Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. - page 234. (Read 2032248 times)

Personally, I'm allergic to 'infallible' beings.  I'm allergic to Mr. Hearn for a lot more reasons than just that however.

I have to agree that Hearn is quite smart.  He foresaw the consolidation of infrastructure long before anyone else and foresaw the opportunities that it could provide for the T-existing-PTB.  And he's worked tirelessly for half a decade to bring this scenario to fruition and set up to help his friends exploit it.

It can be the leverage that causes the protocol to effectively change by replacement of Core. A pegged side chain that is undeniably superior to Bitcoin Core could suck all the BTC out of Core and that pegged side chain could have the spvp implemented. That isn't a guarantee of it happening, but from my perspective the odds are quite high. One of the attributes that raises the odds of such is the resistance to changing the protocol of Core. Thus any undeniably superior tech is unlikely to be politically implementable in Core.

I repeat that a consensus algorithm which can't be 50% attacked has an even better odds of catapulting Core, because it won't be vulnerable in its infancy.

This journey has been like playing a strategy game. I've thoroughly enjoyed it.

---

It is by design above your comprehension level; thus it appears to you to be noise. I'd prefer to appear to be a crackpot to n00bs at this juncture and sage to those with relevant experience and intellect.

For example, the notion of an existential type is I am sure completely incomprehensible to you.


I've corrected you technically several times already upthread. And I did actually point out of one aspect of your technical myopia in my latest rebuttal of you. That you can't detect the technical logic therein is indicative of your inability to comprehend that which is above your level of technical expertise.

---

I did manage to cause conflation of the use of that term, lol.

TPTB's incoherent rantings always remind me of the Sokal Hoax. For those not familiar a well known Physicist submitted a paper to well known journal that was purposely written as a mix of logical fallacies, inconsistencies and just random psycho babble. The paper was accepted and he even presented it to a conference of tenured humanities professors, who at first were nodding in intellectual agreement before it he had to dial up the crazy to the point that everyone got the joke. It demonstrated how a lot of supposidly smart people like to string together complex nonsense that says nothing simply to make them feel smart.

http://www.physics.nyu.edu/faculty/sokal/lingua_franca_v4/lingua_franca_v4.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sokal_affair#Content_of_the_article
http://www.physics.nyu.edu/faculty/sokal/transgress_v2/transgress_v2_singlefile.html

Read the paper for fun. Now tell me that it doesn't sound a lot like TPTB's rantings.

Oh, and TPTB, the reason I haven't replied to you before is because you are the one and only ignore I have. Just took it off (temporarily) to see if I should change that. Still see there is nothing to respond to. Your posts are nothing but personal attacks that do not even attempt to say anything factual, just put downs and statements about how your right because you are smarter than everyone else.

Mike Hearn's infallible logic:

http://sourceforge.net/p/bitcoin/mailman/message/34206292/

bottomline is you skeptics can disrespect him all day long but the smart among us will listen and think about the content of what he says.

Looks to my like Maxwell and the Blockstream guys are fighting a rear-guard battle to keep Bitcoin relevant in spite of both severe deficiencies which are evident after half a decade of practice and after significant internal attacks by quasi-devs.  Bitcoin functioning in a role which hides it's deficiencies and allows it to leverage it's strengths is the best way to achieve this IMO.  That is exactly what Blockstream is doing as I see it.

I might add that you never seem to miss an opportunity to try to put words in Maxwell's mouth.  He didn't indicate that he wanted to see a superior system develop but rather that it is possible.  It's ME who is saying that I may well be interested in both seeing it happen and to see Blockstream do it.  If nothing else it would be outstanding insurance against scumbags like Hearn.


Slight correction:  I'm not talking about migrating an 'SC'.  I'll use SC's no matter what.  I'm talking about migrating to a different reserve currency if you guys manage to torpedo Bitcoin.  It's mostly that I'm not going to follow the herd off the cliff.  It's not my nature.  Beyond that, no, I'm not married to Bitcoin or any particular implementation thereof.  I've got general ideas about what I want distributed crypto-currencies to achieve and they are more critical to me than any particular implementation.

I see Blockstream as a unique point in time when an unusual bubble of participants who I have some confidence in has developed.  Although my confidence in them is not where I would ideally like it to be, there will probably never be another time when I can have the same degree of confidence in a particular group.  Nor will there probably be a situation where the scumbag contingent is so evident and prone to trigger an opportunity like the XT fork.


Bitcoin has remained viable on the back of subsidization as much as any, but it's got first-mover advantage which has allowed it to survive better than most.  I'm not willing to bet my stash on the hope that the VC pockets never run dry.  I've put some of their money in my pocket already and don't expect that they'll welcome an indefinite repeat of this process.

You've consistently stated incorrect technical conclusions upthread which I have corrected. I won't even bother to unravel your convoluted errors on this one...

I suppose that is why this thread does not exist in "Development & Technical Discussion" because it would be moderated so heavily because most of what is written in this thread is technical nonsense.

If your argument is not (unwittingly?) intended to obfuscate that you want a centralized Bitcoin that is controlled by vested interests, then just state it rather than attempting to hide behind your lack of appreciation of all the technical and economic issues, such as but not limited to out-of-band incentives (game theory) which invalidate the Nash equilibrium and the notion of "trustless" centralized full nodes and pools.

If you are intending to couch behind the "it's not clear" meaning you have have no point, then please admit it rather than use your uncertainty as an argument for one side of the debate.

This is one of the many reason societies that emphasize hard work, self reliance, self sufficiency and individualism continue to succeed over those that don't. Just imagine the suffering that would happen in the US if suddenly the government could no longer provide unlimited food stamps, section 9 housing, welfare, disability, etc. None of these things existed 100 years ago in the US, yet the US still had the highest standard of living at the time. These programs simply build dependency, and no one who promotes them ever stops to think about what will happen when they eventually become unsustainable.

One, how is modern mining (i.e. stratum miners connected to large pools) in any manner affected by blocksize? You have claimed multiple times that 20MB blocks will negatively impact mining decentralization, but then ignore all counter arguments outlining how that position is baseless.

Two, how is the current mining & node ecosystem a failure? Satoshi clearly thought there would be centralization over time, it's not clear that today's environment of a small number of full trustless participants (full nodes and pools) and a large number of individual trusting users (SPV users and stratum miners) differs from the centralization Satoshi said should happen over time.

There never was any insurance, it was theft from the beginning

I doubt we will have to wait that long. I believe I am in possession of a significant component of that formula now. Fortunately because of pegged side chains even (if only via federated servers), this formula should be coming to all those who HODL BTC.

Cypherdoc, you are a fool for fighting futility against[1] what is going to save your BTC a$$ BTCutt this year.

Gregory, this block size debate is really just noise and it will be subsumed soon no matter the outcome. Therefor my suggestion is just let them bang their pots and pans together (they must be Italian, lol) and carry on with your important work please.

Also there are bigger picture network effects that have a more high level relevance to decentralization ecosystems.

I haven't fully digested the Blockstream whitepaper. Would you or anyone be so kind as to clarify how pegged side chains won't be prone to fractional reserve debasement:


Are users going to be expected to trust peer review of the open source of each side chain to know whether the side chain debases its pegged monetary unit?


[1] Or unwittingly conflating your irrelevant fight for block size increase when you ad hominem the devs of the pegged side chains tech you will de$BTCerately need to deal with a black swan.

---

This argument even exists because either direction on the block side decision is flawed, that is if we only are stuck with the current PoW algorithm.

But pegged side chains enable the ability to transfer BTC value to new consensus algorithms (and not just variants of PoS) that paradigm shift out of the mutual annihilation scenario.

which is why i find Blythe Master's recent involvement in Bitcoin to be extremely bullish.  this is the lady who created the CDS which was a big part of the 2008 crisis and probably any future crisis. she understand money and especially how to exploit it.  if she fails to see any exploit in Bitcoin, what does that say for it's future?  i suppose there is a possibility that she thinks she sees an exploit, which may explain her talking about "blockchain" as opposed to "bitcoin".  but that would be ok too, as long as she is bullish on Bitcoin, which she is.  if she is bullish on Bitcoin, i fail to see how anyone else could not be. 

back to the part about houses on fire.  Warren Buffett described CDS as WMD.  i love his example of how if someone else is allowed to buy an insurance on your house, he has a significant motivation to drop a few matches around your house.  if Blockstream has an insurance policy/investment in SC tech, maybe they'd be more likely to drop a few matches around the MC in the form of a 1MB choke point?

thanks for highlighting that pt.  it clearly shows that i am correct in assuming that gmax is a Bitcoin Bear.  but instead of working on improving Bitcoin proper, he wants to create SC's that shunt all value units out of the mainchain initially then all mining fees eventually.  the key to me that he subconsciously knows this is his objections to raising beyond 1MB which would kill his for profit project.

the mere fact that you would "consider" migrating your BTC over to a superior SC makes my pt even further.  that would destroy all of us who have value stored away in cold wallets.  the exchange rates on which chain  appeared to be headed for obsolescence (MC vs SC) would be sold off en masse and along with it, mining hashrate would wither, thus making your ability to migrate through the 2wp close to impossible as your coins have to be mined into a tx proof with enough POW to be valid.

and as for your assertion that Bitcoin is not doing well after 6y?  are you kidding me?  it's doing great.  with Ripple Bank out of the way, with Ethereum appearing to have run out of money, all that is left is for Bitcoin to shed this Blockstream SC 1MB noose around our neck for it to take off to the races.

I think this is utterly wrong.

First of, the "Govt" NEVER supplied "free" services, the Insurance you've paid with your OWN money did. When the Banksters took your insurance money via "political decisions" to cover their margins from the infinite loan river they were running a couple of decades ago, this is not "saving your country's insurance system" this is plain, undeniable THEFT.

Second, the myth of "nationalizing" "private" debt. Never was, never is, never will be. This is THEFT! What happened here is happening all over the EU and (if Greece doesn't stop it) it will be the next canon in the whole world. Keep an eye how this evolves. Maybe it's your neighbour's house that's on fire...

Cheers.

Government supplied "free" services always sound great in the beginning, but when the government runs out of money nobody is remembers how to take care of themselves the way they did before the "free" services showed up.

I hope so too for you guys.  Go bankrupt -- I believe that that is an inalienable right because the inability to do so results in slavery -- once termed "sharecropping" in the US, but today I think its commonly called "wage slavery".  You seem to be an entire country in wage slavery right now and honestly the people who need to feel the repercussions of the mistakes that led to that are yourselves (done -- you've been bearing the brunt of for years) and your creditors (who so far have escaped unscathed).

Repudiate the debt but don't give the keys to the currency printing presses to your government.  I do not think that they have shown to be responsible enough to handle them.  They may attempt to take them, but you -- every individual -- needs to simply refuse to transact in the new Drachma.  The result would be Venezuela -- and the result of the Venezuela socialist experiment is ironically a 100%-capitalist black market economy (in practice), with an additional leech-class that sucks the value out of the country via artificial commodity to currency exchange rates only available to the politically connected.  You are seeing this to some degree now -- you can't get medical treatment unless you pay under the table in advance in cash.  Imagine that for absolutely everything that can be bought, not that much will be available for sale.   Instead of allowing the above, continue to use Euro, or move to USD (without a local central bank to create monetary units), and keep introducing people to Bitcoin.  I think Ecuador (for one) follows this model using the USD as its main currency unit.

Moving to Bitcoin would actually be best long term since the monetary supply inflation of the Euro or USD will end up being spent not-in-Greece, resulting in essentially a 2-5% yearly tax.  But right now using Bitcoin seems unlikely -- Bitcoin's supply inflation is higher than fiat currencies right now, and asking a country to adopt it en-masse seems far-fetched given Bitcoin's current adoption rate and scalability issues.

The sooner the better.  Look at Iceland now.

Dow down - 178

Yes, they lie and manipulate news.

I can confirm, this is the story. I've recently had to go to a hospital for a family member and the situation there is awful. If you don't have the money to handle your own medicine, you literally die. The situation is far worse with people who face a critical medical situation (ie: cancer patients). The medicines they apply to them are presented as "similar" but it's nowhere near that. The chemical compounds are in different percentage, not to mention the questionable process (and country) they're made.

As a Greek, I hope for an exit. I wish it would happen in 2009 - we would've been in the phase of economic rising rather than recession by now...

I guess the chance is more than good

If someone could control that information flow, they could play the market multiple times before they eventually pulled out, just before the carnage.