Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. - page 1086. (Read 2032266 times)

And I have heard 0 say that as I haven't been listening to "big bitcoin speakers".

i think every big bitcoin speaker has said that atleast 3 times in the last four months.. zzzzz

If I had to put a pulse on where the Bitcoin market and ecosystem is in comparison to the Internet...I'd say we are in 1995.

ok lol i had trouble believing some one would think i was serious

I got that and made a statement on the same side as you. Mabye I could have made that more clear

edit: forgot to put /sarc.

 agree with you though.

i was calling peirce a goon. not the cypherdoc.

Actually stability is not a prerequisite but a consequence of worldwide adoption [which will only materialize with security of course]

PAAAAAHAHA

such a goon.

no problem atall if our coins get stolen or blockchain falls apart, as long as it stays stable when it happens. l

like i always say, id rather someone steal my coins than have unstable ones.

Can you believe this idiocy coming from Realcoins and possibly Brock himself?

@NickSzabo4 @cypherdoc2 @roasbeef Actually, we think #stability is more important than security. Check out our dollar-backed blockchain!


https://twitter.com/RealCoins/status/488120162781237248

Here's an interesting quote from Mr. Masters:

“Despite all the advances in technology we’ve seen over the last couple decades, we basically have had no change to the way we bank or do transactions. It’s the same thing, only they’ve put it online. If I want to wire money from London to Beijing, I still get charged an outrageous amount of money for it, and it takes days. Meanwhile, where the f*** is my money?”

Source: http://www.newsweek.com/ex-jp-morgan-trader-joins-bitcoin-bulls-launching-hedge-funds-258494

Apparently bankers hate banks too! LOL

Ok, but it is her husband's ETF, not?

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blythe_Masters

What is the relevance of the woman?

Hey tv,

One of the State's finest (her ex) is setting up a Bitcoin fund! What a hoot!

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-07-12/wtf-headline-day-blythe-masters-ex-husband-launches-offshored-bitcoin-hedge-fund

I like to break things down into simple, first principles. In affairs of human relations the primary question I always ask is this: "is this relationship one of mutual voluntary assent or is someone being coerced?" I find this an excellent filter which usually identifies the State as the most common aggressor.

I found the following essay to be very interesting in that regard:

 A Way To Be Free - by Robert LeFevre
http://centerforselfrule.org/a-way-to-be-free/

What the guy meant is that 'the NSA' (probably including the 5-eyes and networks they've infiltrated) have visibility into a large majority of the global internet.  I've suspected this for some time and it's one of the reason why I have limited confidence in TOR.

It is true that 'visibility' is not exactly the same thing as 'control', but it is also true that with a lot of network gear it is quite trivial to activate filtering at the flip of a switch.  How practical that would be in practice is hard to know without a lot more information.  Comcast was doing interesting things to P2P packets a decade ago on what was at the time a pretty high traffic network.  Concepts of 'network neutrality' (and probably hardware availability and economics) interfered with their procedures, but Obama has just tossed network neutrality out the window.

We've been prepped for some time for a 'cyber 9/11'.  Such prep work usually ends up in an actual event in my observation.  If/when this happens, I expect that we'll see some significant changes to how the global internet functions and it could easily have some fallout on how the Bitcoin network functions.  I do hope that we are at least not completely blindsided and a tiny bit prepared to deal with such a scenario should it occur.

In terms of 'ownership', I would say that for all intents and purposes the NSA 'owns' Google and other corporate networks that operate in the U.S. when push comes to shove.  I'll bet that a good deal of the 'pushback' is nothing more than PR posturing.  I also don't doubt that there is genuine resentment and distaste at the state's methods, and that that sentiment is held from the bottom to the top, but at the end of the day the core responsibility of a corporation is to maximize shareholder profits and having your network shut down and your door kicked in will not achieve that effect.

BTW, it's nice to not be having a complete troll-fest conversation for a change

Bitcoin has proven an awesome case study in the 'de-regulated' world.  I cannot count the number of times some entity 'built a solid reputation' for just long enough to take their cash-out at an opportune time.  Over and over again we saw (and probably will continue to see) exchanges and wallet services fold and take everyone's money.  Usually the give back a pittance to preserve some plausible deniability.  The ratio of people who have been chumped out of their BTC vs the number of people who ever held any is truly impressive.  Were such a ratio observed in the real world where the stakes are higher it would be an unmitigated disaster.

In my analysis I would say that many Libertarians (at least in Bitcoinland, but elsewhere as well) have animosity toward regulation and enforcement mainly because in their world they defrauded (or would like to defraud) people fair and square, and the evil state sometimes holds them to account.  How unjust!

Again, in the real world, we see time and time again that when someone says 'de-regulation' it's time to put your hand on your wallet because your pocket is about to be picked.  It's even worse than that though because most of those who claim to want de-regulation actually want anything but.  They are perfectly happy to use state powers to quash and harass competition and apply muscle to the population they are shaking down.  In an environment such as this I am a 'small government' type of guy, and such a thing is becoming more and more or a problem here in the U.S.

Yes as well as other satellite or cellular means to transmit data.

The state attempts (and in many cases succeeds) to remove risk because failures at building a solid reputation, that is, negligence, result in people dying, a consequence that no law can amend. That there is no impunity is little compensation to the sufferers.

i don't think Sidechains is your answer especially if you don't want a for-profit company modifying the core protocol to enable the means for it's own success. 

it's possible that you could get your wish re: block size @ 1MB.  imo, if Gavin really wants to increase block size, he should be doing it now while the stakes aren't so great.  in a few years if the #tx's increases as we expect it to, so will market cap via a price increase as well.  if he's hesitant now, he'll be petrified then to make such a change.  while they have been making some incremental improvements, there is the possibility that the protocol is ossifying down to the point that the only changes to be made will be reactive in the face of an attack or a hard fork.  given neither of those come, 1MB/block may be as big as we ever see and in that case it may be consistent with Bitcoin having a shot at the world's reserve currency status.

i do hope that mesh networks, bitsats, bitcoincards, Kryptoradio, and this new Finnish project become mainstream as they would harden Bitcoin and make an attack all but impossible.  and if it requires that blocks stay small so be it.

i also doubt that the NSA owns the internet anymore than Google owns it.  yes, they certainly have the means and force to surveil it, as we've seen, but we are seeing pushback.  once again, i think the big picture depends on how you see the world as a glass half full or half empty.  i think you're more of the latter.