Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. - page 305. (Read 2032266 times)

Cypherdoc please answer me. I really want to understand your reasoning. It is important and impacts my decision process.

Justus et al, please also chime in. I want to understand the model you all have in mind of how Bitcoin changes the world.

Not 700?

Edit:  oops. I even took the time to think about the numbers yet stillput on  the percentag sign . 

Cypherdoc please help me understand you (and others like you).

How do you envision the growth of Bitcoin changing the way sufficient other people behave or think such that this would avoid the current system wherein the individual incentives are aligned with the cartels and oligarchs (a.k.a. the 0.0001%, banksters or TPTB) in a socialism+totalitarian cancer?

My assertion to Justus upthread (on this page) is that the masses don't change via education nor by evolution, rather only by the revolution of suffering a dead end in the road.

Icebreaker seems to think that the minority can impose their will on the majority, but he needs to consider that the upper 0.01% gain their power by aligning their incentives with the lower 50% in collectivism. His minority (which is my minority, i.e. We The Upper Middle Class Knowledge Age Producers) which is perhaps the upper 0.1% or so, will not succeed for as long as we do not align ourselves with a greater proportion of the middle class (the upper 50%).

My plans going forward in crypto (if I do proceed) are about forming that middle class alliance that can lead to overtaking Bitcoin by 2033 as Bitcoin falls into the NWO morass of the 0.01% + lower 50%.

Cypherdoc you and others seem to think Bitcoin can somehow escape that morass of the 0.01% + lower 50%. How so?

---

Obviously it was a "rough" number. It would great if they would both clarify which demographics they are referring to.

Note when I write 0.01% there are is also another upper 1+% or so of the Middle Class that align themselves opportunitistically but this can shift if they shift allegiances. And this is why the TPTB wish to destroy the millionaires, because they are the "parasites" (from the elite's perspective) that drive antifragility (with shifting allegiance) and defy the totalitarian control of the elite.

0.0000001% of the world's population is only 7 people, you know 

Direct use of BTC by >0.0000001% of the world's population isn't necessary nor supportable.

Indirect usage is.  Plenty of space in the alt/side chains and trustless payment processors (ZOMG ABRA!!!) for coffee and pizza.

it won't work like gold when only 0.0000001% of the world's population think like us or have any exposure to Bitcoin due to the strangulation by 1MB blocks.

Folks, what I take away from this recent splash in this thread is that you all are trying to be pragmatic. There are differing opinions about how to best try to change the world.

I can only ask that you read my posts and consider my points. And note that I have been both correct about price and general trends since 2013.



Let's hope we can free him and the others from jail one day in the future, but it won't likely be soon.

Clearly the system is going to attempt to apply maximum punishment on any individual which creates something which has a huge market and is in defiance of the TPTB and their NWO plans.


So assuming I believe I have finally stumbled onto the design for altcoin that would actually scale and resist centralization, I hope you all can understand why I am contemplating whether I should proceed or not.

The interaction here is valuable both in terms of learning about the thoughts, synergies and counter-points, but between personal pressures on me and the overall speed at which the system is progressing towards the totalitarian outcome, it is about time for me to retire from Bitcointalk so I can devote full-time to making some decisions and then working on my chosen direction(s). Note I do have a newly launched fledgling social network to attend to which is demonstrating some traction.

Any one who desires to have ongoing communication with me, please keep (permanently) a Bitmessage address on your Bitcointalk profile, make sure you have posted (anything) in one of the 4 threads I have been posting in recently. I will contact you when my free time allows. You must run your Bitmessage at least every other day (old messages are discarded from the network) and make sure you run it on a computer that can't be infected with any virus (i.e. hopefully not the same computer you surf the net from and download porn to!)

Bitmessage is the only means I am aware of for us to communicate where it can't be proven by the NSA whom was talking to whom.

The anonymity facilities on the internet are sorely lacking. This must change and pronto, if we are to avoid a Dark Age.

When will you accept that individual incentives are not aligned in Bitcoin with your ideological global optimization?

People will use their coins and this will force miners to adopt Gavincoin. It is demand driven and you can foam at the mouth as much as you want, but you won't stop this freight train.

MP can drop his nuke on Gavincoin, we will scoop up cheap coins and then move on to the next ramp. Thanks MP for giving us your money.

The utility of early adopters to Larry Summers has now diminished. He has used you successfully and is moving on. You can be discarded now.

   Good.  /grumpy cat

This stunt may generate the type of incalculable empirical feedback we need to ascertain how best to modify the max_block_size parameter.

Of course since it is artificial demand in the form of a stress-test that factor must be accounted for.

But in the aggregate, we see here the ecosystem demanding/supplying a required service, so it's not completely bogus data.

It is critical for Bitcoin to grow up, not out.

Bitcoin's Mother of Blockchains needs skycraper transactions, not sprawl.

Bitcoin and its Blockchain must develop like a culture, not merely grow like cancer.

Full block pressure catalyzes development of optimal strategies for using the limited space; subsidizing artificially sparse blocks retards that process.


Au contraire, misanthropy is the only rational basis on which to build a currency.

That is why Bitcoins trustless Satoshi-Consensus mechanism disrupted and made obsolete all manner of weighted-trust-node-network Rube Goldberg schemes.

Bitcoin is the only currency still works like gold and silver when about half of humanity is an adversary.

You seem to often conflate orthogonal concerns. We can fight the global cancer which some 50% are individually aligned, while still having their best interests in mind[1].


Paradigms don't shift by educating people to ignore their individual incentives and go for global optimization. Rather the waterfall crashes force the adjustments.

[1]	https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.11462546 https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.11469562

The so called "natural monopoly" that has been falsified does not apply to what I wrote. Indeed it is preposterous to assume that all utility markets are naturally uniform to the extent that one provider can gain lower-cost economies-of-scale over all markets. Markets are diverse and require local differentiation (for reasons including Antifragility). However, if the monopolist can capture the State, then the monopoly becomes viable.

I am stating above that if the monopolist can capture nearly ubiquitous economies-of-scale in the social and economic inertia of the coin, then the monopoly is viable.

In short, remove the word "natural" from your retort, then it falls apart. I am using the word "viable" not "natural". The distinction is semantics around the ramifications of lower-cost and Antifragility. The Mises Institute seems to perhaps imply the Iron Law Of Political Economics is not natural.   (but I just skimmed the linked page)


The incoherence is yours because you don't seem to reason out that individual incentives can be misaligned with global optimization of systems and societies. Again read the Iron Law of Political Economics.

Generally speaking you seem to lack the intellect (or desire/motivation?) to consider all the possibilities of issues you entertain.

---

Exactly as I wrote since 2013, that it would play out.

Monopolists capturing the social and economic inertia...

---

This is otherwise known as a power vacuum of the Tragedy of the Commons and I warned in 2013 that it makes monopolies viable.

This is interesting to me, because conceptually I visualize that replacing a thresholding criteria (which can have aliasing error) with a criteria that is based on an average state over time thus I assume (without digging into the math) removes the aliasing error and thus the unnecessary carrying cost of implied volatility for options. I am not familiar with swaps nor have I studied the math for Black-Scholes implied volatility. Note to self to dig into this concept in the future. This is very important to me if it applies to the carry cost of hedging altcoin volatility.

Reggie afair this is not succinctly communicated on your company website.


After several tries of attempting to digest your website in a reasonably quick perusal, the distinction about the focus on swaps was not communicated to me. Normally I am known to have in the 99th percentile of reading comprehension (perhaps will not be the case from here forward because I am skimming and rushing). Perhaps that is because I am not a trader and not familiar with swaps, thus the word takes on its general definition for me, not the financial derivative. So is it my fault or your communication style? I dunno but I am betting on the latter.

I've tried to watch some Youtubes of you speaking in the past, and you do not communicate efficiently to me. I get tired of waiting for you to get to the point. Your writing style here in this forum is more direct to the point.

Note that HFT was not the only concern I enumerated nor are all my concerns (as expressed in "etc") bounded by the enumerated items. I was speaking paradigmatically about the "devil is in the details" and the inherent risks of closed source.

---

You apparently don't realize that expressing an opinion does not make a person a troll. But calling a person who expresses an opinion a troll, makes you one.

Can you make any point?

I just sent a test transaction, just a quick spend from my Blockchain.info spending wallet, and it made it into the very next block, so as far as my experience goes, that rag tag army clogged up exactly nothing.

In the marketing blog posts which you linked to in your prior post in this thread, I've read the comparison to the next Google et al; and afaics there is not a clear delineation whether you are referring to the trend of Bitcoin 2.0 or your effort specifically. It comes across (at least to me) as wanting to sell yours as the big breakthrough vastly superior (in terms of being first to innovate, patents, and insight) over efforts before and ongoing in crypto. I found that to be paradigmatically (not personally) offensive because you are creating a for-profit company approach and as I understand the entire point of decentralized crypto-currency is to remove the profit from the center of the network and push the profit out to the ends of the network.

Thus finally fulfilling the essential End-to-end Principal of the internet's network design onto the monetary attributes of the internet.

I am so fanatical about that attribute of crypto-currency not even for ideological preferences, rather pragmatic because I believe we are headed into a totalitarian abyss of epic proportions[1] and only systems which are monetarily End-to-end structured will prosper medium-term (2018+) and beyond.

Note I am not a Communist and I am not against profit. I am speaking about the paradigm of where profit originates (at the ends, where the Knowledge Age producers are[1]) and about Anti-fragility and resilience of networks and societies.

So let me respond to all your posts by saying I don't dislike you and I don't have any personal animosity towards you. I am actually a very friendly, smiling, and amicable person. At the moment, I feel an intense tiger fight inside of me because of what we are facing here. I think perhaps you are oblivious. And thus you are proceeding in mainstream financial circles as if no paradigmatic cliff is awaiting you and the mainstream.

Someone important asked me in private about your effort, and my pragmatic advice was essentially, "it is too non-standard for the WallStreet types he wants to target, and too closed-source, top-down business model for the rest of us in the Bitcoin sphere to adopt". I don't think you have a market. Thus you can offend (or cause us to ignore) the techie crowd that want an end-to-end monetary world and fail to gain the trust of the mainstream as well (btw if I was a mainstream investor and I saw all that bling-bling imagery and "blahblahblah" verbiage all over your website, I would leave and not come back. Get to the point and make it look more conservative like a financial services company). Perhaps I am wrong if you can target the Europeans who will be fleeing their October 2015 economic cliff into US dollars and US dollar assets. Afaik there is no coin attached to your effort, thus there is no wealth effect reason for the speculators to stampede into your effort. Afaics, you are trying to sell services with a proprietary model that violates the End-to-end principle.

Perhaps we can find some way to work with your system by attaching some open-source interoperable interface on it. For example, if we can figure out some way that individuals can trade mainstream assets anonymously with minimal counter party risk, that is big plus. Note that any such interoption is going to (via decentralized innovation) over time subsume your business model into the superior economics of the End-to-end principle, except for any server services that can't be subsumed due to social or technical limitations.

I think we need to dig into the details before we can make any more definitive statements than those abstractions.

One of the frustrations is your business model and marketing choices, has made it very inefficient to dig into the details. You are probably losing synergy opportunities by not interfacing to the techie crowd in our preferred modes of interaction (e.g. show us the code and technical documents on a github account).

Closed source will die over time except at the ends of the network.

The crypto market is choosing leaders who (and movements which) can fulfill the End-to-end Principle of meritocracy onto the monetary attributes of the world.

P.S. I was aware you had chosen your CTO for his experience with law in addition to his technical acumen. I am not claiming he isn't talented. Rather I am just addressing the market and paradigmatic realities as I see them. He was chosen to lead a business model which I believe is antithetical to the direction crypto and the world is headed.

[1]	One-world reserve currency inevitable... Economic Devastation Economic Totalitarianism Is a Madmax outcome coming before 2020? Thus do we need anonymity?

Note I formerly posted under the pseudonym AnonyMint and several others.

take a look at how a rag tag army of volunteers can clog up the network.  we're still stuck at over 23000 unconf tx's, with a peak around 25000, now about 2 hrs later:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/37rwph/stress_test_for_the_next_few_hours_ill_be/

IOW, the tragedy of the commons is a concept unknown to you:


Please go back to designing JustusCoin; we don't need your economic illiteracy creating incoherency and confusion here.

There you go again.  Using fear (this time, of being "left behind" from the glorious rapture of GavinCoin) to sell a hard fork.

The rough consensus of all non-Gavin core devs is against 20mb blocks in the near future.

But for some reason, Gavin will only accept a consensus which aligns with his position.  Who does he think he is, Linux Torvalds or Evan Duffield?

So how does Gavin the pointy-headed boss react to being unable to convince his coders and engineers?

By lobbying (*cough, panicking, cough*) the drooling masses in an attempt to overrule the experts with a stampeding mob.

That's not the path of "calm down already" suggested by Nick Szabo.

The Gavin tail is trying to wag the core dev dog, which guarantees the predictable "rancor" he's whining about.

Ironically, when the wheels fall off of GavinCoin because of UXTO assplosions or whatever, these spurned core devs will be the ones Gavin and everyone else will turn to for solutions.  Typical "Oops I broke it, now you fix it" pointy-headed boss behavior!   

If persistent full 1mb blocks turn out to be an insurmountable problem, consensus to modify that limit would not need to be manufactured with lobbying and tales of impending dooom.

I like the freedom and choice, and the commitment to their best work such that they will endeavor to express it independently.
If only all of this were better communicated.  Without snarkiness, without ultimatums.

If they are going to take this step anyway, they should dump all Bitcoin Core's technical debt by switching to btcsuite as their reference implementation.

there's a real danger here that if the other 1MB core devs don't get off their asses and help out Gavin & Mike, their roles as core devs could be relegated to the dustbin of history.  this is a great chance for those talented devs who have felt rejected or humiliated from the likes of current core devs to get their foot in the door.  we clearly know they exist and in great #'s.  core dev is a highly coveted position leading to all sorts of great opportunities as the Blockstream core dev's refusal to step down in the name of conflict of interest very well demonstrates.

from Mike Hearns on Reddit:

[–]mike_hearn 70 points 7 hours ago

Short of some last minute change of heart by Wladimir and the other committers, it looks like Bitcoin XT may soon become more important.
I am looking for someone to help develop a website and logo for it. If you're interested please hop onto the mailing list and let me know:
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/bitcoin-xt
Or you can just email me: [email protected]
If things go ahead and running XT becomes the way to express an opt-in to larger blocks, I will also be looking for volunteers to help co-build the binaries with gitian.
Finally I am looking for anyone who has experience with managing patchsets in git. My current workflow of one-branch-per-feature plus one-branch-per-release is fiddly and fragile. I plan to reorganise things at some point. Suggestions for better approaches are welcome.

permalinksavecontextfull comments (499)reportgive gold