Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. - page 286. (Read 2032266 times)

and this is fun: NSA errwhere!

> http://imgur.com/a/9CAfo <

how about that freedom^TM act? US people happy?

Also there are so many talented developers in the world who are not even working in the crypto-coin space. I really wish we could broaden the scope of crypto-currency to entice more of them (and again I have something specific in mind).

Pegged side-chains main attribute is to retain BTC value across chains which afaics seems to be a poor value-added proposition. This is a different focus from Ethereum. I had postulated an idea that the way to solve Ethereum's intractable technical issues are to use a merged mined chain for each custom scripting language and let competition decide how to best structure the balance between permissionless and scaling (but such a design may or may not fit their business model).

No thats my point, I dont want it to be political. Bitcoin is apolitical although it certainly threaten lots of policies around the globe.
Lobbying is for people that cant convince by natural essence.
Paying (favoring) some douche to talk about things he does not even grasp (or for the sake of his own business) is hypocrite if not totally undemocratic, so why would you think Bitcoin need such parasites?
Did the TBF lobbyists led bitcoin to +1k$? I dont think so. So lets not loose ourselves in "traditional" means. The problem is people tend to always compare what they where used to and try to apply it to Bitcoin. This is nonsens.

Bitcoin is not about Wall Street, Bitcoin is not about regulation a la Bitlicense, Bitcoin is not about leaders, and Bitcoin is not about lobbying.
Bitcoin is decentralized, Bitcoin is permissionless, Bitcoin is opensource, Bitcoin is antifragile, Bitcoin is Peer-to-Peer, Bitcoin is consensus.

Here we go again on another interesting intellectual discussion with smooth  

Even if we attain fully completed protocols that run entirely decentralized without further oversight from devs, I believe there will be ongoing development of orthogonal wallets and protocols that sit on top of the base protocol which can if widely adopted with the wrong attributes then weaken the decentralization of the base protocol. I realize that if orthogonal designs can weaken the base protocol then the claim of orthogonality is not entirely fulfilled, but a fundamental tenet of computer science is that absolute orthogonality does not exist.

Thus it very unlikely that we will get away from needing to entrust someone with development.

I have a specific development schedule in mind which involves first releasing a base protocol then layering on top of it. Wouldn't it be better to be anonymous so the development goals can be completed rather than being behind bars and unable to contribute?

Even the internet appears to have this issue. The autonomous decentralized base protocols (e.g. TCP/IP, BGP routing, etc) are being subsumed by the public's trust of large corporate portals such as Facebook, Paypal, Google, Yahoo, Coinbase, etc.. However, I do agree with smooth's implied thesis which is that paradigm shifts romp because they are naturally congruent; I think any overthrow of the corporate subsumption of the internet will be such a paradigm shift (and I have one in mind).

The issue of trust of an anonymous lead dev is mostly contingent on the attributes of the effort. Certainly some non-anonymous contributors will arrive on the scene and add veracity to any worthwhile project and they may feel they don't have the liability of being the creator.

Of course I agree with smooth that the best is for the work to be completed and that is the safest for the developer also at this juncture in history where cryptographers are being thrown in jail in the USA and Australia (and probably more countries to enjoin as the global contagion spreads).

It is also probably best to structure protocols and projects such that the most socially contentious portions are orthogonal so that anonymity of the lead dev and the threats are contained to the orthogonal portions.

I have to correct you for a bit here, Monero can be transparant on-demand. I also agree that a fully anonymous coin will probably get into some legal trouble.

If "the network" is (i.e. people are) doing the picking then it has all certainly become a political process, and lobbying is inevitable.

If a political process is what you want, just stick with fiat. It's far more efficient, more functional (arguable, and probably the only item on this list that is), has far stronger network effects, and represents the most legitimate claim as the true global ledger.

The fact that he hasn't spent his huge stack could imply it/he wasn't an independent individual, but a state agency which isn't allowed to spend or sell those coins. A real person that intelligent would've found many good uses for that amount of wealth. If not for himself or his family, then for a charity or other common good cause.

Or then again maybe he just accidentally the whole hard drive.

Im quite passed the personality cults. Bitcoin's strenght (and value, ie. utility) resides in its decentralization. Why we always have to Line up behind leaders? Bitcoin is not about satoshi, and even less about Gavin or Garzik. Let them collude ideas, the network should do the picking regardless of centralized means such as TBF or MIT sponsored research. Its Just that calling for loobying is far below the belt.

Being grounded in solid reasoning is a positive trait, but if it becomes a mono-thought and even worse a reputation debt due to grandiose public displays, then it could be counter to the flexibility required to remain rational.

Some rambling thoughts...

I am usually wary of inflexible, hard-nosed people (because multiple genres of things change, the devil is in the details, and no one is omniscient) and especially if they are playing egotistical mind games and not willing to explain their reasoning amicably and with an open mind. I am flexible enough to be open minded to exceptions.

Perhaps I just haven't understood him. But I think it is likely Uncle Sam will win against MP in the end game (I expect to see him taken down eventually). Perhaps he is making a lot of profit painting the image of himself as a clever in-your-face thorn in the side of the USA regulators, and others flock to his coattails, but I would much prefer a more clever approach of silent action and anonymity. Ideologically I am mostly aligned with his stance, yet I don't see much value in the in-your-face approach (because among other reasons we are not at a juncture in history where there will be mass revolution inspired by a call to Common Sense and this is why the leaders of that in-your-face cohort are less amicable and reasonable than Thomas Paine).

Also I am apparently not that impressed of him as a user interface designer, web page programmer, or I guess programmer in general, based on this way his MPex options market site works (which I haven't viewed within the past year or so). Functionally I understand it may be sufficient for his audience, so I respect his efficiency given the market and game he is playing.

Then I wasn't clear. The only devs that really work in the case of a decentralized cryptocurrecncy are no devs at all. If you have devs you have centralization. As long as we are having the discussion about whether Gavin should do this or Blockstream should do that (and there is a real possibility these things may happen), Bitcoin hasn't accomplished much of anything at all.

When the concept of the lead developer of Bitcoin makes as little sense as the lead developer of sex, then we'll be on to something.

At best, it may be on its way to that, and the same can be said for Monero.

I'm not convinced by the concept of fully anonymous developers in the embryonic stages. We may have gotten lucky with satoshi actually being sincere (though you argue he worked for or was a patsy for the Deep State) but the altcoin experiments have shown us rather conclusively that most anonymous devs are fraudsters and manipulators. That has made the task of any fully anonymous dev getting the trust of an intelligent and mature community, as is certainly needed during those embryonic stages, almost impossible.

Some of the privacy of Monero would be achievable using Bitcoin, but only if everyone changed their operational security methods.
JustusRanvier uses stealth addresses, which privacy would be further improved if he only transacted with others who also do this.  Ring signatures can also theoretically be accomplished albeit with some difficulty by using a client that could support this sort of key signing exchanges.

The problem for privacy remains, however, that since these are not a fundamental part of the protocol and a default for each transaction.  There are limits to the amount of privacy that can be obtained in the face of correlation analysis by a well funded reveal-er of such secrets.

Yes, Monero's privacy has been "measured" (if by "measured" you mean 'mathematically proven') and we thus do know for sure it's better than Bitcoin's.

https://downloads.getmonero.org/whitepaper_review.pdf

It's interesting how people talk about Monero as if we know for sure the privacy achievable in Monero is greater than the privacy achievable in Bitcoin.

Has anyone measured it?

Now we know you've lost it.  Marcus is among the top 10 most intelligent and articulate posters here, just like you used to be.

He's never joined our Monero Fan Club AFAIK.  Perhaps you're confusing him with aminorex (another preeminent mind who has)?

"Vicious name calling?"  Tell your therapist all about how the mean kids refused to let you be the boss of Bitcoin.

You can't handle becoming the butt of harmless jokes and being nicknamed Frap.doc without resorting to playing the "terrorist" card?  Wow...

You are becoming unhinged and need to take a vacation.

Your all-in in support of the Gavinista's 20mb block putsch has been demonstrated to be based on flawed calculations (as tweeted by ptodd and nszabo).

The operator of the largest pool in China is on record schooling Gavin on the stupidity of rushing giant blocks:

https://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg08010.html

That's why Gavin is backpedeling to 8MB.  You should join his retreat, instead of picking the wrong hill to die on (along with your credibility).

Fundamentally, Gavin has assigned himself this problem.  He is diligently canvassing and curating opinions on the problems and methods of resolving them.
It can be frustrating work, but it is fully necessary.

He is getting a lot of help in this effort so it is not merely a contest of wills and personalities.  Also...Both Greg and Gavin are on the same team and not opposed, though their weighting of the priority of tasks may differ, so it is not really so much a matter of winner/loser.

What do you mean by that?

Especially since it was designed to disrupt those who are wanting to disrupt that control system. I am not speculating about intentions; rather I am stating factually what Satoshi's design is and has accomplished.

Edit: the caveat I repeat is that Bitcoin has network effects and the Butterfly effects and serving as a reserve currency of potential altcoins raises the possibility that Bitcoin is a Trojan horse on itself.

Masses trust the herd. Just get the herd moving in one direction and they all follow.

How do we know that named devs aren't working for TPTB? I am nearly sure Gavin is (unwittingly or consciously makes no difference really, he is pragmatic).


That pyramidal network and inertia means we end up entrusting the lead devs based on their past performance, i.e. the source code and market success.

You have implicitly made the case that anonymous lead devs are better than named lead devs.

Well put