Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. - page 188. (Read 2032248 times)

we're not even under attack yet blocks continue to fill up:

Enough of your silly FUD.  The financial crisis is over.  Our benevolent telecom overlords will, any second now, embark upon unprecedented roll outs of retail broadband infrastructure, all thanks to their massive post-Bernanke/Obamanomics budget surpluses.

NFLX and APPL are at all-time-highs, so stop moaning just because you picked the wrong horse.



GavinCoin is stagnating and doesn't even pay dividends!

And those who argued that USG and its derivative tentacles OECD have no power to enforce in far flung jurisdictions...and notice it happens precisely on the day that Armstrong had been predicting (since 1985) for the Sovereign Debt Big Bang (2015.75 = October 1, 2015)...

http://armstrongeconomics.com/archives/33889

Cayman Islands to Begin Reporting Everyone on October 1, 2015

The Cayman Islands’ Department of International Tax Compliance (DITC) has notified Cayman financial institutions of its intention to move forward with implementing the OECD’s Common Reporting Standard (CRS), with the introduction of local regulations by the Economic Confidence Model turning point – October 1, 2015. This of course will end banking in the Cayman Islands and will impact many hedge funds as well.

Like Switzerland, the Cayman Islands has surrendered its sovereignty to the tyranny of global taxation. The West is imploding all for taxation because those in power will NEVER reform; all they will ever do is raise taxes to line their own pockets while destroying the world economy.

The Cayman Islands is among 50 “early adopters” of the CRS that will begin the automatic exchange of tax information starting in 2017. Eleven other countries will start tax information exchange in 2018.

Under the CRS, as of September 2017, tax authorities in over 50 jurisdictions — in addition to the U.S. and U.K. — will be entitled to information on accounts that individuals or entities hold in a Reportable Jurisdiction, under the tax laws of that jurisdiction.

A Reportable Jurisdiction is one that has a multilateral or bilateral Competent Authority Agreement with other jurisdictions to provide information under the CRS and is on the OECD’s list of such jurisdictions.

Several years ago I would not have guessed that Bitcoin's fundamental operational parameters would have been modulated by instantaneous NFLX stock quotes.  Even less so that this would make sense to the putative 'chief scientist' and half of the ecosystem participants (at least here on trolltalk.)  But there it is.

ugly ending to the day.  $DJT clearly has broken down.  get your Gavincoins while you can:

The masses will ignore such evidence. They won't switch from their existing systems, e.g. Circle, Coinbase, Paypal, 21 Inc, etc..

How many times have I tried to explain the Logic of Collective Action upthread, but if you are determined to ignore reality, I can not force you to comprehend.

Politics is inherently centralizing. Duh! Look out the window and observe society now.

How smug are you now Smartypants.

Lots of words that only demonstrate you do no understand what you are pontificating about.

Let me try to spell this out in very simple terms for you. Let's say in the future we had 100 full nodes, 10 pools and everyone else used SPV like wallets, and then 99 full nodes together with 9 pools decided to collude in order to cheat and allocate to themselves coins beyond the 21M limit.

In this scenario the corrupt chain would be the longest and yes what is worse is the P2P network would follow the corrupt chain since they are colluding together. Even worse is all bitcoin end-users would not be able to tell this since they only use SPV like wallets.

However as long as there remains one honest full node (let's say an MIT independently funded node, or a libertarian party funded node), that single honest full node would be able to easily generate concrete evidence of the corrupt transactions and easily present that evidence to the world for everyone to verify for themselves. Since this honest node monitors the network in real time, it could easily flag corruption in real time.

This in turn would expose the fraud and cause the majority of the 100K miners to switch over to an honest pools to rebuild on the valid chain. The pool could even be super honest about it and also include valid transactions from the corrupt chain to protect people not involved.

So yes, it only takes 1 single honest full node to expose to the whole world (including both users and miners) any corruption in the system.

This is the advantage of having every node capable of fully validating every aspect of the blockchain, and why that aspect allows the P2P network to centralize while still providing a robust system.

Incorrect. It requires 51% of the hashrate to flag cheating. Why do you guys repeatedly forget this Bitcoin 101 lesson?

If you do not understand why 10 pools enforced to be non-colluding by politics of the masses is the antithesis of decentralization, then there is nothing I could possibly write that you would actually try to comprehend.

Ditto if you do not understand why 100 pools permanently cited at home bases of the establishment are the antithesis of decentralization.

Distributed != decentralization.

The only way decentralization remains AUTONOMOUSLY resilient (i.e. without the political expectations which are inherently centralizing due to the Logic of Collective Action), is for the full nodes to be the small miners with no proxies such as pools as middle men. There is absolutely no way to achieve this within existing PoW consensus algorithms. I know the solution, but I am not revealing it today.


If I am not mistaken, the LN paradigm is only for setting up reused payment channels between a spender and a recipient, so it is inapplicable to a myriad of micropayments between all N possible participants in the system, because each setup has to go on the block chain. Thus it really isn't a general solution for micropayments, but rather a very specific solution for REAL TIME payments. I invented LN in 2014 also, and my application for it remains REAL TIME payments.

Side chains don't help you with micropayments unless you accept that micropayments will be done centralized on a special centralized SC. In other words, the decentralization of the consensus network design has to be accomplished no matter if you put it on a SC or in Bitcoin Core.


This is another reason that doing micropayments in a centralized SC is death for Core.


That is true also. That is why I said it doesn't matter which direction you go on the block size issue, all paths lead to eating from my hand on the consensus network redesign (and when it is open sourced then everyone can copy it and refine it).

The argument for not increasing the block size is that it is better to move more slowly towards centralization and when it is clear that 1MB (or 8MB w/o automatic exponential scaling) has been too constricting, then consensus can increase it again. This allows time for real solutions to take form, such as mine. Whereas, if you open up the size to exponential scaling, then it is quite possible that the Coinbases, Circles, Paypals, 21 Incs, etc.. will be incentivized to flood the block chain with spam to force it to centralized before we get the chance to experiment (via pegged side chains) to find the optimum solution for scaling.

This is the way engineers think.


Not if it is centralized, and centralization is guaranteed with the current PoW consensus design as Bitcoin scales.

Thank you! That is very informative and helpful. It is important to consider that investment capital in the ecosystem is increasing while BTC is falling.

but but but...

I heard the financial crisis is over, and soon magical NFLX bearing unicorns will frolic across the globe, bringing fiber to all the deserving children of Ukraine, Africa, Florida, and other formerly impoverished backwaters.  Since all is most assuredly well in fiat-land, it's not clear why we even need Bitcoin, except perhaps as yet another centralized payment rail to act as a retail POS gimmick for the amusement of hipsters/yuppies and profit of VC frat boys.

Of course if that's *not* true and we are headed towards a messy/violent end to the petrodollar's death throes, perhaps preserving and enhancing BTC's diffuse/diverse/defensible/resilient properties is a better idea than forever committing every tip at every coffee shop to the MotherChain.

Forget about Gavincoin because the financial crisis is over, thanks to our brave heroic consumers binge watching Game of Thrones and Breaking Bad:



ATH BITCH!   

I had to take a dig at you too ;-), i was feeling sorry for nullc.

what i have noticed though some reddit threads get owned by "bigger block proponents" and the opponents consed and dont venture in. and then there are the "limiting blocks for now" proponent threads and the increase blockers are down voted big time. its all rather polarized and entertaining to watch, not sure how much fundamentalism is brewing v education. but there are folks putting up a solid argument for increasing which is a positive sign.

precisely.  and they're gaining a better understanding of all the financial conflicts as well.  just watch Reddit; theymos got destroyed this morning touting the 1MB FUD story.  mercilessly too, all with great arguments, not just financial but technical too.

the only thing that has helped them recently is the all out effort using character assasination against everyone and even little 'ol me.  good for a few initial points but then over time a doomed strategy which ppl can see right thru and which eventually turns them off.  

bottom line is that they are out of ammo.  Mike & Gavin just need to sit back and watch them self destruct.

if Chevron ain't making money now, what does that say for the rest of the real economy?:

the fact that XT is favored given how the question is framed, to me indicated that the majority of people see past the FUD supporting the proponents of limiting block-size for now.

both $DJI & $DJT accelerating to the downside now.

get yourself some Gavincoin.

my favorite silver mining proxy SLW going off the cliff and leading:

yes, when viewed this way the prospect of XT becomes much less frightening despite the best efforts of the 1MB'ers to try and scare everyone.

what i'm not convinced of is that there can be many different implementations existing at any one time.  i don't mean the difference btwn btcd and Bitcoin Core; i mean btwn chains with say 1MB and 8MB block sizes.  if and when 8MB blocks catch on with say 75% majority of users, miners, and merchants, there will be tremendous incentives for participants to attack the competing chain in both directions.  personally, i feel the 1MB will be the weaker of the two unsurprisingly.  a persistent spamming attack to fill up the 1MB blocks seems to me to be the much easier and less expensive attack to perform.  after all, it didn't take many BTC to clog us up for the last two Stress Tests.  there are existing players with lots and lots of BTC that could be employed for this use as they would have a great incentive to shut down the 1MB chain.  on the flipside, an MP could try to attack the 8MB block similarly but it would cost him 8x the BTC along with the risk of orphans that miners won't allow.  guess who wins in the long run?  but there are many other reasons not to use SC's as i have gone on about ad nauseum, so maybe the above attack isn't even necessary.  i doubt the market will even want to use them in aggregate.

as i said earlier this morning, you're getting to watch the Transports go off the next cliff:

Yes, in the long run a network composed of many parallel implementations would be the most robust and anti-fragile.

It strikes me that contentious consensus decisions such as this could serve as impetus for these parallel implementations. If miners and node operators "vote" on various hard- and soft-fork decisions by choosing to run different forks of the main client, then a more diverse software ecosystem could emerge. This should also be a less contentious way of coming to consensus, everyone simply choosing the client that will implement the policy they favor once a supermajority of the network agrees.

This would probably also require something better than "version number" for clients to communicate the consensus rules they are willing to follow. If several consensus changes are being considered simultaneously, then some sort of more fine-grained indication would be needed.

could this in any way be related to the new Blockstream Alpha SC that was recently hooked up to Testnet?:

https://blog.blocktrail.com/2015/06/bitcoin-testnet-is-forking-19-blocks-deep-and-counting/