrong tho...

Well, the jury is still out on that imho. It seems calling 'shill' in this place is like yelling 'fire' at an apathy convention.  Undecided

Shill

A person engaged in covert advertising. The shill attempts to spread buzz by personally endorsing the product in public forums with the pretense of sincerity, when in fact he is being paid for his services.

The "covert" attribute is not in the normal definition.  Why didn't you give us a link to your dictionary?

Here the one to mine: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/shill

Quote
to act as a spokesperson or promoter

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shill

Wikipedia/UrbanDictionary vs Merriam Webster?  What's next, KnowYourMeme vs Britannica?   Cheesy

"Shill" often connotes deceptive lack of disclosure, but only compensation to the endorser is required to meet the definition.

Connotation is not definition.

Webster's not good enough for ya?  Fine...

Try OED: "a megamillionaire who makes more money as a shill for corporate products than he does for playing basketball"

Obviously the shill in that example cannot be covert about his infamous corporate compensation.

QED you got rekt son.   Wink

Arguing with me about English is as silly and futile as arguing with gmax about Bitcoin internals.

Well maybe not futile, as both create a teachable moments.   Smiley

You ought not get entrenched on this one.  Its a living language, and I'd hazard a guess that it would be a minority of people that would associate "shill" with an honest spokesperson.   You may wish to maintain that shills are honest, but none of these do:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/shill

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/shill

http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1O999-shill.html

http://dictionary.babylon.com/shill/

decoy, one who poses as a customer in order to lure other customers (in gambling houses, games of chance, etc.)

You may have found the only modern dictionary brief enough to not include such a definition.
legendary
Activity: 2968
Merit: 1198
July 20, 2015, 06:42:29 PM
as reflected in OED example.

WTF, iCE?

a) A decoy or accomplice, esp. one posing as an enthusiastic or successful customer to encourage other buyers, gamblers, etc.

b) One who poses as a disinterested advocate of another but is actually of the latter's party; a mouthpiece, a stooge.

a person who pretends to give an impartial endorsement of something in which they themselves have an interest:

(That is the 2nd definition given. The first is ambiguous due to it being unclear how the word "acts" is being used, but could also reasonably be interpreted to include deception.)

i.e. deception.
legendary
Activity: 2968
Merit: 1895
July 20, 2015, 06:03:31 PM
...

Past few days I've seen a lot of gold collapsing and Bitcoin going nowhere (which in one sense is good, more Au for the BTC when the time comes).

Only problem for me is that my wife just forbade me to buy any more gold.  Bummer!  But a promise is a promise.

Sad
legendary
Activity: 1764
Merit: 1002
July 20, 2015, 05:56:29 PM
WTH is wrong with you iCEBLow? You must have a multiple personality disorder because in this thread you you call me a shill while pretending to be an innocent bystander of HF but in the original HF thread you continue to be the most hated HF shill of all and continue to troll everyone there. Everyone needs to go to this link and read just a few pages forward and back to see what I mean:

Quick, sell all your Bitcoin because I'm associated with it!

 Kiss

Admit it that you are jealous on cypherdoc for siphoning more coins than you.

I think most of the shady crappy people here are jealous of cyperdoc, deep down, all they wanted was more money anyways...

So true!  The only reason to buy an ASIC is because you want leveraged exposure to the price of BTC.

These spoiled whining brats are shifting undue blame onto HF because

1) they risked more than they could afford to lose
2) they believed in the myth of windfall "refunds" paid from "secret escrow" accounts
3) they can't handle the fact the price of BTC went down from the $1200 ATH instead of up, and their desired leverage backfired

It's like they've never before heard of a high-tech start-up's ambitious first product having birthing pains.  What green-horned noobs!

They had their chance to prove in court HF was a scam.  They failed, and so tried changing the venue to some sort of moralistic 20/20 hindsight-based online tribunal.  They can't even get their facts correct, and repeat lies about how HF "never shipped BJ upgrade kits" nor any Sierras.

Now they want to steal cypher's coins.  What a bunch of losers.   Cheesy
Jump to: