Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. - page 260. (Read 2032248 times)

I also commit grammatical and spelling errors when I am in a rush. I have often said I am inside Armstrong's head because there are so many parallels in our abilities and experience. But he is in his mid to late 50s, and I am still 49 for a few more days. And he was a hedge fund manager for the Japanese postal fund and I have been a programmer except from 2006 to 2012 I was a silver investor as I dug down into the rabbit hole that September 11, 2001 forced me to wake up to. I was in my birth place New Orleans, LA on that infamous day because my eye surgeon was there.

Btw I called the top of the silver price within a few pennies. Ask former Hommel forum members such as rpietila (or he might have been gone by then).

I didn't start emailing Armstrong until 2012 or 2013. It was his call for gold to peak and decline from 2011 (which I didn't discover until 2012) and his call around August 2012 for the DJIA to continue its bull market heading eventually to potentially 39,000 that really struck me. He has since explained that the DJIA inverted to align with private assets (formerly aligned with public assets, i.e. sovereign bonds) and thus will have a correction before Oct 2015 and then head for those nosebleed levels in 2017 as private capital and the international dollar short heads back safe haven home.

I am also on a US citizen, not a permanent resident, and thus subject to passport cancellation and deportation.

Both are true. You are the jackass.

I want to talk with you. I want to see you on cam also. I want to try to explain to you why you need to stop your Dunning Kruger presumptions.

But you don't want to talk. You just want to capture my image from the web cam.

You know why we programmers don't make 3000 BTC on defrauding our fellow community? Because we are enjoying too much the challenge of doing. And we see through such simpleton thought processes that you use to lure in naive investors to your trap. Thus we don't have the conscience to do what you do. I suppose your ignorance helps you manage your conscience.

Fuck man I told you 100 pages upthread that big blocks favor large centralized mining because of the equation that determines orphan rate says the orphan rate increases with the propagation delay. Then you retorted that IBLT resolves that, and I said yes but IBLT requires all miners to see all transactions and agree thus is centralization of the network bandwidth requirements.

Then you go over to Reddit and reargue the same nonsense that I had already explained to you is illogical. Then you write here that programmers use too much logic and not enough double-blind surveys.

Fuck man get off our lawn already!

the markets will go with the economic majority which is reflected in at least 3 polls of 75-95% Gavin support.  and from what i've read of the Chinese miners, they do agree with larger blocks, it's just a matter of degree.  i'm sure they will come along with whatever the economic majority decide.

and what do you care?  you're a Monero pimp.

That comment is at best unclear except for the content-free insults, and at worst incoherent and rambling in the frothy manner of a crank like Anonymint.



We've just this last week heard from several people who are bigger than MPEX, run the worlds largest mines/pools/exchanges in Asia, and do want GavinCoin implemented at this time nor in Gavin's sneaky, haughty, high-handed manner.

MPEX may have invented the GavinCoin Short, but it will be far from the only exchange using it to nuke the Gavinstas' trollfork from space.

One of the main tenets of successful bargaining, you don't start out with your final offer. Compromise doesn't magically begin at the optimal agreement.

It was easily guessed that such a suggestion would start a rift, that the ensuing debate would take a long time. And in any case, would not being implemented until mid 2016.

There's also the desire to give enough headroom to have plenty of time after it is implemented to discuss a more permanent solution.

those are big words, iCE.  i'm sure there is someone around who is bigger than him.

Your dedication to the study of Lord Satoshi's Sacred Words is commendable.

Then hard money, anti-central authority (AKA BIS) aspects of Bitcoin follow a long tradition of bimetallism advocacy and hostility to fiat.

Central bank vs central authority in this context is a distinction without a difference.

I value Satoshi's apt 'gold coin' metaphor.  People traditionally use gold coins to store wealth and perhaps for major expenses.  Gold scales up nicely, from occasional retail use to constant commercial/institutional market churn and international settlement.

But we don't (even under a gold standard) directly use gold coins to buy coffee, pizza, and lottery tickets.  And neither should Bitcoin Core be expected to directly grace the palms of every neckbeard in every basement under every continent.  That was the right thing back in the early days.  Now it's time for Core to move from the suburban garage/basement to the financial district, where rent/sq/ft is much higher (IE not free thanks to mom).

Blockchain technology may someday leapfrog existing/centralized/specialized Visa-scale infrastructure, but it won't be anytime soon and it won't be accomplished by simply making the blocks bigger and bigger.

With its low tps and highly variant 10 minute average blocks, Bitcoin was clearly not designed for real-time point of sale.

If you want to fork Bitcoin into what gmax calls "yet another centralized payment rail" go right ahead.

But please don't try to gamble with everyone else's CoreCoins.  There is a good chance neither fork will survive MPEX's GavinCoin short.

notice how none of the Blockstream devs come in to the thread on Reddit, where we know they hang out, to challenge me on this.  i'm sure they were there b/c i got plenty of downvotes as a result of the post which you can see me laugh at in a follow up post underneath:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/38os22/chinese_exchanges_reject_gavin_andresens_20_mb/crwqxai

so if better connections are no longer correlated with size, then the attack doesn't work b/c size was supposed to allow them to press their advantage in forming follow on blocks quickly before smaller miners could digest/process the large block attack.

and you know what?  from the beginning, even before we found out about the large Chinese miners, i said this is a highly dubious attack that any such large miner should want to perform.  large blocks do not change the fact that miners will want first and foremost the block reward and should only continue to form the smallest, most efficiently propagating blocks they can so as not to be orphaned.  an attacker still risks losing their entire hardware investment by destroying the system in which they participate.  i've contended that the blonde in the Governing Dynamics video from John Nash is equivalent to either the the selfish or 51% miner attack.  they won't do it b/c all miners want to get laid.

and you're just creating FUD.

what evidence is there that there would be a shift in just who the large miners will be?  maybe there won't be any.  maybe there will be a shift so there are no large miners and everyone is equal.  what we do know now is that there won't be the immediate large miner, large block attack all you guys have been FUD'ing about.

They'll just switch to saying "well-connected miners will torment not-well-connected miners."

Again you are missing the point. It isn't who are the largest miners today with 1 MB blocks, it is who would be the largest or only miners and node operators with 20 MB blocks.

I think the woman trying to smuggle the bitcoins into Russia (in her ...) was the most interesting news I've seen for a while. How many other people are evading capital controls with brain wallets and not getting caught? How long until that becomes widespread?

b/c i just debunked the main spam attack the Blockstream devs have been scaring everyone with:

That's right, but 20 MB is way beyond the technological curve right now and for the next few years at least. It is premature.

Why did satoshi put the 1 MB cap in there in the first place? It was an "anti-spam" function, but why was it important to protect against this sort of spam?

Because the technological curve wasn't up to the task of operating a decentralized consensus system with >1 MB blocks and allowing spam beyond that point would be to allow a successful attack against the system. If it wasn't up to the task of >1 MB a few years ago, what makes anyone think it is up to the task of 20 MB now? It wasn't and it isn't.

thanks for that.  one slight correction above.  in order for that African kid to be willing to replace his desire and faith in gold he will need to be able to transact reliably, cheaply, and safely with Bitcoin.  we actually want all those kids to stop having or wanting to go down 3 ft wide holes 100 yd deep going after a hunk of metal.  now that would be grassroots and the ultimate in decentralization that no bank or gvt could ever shutdown.

I agree.  I also like your example of the African kid who has to witness--with his own eyes--Bitcoin getting him the things he wants, before he'll ever be able to fathom that those digits on his phone are more valuable than the paper notes his father uses to purchase food from the market, or the little diamonds he once saw a man killed for.

We're not as smart as we think.  We need to see, touch, and experience something before we can really understand that thing.  You can't learn to ski by reading online tutorials--no matter how well you think you grok body mechanics and the laws of physics.  Similarly, the world will only understand (and come to appreciate) bitcoin by getting out there and using it.