Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. - page 118. (Read 2032266 times)
looking very good:
Armstrongs models ...
http://www.silverdoctors.com/martin-armstrong-the-stock-market-will-double-by-2015/
http://www.silverdoctors.com/martin-armstrong-the-stock-market-will-double-by-2015/
Lying won't help you.
I was reading Armstrong's blog daily as of August 2012 when (it was roughly 12,000) he clearly stated that either it would double before October 2015, or it would phase shift and align with private assets and then delay that double or triple until 2017. Indeed the USA stock market did rise to roughly 18,000 and then it phase shifted and so now we await the double or triple in 2017.
i think it is very clear that miners and full nodes can handle a bigger block size by what i perceive to be the decreasing # of defensive blocks and the more consistent stream of full blocks.
PeterR, it would be good to have your colleague run that analysis to see if indeed the #'s of 0-1 tx blocks are decreasing. that would mean that miners in China are finding out that they can indeed handle the 1MB blocks that i think we are now seeing more frequently as they have figured out that there is no longer a reason to be defensive and instead mine for the tx fees from full blocks:
PeterR, it would be good to have your colleague run that analysis to see if indeed the #'s of 0-1 tx blocks are decreasing. that would mean that miners in China are finding out that they can indeed handle the 1MB blocks that i think we are now seeing more frequently as they have figured out that there is no longer a reason to be defensive and instead mine for the tx fees from full blocks:
spoken like a true noob unfamiliar with the history and evolution of the space.
Mycelium, once Bitcoin Spinner, has been a MAJOR force in bringing Bitcoin to the masses thru a highly usable and clever programming team. w/o them, Bitcoin would not be what it is today in terms of how far along we've progressed. you're demonstrating a classic case of "everyone else is the problem but not me". the damage to new user adoption from this problem of double spending cannot be measured.
it's too bad your head is up your ass.
Mycelium, once Bitcoin Spinner, has been a MAJOR force in bringing Bitcoin to the masses thru a highly usable and clever programming team. w/o them, Bitcoin would not be what it is today in terms of how far along we've progressed. you're demonstrating a classic case of "everyone else is the problem but not me". the damage to new user adoption from this problem of double spending cannot be measured.
it's too bad your head is up your ass.
Here is a post from one of the dev fully taking responsibility for the issue:
https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3dd1az/mycelium_downtime_comeon_guys_you_can_do_better/ct4352s
I really couldn't care less how Mycelium has been a MAJOR force in bringing Bitcoin to the noobs
See this is the problem. "Noobs" preferring user interface and "ease-of-use" in place of robust, well designed software and then crying when the software fails them because of faulty implementation.
BitcoinXT? More like BitcoinSX...
https://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg00500.html
https://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg00500.html
Quote
tx1: To merchant, but dust/low-fee/reused-address/large-size/etc. anything that miners don't always accept.
tx2: After merchant gives up valuable thing in return, normal tx without triggering spam protections. (loltasticly a Mike Hearn Bitcoin XT node was used to relay the double-spends)
Example success story: tx1 paying Shapeshift.io with 6uBTC output is not dust under post-Hearn-relay-drop rules, but is dust under pre-Hearn-relay-drop rules
tx2: After merchant gives up valuable thing in return, normal tx without triggering spam protections. (loltasticly a Mike Hearn Bitcoin XT node was used to relay the double-spends)
Example success story: tx1 paying Shapeshift.io with 6uBTC output is not dust under post-Hearn-relay-drop rules, but is dust under pre-Hearn-relay-drop rules
what we're witnessing is Blockstream core dev forcing Bitcoin into their vision of what it should be. not Satoshi's vision.
nor the vast majority of the community's vision.
nor the vast majority of the community's vision.
The "vast majority of the community" are not Gavinistas. That's why your vaunted 20MB plan was #REKT like Stannis at Winterfell.
Since when are Nick Szabo, Matthew Green, and Jon Matois Blockstream core devs?
I suppose in your deranged mind MPEX is also a Blockstream core dev.
Darn those pesky Learned Elders of Blockstream! Always hiding under my bed and conspiring in my closet!
years ago in the original gold thread, i talked about gold's illiquidity. i talked about having to haul my gold and silver over to the coin dealer to sell. almost broke my back. had to take a 5% hit to the price and immediately fill out forms to ensure i paid taxes, which i gladly did at those elevated prices (lots of you won't though i'm sure).
the problems i foresee involve those when there will be lines of ppl trying to sell. the illiquidity is going to be stunning given how impractical gold and silver really is in regards to actually functioning as money compared to Bitcoin. we are in the midst of a huge transition or wealth transfer. will you be able to cross the rubicon?
the problems i foresee involve those when there will be lines of ppl trying to sell. the illiquidity is going to be stunning given how impractical gold and silver really is in regards to actually functioning as money compared to Bitcoin. we are in the midst of a huge transition or wealth transfer. will you be able to cross the rubicon?
actually, we also know that tvbcof loves gold as well. too bad:
how many thousands of times do i have to tell you guys this?
how many thousands of times do i have to tell you guys this?
so sorry iCEBlow. we all know you're an avid goldbug too. it sucks losing on all fronts i'm sure:
what we're witnessing is Blockstream core dev forcing Bitcoin into their vision of what it should be. not Satoshi's vision.
nor the vast majority of the community's vision.
nor the vast majority of the community's vision.
Unsurprisingly, a vast majority of the 'community's vision' is free shit.
Far from destroying that vision, what the Blockstream dudes are doing is making it not only practical but likely. This because an infinite number of entities will develop and subsidize their own pegged sidechains. They'll do this in order to tap other value streams inherent in the use of customized currency solution.
Blockstream is developing ways of doing it which protects end-users via sophisticated pegging (if they choose to protect themselves) and protecting core Bitcoin at the same time. As a bonus, a wide variety of tunings at the sidechain level are possible providing the end-user a much better experience. One 'better experience' would be robust '0-conf' function in cases where that is important (and there are many cases where it is not.)
Blockstream seems to have attracted an impressive number of the most dedicated, active, and skilled developers in the crypto-currency space and I'm sure that this is because these people recognize not only the value but the necessity of moving distributed crypto-currencies in this direction in order to have the best hope of meeting the challenges on the horizon.
this is some pretty crazy stuff from Pieter:
On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 12:06 PM, Me via bitcoin-dev <[email protected]> wrote:
>Have you talk to them? If not, how can you be sure they don’t run large number of standard nodes and actually make the network >stronger? Personally I never bring claims like this if I just assume. A lot of people in the community really trust you, do you realize you >potentially hurt them for no reason?
Running normal full nodes only provides extra service to nodes synchronizing and lightweight clients. It does not "make the network stronger" in the sense that it does not reduce the trust the participants need to have in each other.
It's such a misconception that running many nodes somehow helps. It's much better that you run and control one or a few full nodes which you actually use to validate your transactions, than to run 1000s of nodes in third party datacenters. The latter only looks more decentralized.
--
Pieter
i maybe understand his argument that datacenters are vulnerable to state attack but when thousands of datacenters running full nodes are themselves distributed across the planet in jurisdictions that disagree with say the US, i can't see how those don't help decentralization.
On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 12:06 PM, Me via bitcoin-dev <[email protected]> wrote:
>Have you talk to them? If not, how can you be sure they don’t run large number of standard nodes and actually make the network >stronger? Personally I never bring claims like this if I just assume. A lot of people in the community really trust you, do you realize you >potentially hurt them for no reason?
Running normal full nodes only provides extra service to nodes synchronizing and lightweight clients. It does not "make the network stronger" in the sense that it does not reduce the trust the participants need to have in each other.
It's such a misconception that running many nodes somehow helps. It's much better that you run and control one or a few full nodes which you actually use to validate your transactions, than to run 1000s of nodes in third party datacenters. The latter only looks more decentralized.
--
Pieter
i maybe understand his argument that datacenters are vulnerable to state attack but when thousands of datacenters running full nodes are themselves distributed across the planet in jurisdictions that disagree with say the US, i can't see how those don't help decentralization.
this is good from flix1 just now on bitcoin-dev:
@gavinandresen Actually over the past weeks I've given this a lot of thought and I've come around to see your solution as the best. A purely mathematical rule keeps it simple. Targeting Moore's law is reasonable.
It will also be easier to reach a very broad consensus for something straightforward.
—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub.
@gavinandresen Actually over the past weeks I've given this a lot of thought and I've come around to see your solution as the best. A purely mathematical rule keeps it simple. Targeting Moore's law is reasonable.
It will also be easier to reach a very broad consensus for something straightforward.
—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub.
what we're witnessing is Blockstream core dev forcing Bitcoin into their vision of what it should be. not Satoshi's vision.
nor the vast majority of the community's vision.
nor the vast majority of the community's vision.
Now, for the first time ever, people are starting to have to think about abandoning Mycelium, probably the most popular android wallet, because core dev refuses to address the spam attack with bigger blocks.
Great job ICBLow!
Great job ICBLow!
Will you please spare us your brainless FUD?
This is why people cannot take you seriously.
Mycelium fucked up. That's all there is to it.
it's idiots like you that will get Bitcoin into trouble. i can't help you if you don't understand the technicals behind what is going on. bigger blocks would allow clearing of the mempool:
https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3db7qr/mycelium_servers_down/ct3mbjj
Then why aren't every nodes down?
The problem is clearly shoddy backend implementation on Mycelium part, as is clearly explained in the reddit thread you have linked by Mycelium devs themselves. Moreover, any user not relying on outdate wallet models with centralized server dependent on 3!!! nodes is not experiencing any of these problems.
Bitcoin isn't to blame for amateur software. Everytime you cling on to any minor, user-defined issue to promote your FUD makes you look more pathetic and desperate.
Mycelium has been the most popular of all the android wallets. ignoramus's like you are quick to blame them when in fact all the congestion problems are a result of full blocks and bloated mempools as a result of false "fee market" delusions from core dev worshippers like you.
let's flip this around. just what kinda trouble would actually make you agree that blocks are too small. i suspect there aren't any that you would dare to admit to since you are stuck on your position no_matter_what.
let me remind everybody what Bitcoin was meant to be:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.11625671
Your ignorance and disingenuity transpires through your tendency to rely on a variety of argumentum ad populum
I don't care if 100% of Bitcoin users use Mycelium it doesn't change the fact that it is amateur software and should be treated as such.
Maybe you should read again ICEBreaker post about supervenience?
spoken like a true noob unfamiliar with the history and evolution of the space.
Mycelium, once Bitcoin Spinner, has been a MAJOR force in bringing Bitcoin to the masses thru a highly usable and clever programming team. w/o them, Bitcoin would not be what it is today in terms of how far along we've progressed. you're demonstrating a classic case of "everyone else is the problem but not me". the damage to new user adoption from this problem of double spending cannot be measured.
it's too bad your head is up your ass.
valuable perspective on why 0confs have not been a problem until now that we have full blocks and bloated mempools. now, businesses like his have to scramble for work arounds and core dev just keeps compensating for the fundamental mistake of not removing the 1MB choke.
https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3ddkhy/bitcoindev_significant_losses_by_doublespending/ct474kh
https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3ddkhy/bitcoindev_significant_losses_by_doublespending/ct474kh
Now, for the first time ever, people are starting to have to think about abandoning Mycelium, probably the most popular android wallet, because core dev refuses to address the spam attack with bigger blocks.
Great job ICBLow!
Great job ICBLow!
Will you please spare us your brainless FUD?
This is why people cannot take you seriously.
Mycelium fucked up. That's all there is to it.
Think of finally starting to develop a transaction fee market as Tough Actin' Tinactin for some of the maladies that have increasingly infected Bitcoin.
If Mycelium cannot handle Bitcoin, they should look into a dedicated pegged sidechain which functions in the way they need it do in order to make their software work. Sounds like they already have a decent sized userbase.
Now, for the first time ever, people are starting to have to think about abandoning Mycelium, probably the most popular android wallet, because core dev refuses to address the spam attack with bigger blocks.
Great job ICBLow!
Great job ICBLow!
Will you please spare us your brainless FUD?
This is why people cannot take you seriously.
Mycelium fucked up. That's all there is to it.
it's idiots like you that will get Bitcoin into trouble. i can't help you if you don't understand the technicals behind what is going on. bigger blocks would allow clearing of the mempool:
https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3db7qr/mycelium_servers_down/ct3mbjj
Then why aren't every nodes down?
The problem is clearly shoddy backend implementation on Mycelium part, as is clearly explained in the reddit thread you have linked by Mycelium devs themselves. Moreover, any user not relying on outdate wallet models with centralized server dependent on 3!!! nodes is not experiencing any of these problems.
Bitcoin isn't to blame for amateur software. Everytime you cling on to any minor, user-defined issue to promote your FUD makes you look more pathetic and desperate.
Mycelium has been the most popular of all the android wallets. ignoramus's like you are quick to blame them when in fact all the congestion problems are a result of full blocks and bloated mempools as a result of false "fee market" delusions from core dev worshippers like you.
let's flip this around. just what kinda trouble would actually make you agree that blocks are too small. i suspect there aren't any that you would dare to admit to since you are stuck on your position no_matter_what.
let me remind everybody what Bitcoin was meant to be:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.11625671
Your ignorance and disingenuity transpires through your tendency to rely on a variety of argumentum ad populum
I don't care if 100% of Bitcoin users use Mycelium it doesn't change the fact that it is amateur software and should be treated as such.
Maybe you should read again ICEBreaker post about supervenience?
Now, for the first time ever, people are starting to have to think about abandoning Mycelium, probably the most popular android wallet, because core dev refuses to address the spam attack with bigger blocks.
Great job ICBLow!
Great job ICBLow!
Will you please spare us your brainless FUD?
This is why people cannot take you seriously.
Mycelium fucked up. That's all there is to it.
it's idiots like you that will get Bitcoin into trouble. i can't help you if you don't understand the technicals behind what is going on. bigger blocks would allow clearing of the mempool:
https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3db7qr/mycelium_servers_down/ct3mbjj
Then why aren't every nodes down?
The problem is clearly shoddy backend implementation on Mycelium part, as is clearly explained in the reddit thread you have linked by Mycelium devs themselves. Moreover, any user not relying on outdate wallet models with centralized server dependent on 3!!! nodes is not experiencing any of these problems.
Bitcoin isn't to blame for amateur software. Everytime you cling on to any minor, user-defined issue to promote your FUD makes you look more pathetic and desperate.
Mycelium has been the most popular of all the android wallets. ignoramus's like you are quick to blame them when in fact all the congestion problems are a result of full blocks and bloated mempools as a result of false "fee market" delusions from core dev worshippers like you.
let's flip this around. just what kinda trouble would actually make you agree that blocks are too small? i suspect there aren't any that you would dare to admit to since you are stuck on your position no_matter_what.
let me remind everybody what Bitcoin was meant to be:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.11625671
Now, for the first time ever, people are starting to have to think about abandoning Mycelium, probably the most popular android wallet, because core dev refuses to address the spam attack with bigger blocks.
Great job ICBLow!
Great job ICBLow!
Will you please spare us your brainless FUD?
This is why people cannot take you seriously.
Mycelium fucked up. That's all there is to it.
Have mercy on poor befuddled old Frap.doc.
So paltry is his understanding of Bitcoin technology, he believes Mycelium's issues in some way supervene upon Bitcoin itself!
So great is his ignorance of Bitcoin affairs, he fails to notice core devs addressing the spam attack on several fronts, including community reach-out to educate on best practices, code improvements/optimizations, and BIP submissions addressing his beloved 'bigger blocks.'
We should feel sorry for him, instead of committing cruelty to dumb animals.
thank you for paying me such great homage.
it's a flattering tribute when thug trolls like you follow me around the forums trying so hard to counter my messages. you may kiss my feet now.
and yes, keep pushing this thread up to the top so everyone can read what i write while having you on ignore.
Jump to: