Author

Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. - page 299. (Read 2032266 times)

legendary
Activity: 1764
Merit: 1002
May 31, 2015, 12:46:50 PM
Dont you think there's something off, as in your brain,  in you continually berating me about thousands of years of sheeples being manipulated, no chance that Bitcoin can change anything, yet you coming in here and telling us that for $10000 you will let us in on your altcoin that WILL change everything?

When debate on the merits has been conceded, the loser often resorts to character assassination.

Bitcoin will surely change some things, and I assert not all for the better. I never claimed Bitcoin was a /dev/null event and in fact argued that it is a monumental event.

I doubt anything I or others might attempt would change everything. Experiments are experiments. And I have no delusion about changing everything. I might hope to make some positive contribution if after more thought it is concluded that moving forward is viable and wise.

I support Bitcoin because for every 100 masses we introduce to crypto-currency, maybe 1 will awaken and be an important ally. I have repeatedly said I support spreading Bitcoin because it adds to the capital base (remember capital is not money, but the productive capacity).

I view Bitcoin as the scattershot coin (assuming iCe et al lose[1]). I entertain the hope and ideas about potential anonymity and decentralized focused altcoin(s) that serve vertical (hopefully horizontal growth) markets.

In short, "you can't do just one thing" and this applies to anything TPTB create as well. There is always a reactive force and seepage.

[1] I have entertained the thought that Coinbase, Paypal, etc might prefer a 1MB limit because it would push transactions to offchain. But I doubt that is their overriding calculus.


Edit: the many readers I and others have been able to touch (including our dialogue here) is one of the seepage effects Bitcoin is causing. I do not assert that Bitcoin has no positive effects. I've been derogatory on the overriding effect of Bitcoin on the masses. You are correct to call me out and get me to clarify this point.

what a bunch of dissembling, conflicted, and illogical bullshit.
sr. member
Activity: 420
Merit: 262
May 31, 2015, 08:59:09 AM
Dont you think there's something off, as in your brain,  in you continually berating me about thousands of years of sheeples being manipulated, no chance that Bitcoin can change anything, yet you coming in here and telling us that for $10000 you will let us in on your altcoin that WILL change everything?

When debate on the merits has been conceded, the loser often resorts to character assassination.

Bitcoin will surely change some things, and I assert not all for the better. I never claimed Bitcoin was a /dev/null event and in fact argued that it is a monumental event.

I doubt anything I or others might attempt would change everything. Experiments are experiments. And I have no delusion about changing everything. I might hope to make some positive contribution if after more thought it is concluded that moving forward is viable and wise.

I support Bitcoin because for every 100 masses we introduce to crypto-currency, maybe 1 will awaken and be an important ally. I have repeatedly said I support spreading Bitcoin because it adds to the capital base (remember capital is not money, but the productive capacity).

I view Bitcoin as the scattershot coin (assuming iCe et al lose[1]). I entertain the hope and ideas about potential anonymity and decentralized focused altcoin(s) that serve vertical (hopefully horizontal growth) markets.

In short, "you can't do just one thing" and this applies to anything TPTB create as well. There is always a reactive force and seepage.

[1] I have entertained the thought that Coinbase, Paypal, etc might prefer a 1MB limit because it would push transactions to offchain. But I doubt that is their overriding calculus.


Edit: the many readers I and others have been able to touch (including our dialogue here) is one of the seepage effects Bitcoin is causing. I do not assert that Bitcoin has no positive effects. I've been derogatory on the overriding effect of Bitcoin on the masses. You are correct to call me out and get me to clarify this point.
legendary
Activity: 1764
Merit: 1002
May 31, 2015, 08:52:50 AM
So iCE. Are you working for Blockstream?

I'm working for Nick Szabo.  That's why I asked you to calm down and stop exaggerating.

Blockstream will hire me right after recruiting Mircea.  Any second now...   Cheesy

You got a lot of balls aligning yourself with clown Mircea. Actually I don't have anything against him but he acts like one.
legendary
Activity: 1764
Merit: 1002
May 31, 2015, 08:45:59 AM
legendary
Activity: 1512
Merit: 1005
May 31, 2015, 07:54:03 AM
I don't care about 21 Inc, currently, to me, they are just big talkers.

TPTB count on that apathy (and unfalsifiable individual overconfidence) and inability to understand they work on timeframes that are longer than typical attention spans.

The DEEP STATE is not incompetent. The creation of Bitcoin is a prime example of their competence. 9/11, the War on Terror, and FATCA are more examples.

If you don't respect your enemy, you will not defeat him. And that includes Satan w.r.t. to self-destruction.

I agree on that principle. In stead of regarding them as omnipotent, assess their capabilities and act accordingly.
sr. member
Activity: 420
Merit: 262
May 31, 2015, 07:33:53 AM
Your belief in the divine powers of government is astonishing, in light of all the insights you have shown.

I believe I have a reasonable grasp of the DEEP STATE's (not the government), i.e. TPTB's, strengths and weaknesses.

Execution with military precision of intricate, high-capitalization, long-range plans with numerous competing experiments floated is a strength.

Lack of omniscience and spontaneous innovation are their Achilles Heel because they must maintain control and compartmentalization on who they employ.

In other words, they can be defeated with a Black Swan. They can also be defeated because their strength originates from reducing prosperity, e.g. the NWO paradigm is not competitive to the Knowledge Age paradigm.

The government is intentionally incompetent.
legendary
Activity: 1512
Merit: 1005
May 31, 2015, 07:14:53 AM
And you all thought Bitcoin is inspiring the masses to change the system...

2. he was using bitcoin and not fiat ie he was successfully running a commercial operation with bitcoin. This is good news. It was however found what he was connected to (drugs etc) was against the law so he is off to prison but he would have gone to prison for doing the same things using fiat.

Bitcoin's raison d'être is to be a xerox of fiat in the sense of allowing the government to regulate commerce and legal tender? I thought Bitcoin was supposed to enable permission-less commerce.

Never mind the small details. Carry on.

I do no think there has ever been "permission-less' commerce nor will there ever be. For example, governments run on tax revenue so they are always going to put things in place to collect some from commercial activities. They expect even illegal activities to declare taxable income. So if trading with Bitcoin or fiat the tax man cometh.

You are free (ie do not need permission) to set up silk road 3.0 and start trading anytime you like. By using bitcoin you can send and receive funds that do not go through permission based entities (eg banks). Just do not expect governments to do nothing, They react to fiat based activities so they will do the same for bitcoin eg in my country the tax man carries out snap audits of house painters that are doing all their jobs for cash with homeowners so they can to avoid sales and income tax.

And after the tax man comes the law enforcers. Governments are not good ie efficient or effective at controlling things but they love to do so - and will dedicate lots of resources to it. So if you take up being the new Ross then you had better be more nimble than he was.

My point is then WTF are we creating Bitcoin for then if the permission-less quality is not that viable? (note that if the State can track you down as they did to Ross, then they can surely regulate Bitcoin and remove the permission-less quality)

So we can track ourselves in a public ledger and create the Digital Kill Switch (i.e. blacklisting individuals who the State doesn't like) that didn't exist before with cash.

My underlying motivation is I think we need a more anonymous system (and more surely decentralized so it doesn't devolve).

Your belief in the divine powers of government is astonishing, in light of all the insights you have shown.
legendary
Activity: 1260
Merit: 1008
May 31, 2015, 06:40:58 AM
Gavin's plan to break stagnation seems to have worked. Gregory Maxwell has proposed a blocksize increase plan (in a manner of speaking).

Any pointer to such proposal?
sr. member
Activity: 420
Merit: 262
May 31, 2015, 06:32:41 AM
And you all thought Bitcoin is inspiring the masses to change the system...

2. he was using bitcoin and not fiat ie he was successfully running a commercial operation with bitcoin. This is good news. It was however found what he was connected to (drugs etc) was against the law so he is off to prison but he would have gone to prison for doing the same things using fiat.

Bitcoin's raison d'être is to be a xerox of fiat in the sense of allowing the government to regulate commerce and legal tender? I thought Bitcoin was supposed to enable permission-less commerce.

Never mind the small details. Carry on.

I do no think there has ever been "permission-less' commerce nor will there ever be. For example, governments run on tax revenue so they are always going to put things in place to collect some from commercial activities. They expect even illegal activities to declare taxable income. So if trading with Bitcoin or fiat the tax man cometh.

You are free (ie do not need permission) to set up silk road 3.0 and start trading anytime you like. By using bitcoin you can send and receive funds that do not go through permission based entities (eg banks). Just do not expect governments to do nothing, They react to fiat based activities so they will do the same for bitcoin eg in my country the tax man carries out snap audits of house painters that are doing all their jobs for cash with homeowners so they can to avoid sales and income tax.

And after the tax man comes the law enforcers. Governments are not good ie efficient or effective at controlling things but they love to do so - and will dedicate lots of resources to it. So if you take up being the new Ross then you had better be more nimble than he was.

My point is then WTF are we creating Bitcoin for then if the permission-less quality is not that viable? (note that if the State can track you down as they did to Ross, then they can surely regulate Bitcoin and remove the permission-less quality)

So we can track ourselves in a public ledger and create the Digital Kill Switch (i.e. blacklisting individuals who the State doesn't like) that didn't exist before with cash.

My underlying motivation is I think we need a more anonymous system (and more surely decentralized so it doesn't devolve).
legendary
Activity: 1512
Merit: 1005
May 31, 2015, 06:28:41 AM
With fiat, you could say that the dollar paper rectangles are the money, corresponding to bitcoins, and the physical movement of the paper rectangles to another person giving him ownership, corresponds to a blockchain transaction.

With that in mind, the banks, the visas and mastercards, the central banks, the imf and the bis are all off chain systems enabling large, quick, and cheap transactions that ideally should all be executed with the rectangles. There is third party dependence, risk of no confirmation or late confirmation, risk of third party going bust, risk of information leak, risk of confiscation and so on. We do use it, because the cost of transacting with on chain paper rectangles cost too much and are sometimes also time consuming, have risk of theft, confiscation and so on.

Just compare localbitcoins online trading with fiat cash trading. An online trade can be done in five minutes if you are lucky and the counterparty is close to his terminal. A cash trade includes making an appointment that is acceptable to both, driving somewhere for a cost, parking somewhere for a cost.

So in the current fiat regime, you mostly depend on off chain systems, to the degree that the fiat paper rectangle blockchain is about to be disbanded. And the fiat paper rectangle blockchain is already centralized and taken over by rogue forces.

In bitcoin, the third party services will have to be restrained by the market, they can focus of one end of the transaction only, lower barriers to entry, less capital needed, basically they can be more decentralized than the current off chain services. Still the base system can not be taken over and monopolized. So I am not afraid of centralization, not even in third party services.

sr. member
Activity: 420
Merit: 262
May 31, 2015, 06:19:34 AM
I don't care about 21 Inc, currently, to me, they are just big talkers.

TPTB count on that apathy (and unfalsifiable individual overconfidence) and inability to understand they work on timeframes that are longer than typical attention spans.

The DEEP STATE is not incompetent. The creation of Bitcoin is a prime example of their competence. 9/11, the War on Terror, and FATCA are more examples.

If you don't respect your enemy, you will not defeat him. And that includes Satan w.r.t. to self-destruction.
legendary
Activity: 1512
Merit: 1005
May 31, 2015, 06:13:03 AM
I don't care about 21 Inc, currently, to me, they are just big talkers.
sr. member
Activity: 420
Merit: 262
May 31, 2015, 06:07:32 AM
You are wrong about centralization. There is not a general tendency towards centralization. Centralization is the tool of the violent.

I don't see either your technical refutation of my technical analysis of why Bitcoin is centralizing. The logical implication you intended for your last sentence is vacuous or incomplete articulation (care to elaborate?).

Eventually, in your own ability to make things happen.

Well I agree that there is a reasonable chance the free market will overcome, e.g. with altcoins. I am just arguing Bitcoin is not the total solution. I have also said I support Bitcoin as it broadens the capital base in this crypto economy.

You make some good points, and bitcoin is not a divine force. But the invention solved the single problem that has plagued cryptocurrencies since the invention of public key cryptography in 1978. For 30 years, people have tried to apply it to make a practical crypto money system, and satoshi solved the puzzle.

Not only that but "he" implemented it, which I assume you agree is the more important accomplishment.

Mining is a competitive business with a very low barrier to entry.

You can try to improve it, and the market will choose the best systems. My bet is on bitcoin.

The last part of the first sentence is a very astute point. PoW is how we can widely distribute coins competitively with very low barrier to entry (especially if the CPU is not challenged by ASICs yet).

And the low barrier to entry is also a salient point  (but not the only requirement) for sustaining decentralization. On the second sentence I believe I stumbled onto a solution to the puzzle which is a radical improvement that lowers the barrier to entry much closer to 0 and foils entirely the 21 Inc business model.

As one of my supporters wrote to me today in Bitmessage, "release the tech, then they will come to secure their spot" (paraphrased)

I am still not sure though. I need to spend more time to evaluate what I think it realistic (not the design, but the logistics of producing a coin and avoiding trouble with the law).

Anyone sacrificing a part of the profit, however small, for something that is not just finding blocks and include transactions, will lose. A resourceful rogue force ready to sacrifice a large sum of money to change its direction, will also lose, because he is dependant on the users following, and they will follow only if the new money is better for them.

You forgot the 21 Inc model makes them the lowest cost supplier of hash cycles and the users have the incentive of discounts on heating devices and smartphones. That scales to the point that they have ~100% of the hashrate. Economies-of-scale and access to massive amounts of capital and cartel alliances (e.g. marriage with Samsung and telcoms) required to pull this off means they won't have any competition.
legendary
Activity: 1512
Merit: 1005
May 31, 2015, 04:58:21 AM
You are wrong about centralization. There is not a general tendency towards centralization. Centralization is the tool of the violent.

I don't see either your technical refutation of my technical analysis of why Bitcoin is centralizing. The logical implication you intended for your last sentence is vacuous or incomplete articulation (care to elaborate?).

Eventually, in your own ability to make things happen.

Well I agree that there is a reasonable chance the free market will overcome, e.g. with altcoins. I am just arguing Bitcoin is not the total solution. I have also said I support Bitcoin as it broadens the capital base in this crypto economy.

You make some good points, and bitcoin is not a divine force. But the invention solved the single problem that has plagued cryptocurrencies since the invention of public key cryptography in 1978. For 30 years, people have tried to apply it to make a practical crypto money system, and satoshi solved the puzzle.

Mining is a competitive business with a very low barrier to entry. Anyone sacrificing a part of the profit, however small, for something that is not just finding blocks and include transactions, will lose. A resourceful rogue force ready to sacrifice a large sum of money to change its direction, will also lose, because he is dependant on the users following, and they will follow only if the new money is better for them.

You can try to improve it, and the market will choose the best systems. My bet is on bitcoin.

legendary
Activity: 1036
Merit: 1000
May 31, 2015, 04:55:23 AM
Gavin's plan to break stagnation seems to have worked. Gregory Maxwell has proposed a blocksize increase plan (in a manner of speaking).
sr. member
Activity: 420
Merit: 262
May 31, 2015, 04:27:14 AM
I'm working for Nick Szabo.

Doing what? Or can you at least clarify if it is programming or not? Are you a programmer?

Was I correct with my upthread assumption that Nick Szabo could not have been Satoshi because (among other possible reasons) in his Bitgold essay he was still bothered by the inability to insure the proposed crypto system couldn't be centralized?
legendary
Activity: 2156
Merit: 1072
Crypto is the separation of Power and State.
May 31, 2015, 04:24:55 AM
So iCE. Are you working for Blockstream?

I'm working for Nick Szabo.  That's why I asked you to calm down and stop exaggerating.

Blockstream will hire me right after recruiting Mircea.  Any second now...   Cheesy
sr. member
Activity: 420
Merit: 262
May 31, 2015, 04:18:31 AM
And the following is an example of the masses who are waking up as they discover Bitcoin?

2. he was using bitcoin and not fiat ie he was successfully running a commercial operation with bitcoin. This is good news. It was however found what he was connected to (drugs etc) was against the law so he is off to prison but he would have gone to prison for doing the same things using fiat.

Bitcoin's raison d'être is to be a xerox of fiat in the sense of allowing the government to regulate commerce and legal tender? I thought Bitcoin was supposed to enable permission-less commerce.

Never mind the small details. Carry on.
sr. member
Activity: 420
Merit: 262
May 31, 2015, 04:17:02 AM
You are wrong about centralization. There is not a general tendency towards centralization. Centralization is the tool of the violent.

I don't see either your technical refutation of my technical analysis of why Bitcoin is centralizing. The logical implication you intended for your last sentence is vacuous or incomplete articulation (care to elaborate?).

Eventually, in your own ability to make things happen.

Well I agree that there is a reasonable chance the free market will overcome, e.g. with altcoins. I am just arguing Bitcoin is not the total solution. I have also said I support Bitcoin as it broadens the capital base in this crypto economy.
legendary
Activity: 1512
Merit: 1005
May 31, 2015, 04:08:22 AM
now that we have money types that can navigate around these monopolies

Which money can resist takeover by centralization?

Sorry I don't see any such money that exists, not even gold.

Bitcoin has resisted takeover so far. A monopoly can not exist in the free market, there is always someone who eats from the edge of your plate. Monopoly can exist only by using violence. I don't see that it can exist in mining. The competition is merciless. The loss of productivity from unfreeness will immediately remove governmental miners from the scene.

Have some faith.

 Huh

Faith in what? Faith in ignoring my analysis?

[...]


Eventually, in your own ability to make things happen.

I have not read all of your writings in detail, it was too much a point. You are wrong about centralization. There is not a general tendency towards centralization. Centralization is the tool of the violent.


Jump to: