Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. - page 230.

cypherdoc

legendary

Activity: 1764

Merit: 1002

wow, that shut his ass up quick didn't it? Cheesy

anyone who shills so hard for Martin Armstrong so much, who writes so poorly as Martin Armstrong so much (probably using spellchecker and grammar check), and who argues against Bitcoin as Martin Armstrong so much, probably is Martin Armstrong.

of course i could be entirely wrong. which is why i'm perfectly fine to video Skype with TPTB_need_war.

cypherdoc

legendary

Activity: 1764

Merit: 1002

Quote from: Peter R on June 16, 2015, 10:06:02 AM

Quote from: cypherdoc on June 16, 2015, 10:01:21 AM

Quote from: cypherdoc on June 16, 2015, 09:51:11 AM

Quote from: cypherdoc on June 16, 2015, 09:40:13 AM

Quote from: TPTB_need_war on June 16, 2015, 09:33:36 AM

Quote from: cypherdoc on June 16, 2015, 09:29:45 AM

Quote from: TPTB_need_war on June 16, 2015, 09:17:10 AM

Quote from: Peter R on June 16, 2015, 09:07:18 AM

I now see full-node count as a red herring; the number of full nodes is dropping because we don't need that many full nodes (see my arguments above). There's a huge gap between running bitcoin on a raspberry pie and "only the Googles of the world will be able to run bitcoin." According to all my analysis, we are so far away from bitcoin being runnable by "a few mega corporations," that the "don't-increase-the-blocksize-because-centralization-arguments" come across as hyperbole to me.

You are forgetting propagation delay and the need for IBLT to deal with it, which is a paradigm which will eventually hand a winner-take-all to the entities that can handle Visa volume on the block chain.

I believe before the big boys throw their transactions at Bitcoin, they want to make sure the paradigm is in place for them to capture it. Coinbase, Circle, Paypal, etc its all primed and ready to go after IBLT is implemented or large enough block size to handle the scale they want to throw at Bitcoin and force IBLT.

Mike Hearn and the Foundation appears to be captured by those big boys (TPTB).

Blockstream is attempting a rear guard and trying to not give them so much headroom all at once.

Or you might have two factions of the TPTB competing (since the end result if the same for as long as PoW is not fixed).

In any case, I don't really care. It is a morass and needs to be replaced by something that remains truly decentralized long-term.

you do realize the Foundation has been defunct for months now?

Or so you were lead to believe.

And the Rothschilds and Rockefellers also divested all their wealth too.

P.S. I am fairly certain Cypherdoc is a mouthpiece for TPTB. I posit he was purposely compromised by the HashFast offer to maintain his allegiance. This is their usual modus operandi. This is evident by his public role and other factors such as his denial of the fact that Bitcoin core is heading towards a centralized end game.

i am in agreement to talk with you on video Skype. what's your handle?

yoohoo, TPTB_need_war, yoohoo.

yoohoo, TPTB_need_war, yoohoo.

hooohoooohoooo.

Lol I just realized that you probably can't run bitcoin on a raspberry pie Cheesy

how many hoos can a yahoo like TPTB_need_war hoo?

answer: zeroo

Peter R

legendary

Activity: 1162

Merit: 1007

Quote from: cypherdoc on June 16, 2015, 10:01:21 AM

Quote from: cypherdoc on June 16, 2015, 09:51:11 AM

Quote from: cypherdoc on June 16, 2015, 09:40:13 AM

Quote from: TPTB_need_war on June 16, 2015, 09:33:36 AM

Quote from: cypherdoc on June 16, 2015, 09:29:45 AM

Quote from: TPTB_need_war on June 16, 2015, 09:17:10 AM

Quote from: Peter R on June 16, 2015, 09:07:18 AM

I now see full-node count as a red herring; the number of full nodes is dropping because we don't need that many full nodes (see my arguments above). There's a huge gap between running bitcoin on a raspberry pie and "only the Googles of the world will be able to run bitcoin." According to all my analysis, we are so far away from bitcoin being runnable by "a few mega corporations," that the "don't-increase-the-blocksize-because-centralization-arguments" come across as hyperbole to me.

You are forgetting propagation delay and the need for IBLT to deal with it, which is a paradigm which will eventually hand a winner-take-all to the entities that can handle Visa volume on the block chain.

I believe before the big boys throw their transactions at Bitcoin, they want to make sure the paradigm is in place for them to capture it. Coinbase, Circle, Paypal, etc its all primed and ready to go after IBLT is implemented or large enough block size to handle the scale they want to throw at Bitcoin and force IBLT.

Mike Hearn and the Foundation appears to be captured by those big boys (TPTB).

Blockstream is attempting a rear guard and trying to not give them so much headroom all at once.

Or you might have two factions of the TPTB competing (since the end result if the same for as long as PoW is not fixed).

In any case, I don't really care. It is a morass and needs to be replaced by something that remains truly decentralized long-term.

you do realize the Foundation has been defunct for months now?

Or so you were lead to believe.

And the Rothschilds and Rockefellers also divested all their wealth too.

P.S. I am fairly certain Cypherdoc is a mouthpiece for TPTB. I posit he was purposely compromised by the HashFast offer to maintain his allegiance. This is their usual modus operandi. This is evident by his public role and other factors such as his denial of the fact that Bitcoin core is heading towards a centralized end game.

i am in agreement to talk with you on video Skype. what's your handle?

yoohoo, TPTB_need_war, yoohoo.

yoohoo, TPTB_need_war, yoohoo.

hooohoooohoooo.

Lol I just realized that you probably can't run bitcoin on a raspberry pie Cheesy

cypherdoc

legendary

Activity: 1764

Merit: 1002

Quote from: cypherdoc on June 16, 2015, 09:51:11 AM

Quote from: cypherdoc on June 16, 2015, 09:40:13 AM

Quote from: TPTB_need_war on June 16, 2015, 09:33:36 AM

Quote from: cypherdoc on June 16, 2015, 09:29:45 AM

Quote from: TPTB_need_war on June 16, 2015, 09:17:10 AM

Quote from: Peter R on June 16, 2015, 09:07:18 AM

I now see full-node count as a red herring; the number of full nodes is dropping because we don't need that many full nodes (see my arguments above). There's a huge gap between running bitcoin on a raspberry pie and "only the Googles of the world will be able to run bitcoin." According to all my analysis, we are so far away from bitcoin being runnable by "a few mega corporations," that the "don't-increase-the-blocksize-because-centralization-arguments" come across as hyperbole to me.

You are forgetting propagation delay and the need for IBLT to deal with it, which is a paradigm which will eventually hand a winner-take-all to the entities that can handle Visa volume on the block chain.

I believe before the big boys throw their transactions at Bitcoin, they want to make sure the paradigm is in place for them to capture it. Coinbase, Circle, Paypal, etc its all primed and ready to go after IBLT is implemented or large enough block size to handle the scale they want to throw at Bitcoin and force IBLT.

Mike Hearn and the Foundation appears to be captured by those big boys (TPTB).

Blockstream is attempting a rear guard and trying to not give them so much headroom all at once.

Or you might have two factions of the TPTB competing (since the end result if the same for as long as PoW is not fixed).

In any case, I don't really care. It is a morass and needs to be replaced by something that remains truly decentralized long-term.

you do realize the Foundation has been defunct for months now?

Or so you were lead to believe.

And the Rothschilds and Rockefellers also divested all their wealth too.

P.S. I am fairly certain Cypherdoc is a mouthpiece for TPTB. I posit he was purposely compromised by the HashFast offer to maintain his allegiance. This is their usual modus operandi. This is evident by his public role and other factors such as his denial of the fact that Bitcoin core is heading towards a centralized end game.

i am in agreement to talk with you on video Skype. what's your handle?

yoohoo, TPTB_need_war, yoohoo.

yoohoo, TPTB_need_war, yoohoo.

hooohoooohoooo.

sickpig

legendary

Activity: 1260

Merit: 1008

http://www.8btc.com/blocksize-increase-2

Courtesy of google translator:

Quote

Beijing June 11, 2015, five Chinese mine pool jointly organized the "mine pool Technology Seminar" at the National Convention Center participating F2pool.com, BW.com, BTCChina, Huobi.com, Antpool.com five mine pool cell technology for ore-depth discussions and reached consensus on the expansion part of the block. They agreed that capacity is needed Bitcoin block size; in ensuring the premise of unified Bitcoin network intends in the next period of time to accept the size does not exceed 8MB (8,000,000Bytes) blocks.

edit: just found out there's already a thread in the speculation section https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/5-chinese-mining-pools-propose-8mb-block-size-1091170

cypherdoc

legendary

Activity: 1764

Merit: 1002

cypherdoc

legendary

Activity: 1764

Merit: 1002

$DJI up a measly +38 while the $DJT down -73.

simply more divergence. not good.

cypherdoc

legendary

Activity: 1764

Merit: 1002

Quote from: cypherdoc on June 16, 2015, 09:40:13 AM

Quote from: TPTB_need_war on June 16, 2015, 09:33:36 AM

Quote from: cypherdoc on June 16, 2015, 09:29:45 AM

Quote from: TPTB_need_war on June 16, 2015, 09:17:10 AM

Quote from: Peter R on June 16, 2015, 09:07:18 AM

I now see full-node count as a red herring; the number of full nodes is dropping because we don't need that many full nodes (see my arguments above). There's a huge gap between running bitcoin on a raspberry pie and "only the Googles of the world will be able to run bitcoin." According to all my analysis, we are so far away from bitcoin being runnable by "a few mega corporations," that the "don't-increase-the-blocksize-because-centralization-arguments" come across as hyperbole to me.

You are forgetting propagation delay and the need for IBLT to deal with it, which is a paradigm which will eventually hand a winner-take-all to the entities that can handle Visa volume on the block chain.

I believe before the big boys throw their transactions at Bitcoin, they want to make sure the paradigm is in place for them to capture it. Coinbase, Circle, Paypal, etc its all primed and ready to go after IBLT is implemented or large enough block size to handle the scale they want to throw at Bitcoin and force IBLT.

Mike Hearn and the Foundation appears to be captured by those big boys (TPTB).

Blockstream is attempting a rear guard and trying to not give them so much headroom all at once.

Or you might have two factions of the TPTB competing (since the end result if the same for as long as PoW is not fixed).

In any case, I don't really care. It is a morass and needs to be replaced by something that remains truly decentralized long-term.

you do realize the Foundation has been defunct for months now?

Or so you were lead to believe.

And the Rothschilds and Rockefellers also divested all their wealth too.

P.S. I am fairly certain Cypherdoc is a mouthpiece for TPTB. I posit he was purposely compromised by the HashFast offer to maintain his allegiance. This is their usual modus operandi. This is evident by his public role and other factors such as his denial of the fact that Bitcoin core is heading towards a centralized end game.

i am in agreement to talk with you on video Skype. what's your handle?

yoohoo, TPTB_need_war, yoohoo.

cypherdoc

legendary

Activity: 1764

Merit: 1002

Quote from: freakying99 on June 16, 2015, 07:36:47 AM

Quote from: nanobrain on June 16, 2015, 07:27:35 AM

Quote from: Zarathustra on June 16, 2015, 04:25:22 AM

Quote from: TPTB_need_war on June 16, 2015, 03:41:19 AM

Quote from: marcus_of_augustus on June 15, 2015, 09:45:11 PM

check out of the gold collapse

I told you all upthread there would likely be a bounce this June in both gold and BTC but the final lows are still coming.

I continue (via Armstrong) to predict every price move. Yet I (and he) get no acknowledgement.

What a shame! The feet of the prophets are to be kissed!

Has it ever been any different?

What you have to remember about this thread is that if all the egos were laid end to end....

...no-one would be in the least bit surprised.

TRUE. One huge egotrip in this thread. It should be locked and forgotten about.
But BTC is dropping and gold will climb, so at the very least it should have it's title changed.

sorry, Gold collapsing, Bitcoin UP.

TPTB_need_war

sr. member

Activity: 420

Merit: 262

Quote from: cypherdoc on June 16, 2015, 09:38:27 AM

no surprise, i was very vocal against his suggestion to redlist addresses while him being on the foundation board. but then yesterday i read a little deeper and his "suggestion" to do that was in reaction to the Cryptolocker Bitcoin correlation that was prevalent at the time. at least his heart was in the right place...

Spoken in the true Hegelian dialectic paradigm of good car salesman and bad car salesman, i.e. build a crisis to offer a less worst option. I have a neurobiologist researcher analyzing everyone's posts in this thread and giving me analysis of their behavior. Creepy? No just rational.

Here is the equation I use to model the effect on the Hegelian dialectic paradigm.

Quote from: TPTB_need_war on June 13, 2015, 07:56:25 PM

...

The independent minded people you see in Colorado will jump to comply with NWO directives for as long as they can keep their lifestyles 90% intact.

Let me show you my equation for the slow burn:

0.90 ^ n

Where n = the duration of the slow burn and ^ is the exponentiation operator.

Humans comply to keep 90%. Rinse and repeat.

cypherdoc

legendary

Activity: 1764

Merit: 1002

Quote from: TPTB_need_war on June 16, 2015, 09:33:36 AM

Quote from: cypherdoc on June 16, 2015, 09:29:45 AM

Quote from: TPTB_need_war on June 16, 2015, 09:17:10 AM

Quote from: Peter R on June 16, 2015, 09:07:18 AM

I now see full-node count as a red herring; the number of full nodes is dropping because we don't need that many full nodes (see my arguments above). There's a huge gap between running bitcoin on a raspberry pie and "only the Googles of the world will be able to run bitcoin." According to all my analysis, we are so far away from bitcoin being runnable by "a few mega corporations," that the "don't-increase-the-blocksize-because-centralization-arguments" come across as hyperbole to me.

You are forgetting propagation delay and the need for IBLT to deal with it, which is a paradigm which will eventually hand a winner-take-all to the entities that can handle Visa volume on the block chain.

I believe before the big boys throw their transactions at Bitcoin, they want to make sure the paradigm is in place for them to capture it. Coinbase, Circle, Paypal, etc its all primed and ready to go after IBLT is implemented or large enough block size to handle the scale they want to throw at Bitcoin and force IBLT.

Mike Hearn and the Foundation appears to be captured by those big boys (TPTB).

Blockstream is attempting a rear guard and trying to not give them so much headroom all at once.

Or you might have two factions of the TPTB competing (since the end result if the same for as long as PoW is not fixed).

In any case, I don't really care. It is a morass and needs to be replaced by something that remains truly decentralized long-term.

you do realize the Foundation has been defunct for months now?

Or so you were lead to believe.

And the Rothschilds and Rockefellers also divested all their wealth too.

P.S. I am fairly certain Cypherdoc is a mouthpiece for TPTB. I posit he was purposely compromised by the HashFast offer to maintain his allegiance. This is their usual modus operandi. This is evident by his public role and other factors such as his denial of the fact that Bitcoin core is heading towards a centralized end game.

i am in agreement to talk with you on video Skype. what's your handle?

cypherdoc

legendary

Activity: 1764

Merit: 1002

Quote from: ?? on ??

Quote from: Peter R on June 15, 2015, 06:03:04 PM

I think I've heard all the arguments, but I still cannot understand the opposition to increasing the blocksize.

I don't have an (maybe I should say: a valid) opinion on the block size debate. I would prefer to err on the side of decentralization, but at this point I'm not even sure what that is. I think magic numbers are a poor solution (but I'm sure they are sometimes necessary).

I'm not afraid of forks, like most people seem to be. I think that everyone should be prepared for how they will deal with possible forks in the future.

What I do know is that after spending a lot of time reading about Bitcoin for the past several years, and getting a feel for some of the people involved, I would prefer to stay far, far away from anything that is related to Mike Hearn. For the life of me, I can't even understand why someone like him is interested in Bitcoin (unless it's to change it into something else entirely). I'm thankful that he has barely touched Bitcoin Core.

So I oppose BitcoinXT, but not necessarily a block size increase.

Disclaimer: I use Mycelium for convenience from time to time and do not know whether or not that is based on any of Hearn's BitcoinJ.

as long as Gavin remains as lead core dev, i'm ok with Hearn being a core dev.

there was a thread on Reddit yesterday devoted to trashing Hearn that provided the obvious links to his controversial proposals in the past. i was grateful for that as it allowed me to go back and review them. no surprise, i was very vocal against his suggestion to redlist addresses while him being on the foundation board. but then yesterday i read a little deeper and his "suggestion" to do that was in reaction to the Cryptolocker Bitcoin correlation that was prevalent at the time. at least his heart was in the right place altho redlisting is still a terrible idea for fungibility. i get that ppl think he is flippant about centralizing ideas and i would agree with that. but at the same time, he clearly wants Bitcoin to succeed; and in a BIG way. thus, i choose to look at him with a little bit more moderation than i have in the past. he is terribly smart and it should be clear his refusal to participate in BIP's over the last couple years has been in reaction to having to deal with ppl like gmax. i don't blame him.

TPTB_need_war

sr. member

Activity: 420

Merit: 262

Quote from: cypherdoc on June 16, 2015, 09:29:45 AM

Quote from: TPTB_need_war on June 16, 2015, 09:17:10 AM

Quote from: Peter R on June 16, 2015, 09:07:18 AM

I now see full-node count as a red herring; the number of full nodes is dropping because we don't need that many full nodes (see my arguments above). There's a huge gap between running bitcoin on a raspberry pie and "only the Googles of the world will be able to run bitcoin." According to all my analysis, we are so far away from bitcoin being runnable by "a few mega corporations," that the "don't-increase-the-blocksize-because-centralization-arguments" come across as hyperbole to me.

You are forgetting propagation delay and the need for IBLT to deal with it, which is a paradigm which will eventually hand a winner-take-all to the entities that can handle Visa volume on the block chain.

I believe before the big boys throw their transactions at Bitcoin, they want to make sure the paradigm is in place for them to capture it. Coinbase, Circle, Paypal, etc its all primed and ready to go after IBLT is implemented or large enough block size to handle the scale they want to throw at Bitcoin and force IBLT.

Mike Hearn and the Foundation appears to be captured by those big boys (TPTB).

Blockstream is attempting a rear guard and trying to not give them so much headroom all at once.

Or you might have two factions of the TPTB competing (since the end result if the same for as long as PoW is not fixed).

In any case, I don't really care. It is a morass and needs to be replaced by something that remains truly decentralized long-term.

you do realize the Foundation has been defunct for months now?

Or so you were lead to believe.

And the Rothschilds and Rockefellers also divested all their wealth too.

P.S. I am fairly certain Cypherdoc is a mouthpiece for TPTB. I posit he was purposely compromised by the HashFast offer to maintain his allegiance. This is their usual modus operandi. This is evident by his public role and other factors such as his denial of the fact that Bitcoin core is heading towards a centralized end game.

cypherdoc

legendary

Activity: 1764

Merit: 1002

Quote from: TPTB_need_war on June 16, 2015, 09:17:10 AM

Quote from: Peter R on June 16, 2015, 09:07:18 AM

I now see full-node count as a red herring; the number of full nodes is dropping because we don't need that many full nodes (see my arguments above). There's a huge gap between running bitcoin on a raspberry pie and "only the Googles of the world will be able to run bitcoin." According to all my analysis, we are so far away from bitcoin being runnable by "a few mega corporations," that the "don't-increase-the-blocksize-because-centralization-arguments" come across as hyperbole to me.

You are forgetting propagation delay and the need for IBLT to deal with it, which is a paradigm which will eventually hand a winner-take-all to the entities that can handle Visa volume on the block chain.

I believe before the big boys throw their transactions at Bitcoin, they want to make sure the paradigm is in place for them to capture it. Coinbase, Circle, Paypal, etc its all primed and ready to go after IBLT is implemented or large enough block size to handle the scale they want to throw at Bitcoin and force IBLT.

Mike Hearn and the Foundation appears to be captured by those big boys (TPTB).

Blockstream is attempting a rear guard and trying to not give them so much headroom all at once.

Or you might have two factions of the TPTB competing (since the end result if the same for as long as PoW is not fixed).

In any case, I don't really care. It is a morass and needs to be replaced by something that remains truly decentralized long-term.

you do realize the Foundation has been defunct for months now?

cypherdoc

legendary

Activity: 1764

Merit: 1002

with all this talk about the advantages of Matt Corallo's relay network inferring onto large miners, one of the first things i'm going to do when i get around to it is to hook up a bunch of full nodes to said relay network which, imo, will help negate any latency large blocks might infer to large miners trying to exploit a large block attack by choking full nodes and small miners.

essentially, the way i understand it, is that the relay network is a form of IBLT which limits the need for tx propgation to one.

cypherdoc

legendary

Activity: 1764

Merit: 1002

Quote from: sidhujag on June 16, 2015, 08:51:03 AM

Quote from: Torque on June 16, 2015, 08:49:29 AM

Meanwhile in other news:

http://www.wsj.com/articles/bank-of-china-becomes-first-chinese-bank-to-help-set-gold-price-1434453559

Great, now China is set to get in on the Gold price fixing fraud.

That was a no brainer.. Jpm basically left the game and moved onto something else.. What that is who knows.

with China snarfing up all the world's gold and the US on the brink of disaster with it's 44 yr history of fiat debasement while now at the zero bound and with Blythe Master's pumping Bitcoin, one could be surprised what JPM decides to go after.

and that actually would be a good thing.

cypherdoc

legendary

Activity: 1764

Merit: 1002

Quote from: Torque on June 16, 2015, 08:49:29 AM

Meanwhile in other news:

http://www.wsj.com/articles/bank-of-china-becomes-first-chinese-bank-to-help-set-gold-price-1434453559

Great, now China is set to get in on the Gold price fixing (fraud). Is this good news?

the mere fact that it can be set indicates there's a problem there.

TPTB_need_war

sr. member

Activity: 420

Merit: 262

Quote from: Peter R on June 16, 2015, 09:07:18 AM

I now see full-node count as a red herring; the number of full nodes is dropping because we don't need that many full nodes (see my arguments above). There's a huge gap between running bitcoin on a raspberry pie and "only the Googles of the world will be able to run bitcoin." According to all my analysis, we are so far away from bitcoin being runnable by "a few mega corporations," that the "don't-increase-the-blocksize-because-centralization-arguments" come across as hyperbole to me.

You are forgetting propagation delay and the need for IBLT to deal with it, which is a paradigm which will eventually hand a winner-take-all to the entities that can handle Visa volume on the block chain.

I believe before the big boys throw their transactions at Bitcoin, they want to make sure the paradigm is in place for them to capture it. Coinbase, Circle, Paypal, etc its all primed and ready to go after IBLT is implemented or large enough block size to handle the scale they want to throw at Bitcoin and force IBLT.

Mike Hearn and the Foundation appears to be captured by those big boys (TPTB).

Blockstream is attempting a rear guard and trying to not give them so much headroom all at once.

Or you might have two factions of the TPTB competing (since the end result if the same for as long as PoW is not fixed).

In any case, I don't really care. It is a morass and needs to be replaced by something that remains truly decentralized long-term.

Peter R

legendary

Activity: 1162

Merit: 1007

Quote from: ?? on ??

Quote from: Peter R on June 15, 2015, 06:03:04 PM

I think I've heard all the arguments, but I still cannot understand the opposition to increasing the blocksize.

I don't have an (maybe I should say: a valid) opinion on the block size debate. I would prefer to err on the side of decentralization, but at this point I'm not even sure what that is. I think magic numbers are a poor solution (but I'm sure they are sometimes necessary).

I'm not afraid of forks, like most people seem to be. I think that everyone should be prepared for how they will deal with possible forks in the future.

What I do know is that after spending a lot of time reading about Bitcoin for the past several years, and getting a feel for some of the people involved, I would prefer to stay far, far away from anything that is related to Mike Hearn. For the life of me, I can't even understand why someone like him is interested in Bitcoin (unless it's to change it into something else entirely). I'm thankful that he has barely touched Bitcoin Core.

So I oppose BitcoinXT, but not necessarily a block size increase.

Disclaimer: I use Mycelium for convenience from time to time and do not know whether or not that is based on any of Hearn's BitcoinJ.

Thanks for commenting, Holliday. I've always valued your opinion.

Yes, what exactly does it mean for bitcoin to be decentralized? In my opinion, the more people using and holding Bitcoin, the more robust the network becomes. For this reason, we should try our best to allow bitcoin to grow. DeathAndTaxes also explains here how absurdly small 1MB is in any sort of success case for bitcoin, and how permanently keeping the 1MB restriction would actually be centralizing.

I now see full-node count as a red herring; the number of full nodes is dropping because we don't need that many full nodes. There's a huge gap between running bitcoin on a raspberry pie and "only the Googles of the world will be able to run bitcoin." According to all my analysis, we are so far away from bitcoin being runnable by "only a few mega corporations," that the "don't-increase-the-blocksize-because-centralization-arguments" come across as hyperbole to me.

TPTB_need_war

sr. member

Activity: 420

Merit: 262

Quote from: Zarathustra on June 16, 2015, 08:00:28 AM

No. A clever writer with charisma (cypherdoc) and hence some more clever thinkers in this thread. A few stalkers are realising it but can't lure them into their own threads. That is the reason why they are here and not elsewhere.

I know how to play that game but I don't waste my time on small potatoes. I am here to change the world, not just for my own personal enrichment (and this will become very clear).

If you only had any clue as to the major coup I have achieved (in the back channels) due to my brief participation in this thread.

I made it very clear I came to thread to propose my solution to this problem and find investors and collaborators (in short an anonymous group). And wow did I!

Soon you will know...

Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. - page 230. (Read 2032248 times)