Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. - page 309. (Read 2032266 times)

ftfy

---

Alas now I see the sub-$100 price coming into view. After the dust settles, we can begin the next ramp.

Bitcoin can't be destroyed until the NWO dies, because the banksters are pushing out it to their sheeople masses.

It's on the station now - get on board!

Are you sure you (and he) understand?

Reggie sidesteps the issue of transient (perhaps un-auditable) manipulation of data feeds in conjunction with high frequency trading manipulation.

One thing programmers know that n00bs don't, "the devil is in the details" and "you don't know the whole story until you dig into the coding (the top-down perspective may be altered in the process)".

I have thought about this bounding (mostly in the context of the current rather awkward/deceptive 'unspendable dust' settings.)  I think that there is currently, and probably for quite some time, some big problems with this rosy picture:

 - UTXO is changing in real time through it's entire population.  This necessitates currently (as I understand things) a rather more sophisticated data-structure than something mineable like the blockchain.  UTXO is in ram and under the thing that replaced BDB (forgot the name of that database at the moment) because seeks, inserts, and deletes are bus intensive and, again, in constant flux.  Trying to do this on even high-ish end secondary storage architecture is a fail.  Large players use what amounts to clustered ramdisk to achieve scale.  Yes, it is within the realistic grasp of at least mid-sized companies to build such clusters, but it may never be so for lesser players at commodity scale due to market dynamics (no real demand.)

 - The picture painted (each individual controlling four unspent outputs) is pretty optimistic.  In order to achieve it there would need to be constant optimizations on the individual level which further adds to the messaging load and that's what pretty much everyone sees as the bottleneck.

 - The picture painted (each individual controlling four unspent outputs) is kind of a snapshot.  Even if each person makes only one spend per day, it means effectively a high percentage of the UTXO data in the database would be recycled daily.  Anyone who has tried to do even a relatively simple operation on a relatively modest size file (say a simple md5 or even a wc on a gigabyte sized file) will recognize that passing info from storage into a processor can be a real drag.  Some datastructures are conducive to multi-processing and whatever nosql databases which might hold the UTXO are probably in that category, but again one needs a cluster to do such things.

The risk of centralization to players who are prone to come under pressure is significant.  I may be willing to retract my assertion that,  within the current 'bounds', 'magic' would be required, but I stand fast to my contention that it is far from practical for Bitcoin's support framework to remain distributed at these kinds of scales.   Edit: ...but would be interested to see a proof-of-concept, simulator, prototype, etc.

Ah yes, the unknown unknowns.  It will be interesting to see if Gavin's TitaniCoin 20mb fork inherits enough antifragility from BTC to survive them, or if it actually generates anti-antifragility sufficient to destroy both chains.

Thanks for your time.

In the last point I was referring to problems related to unexpected technical issues and/or unforseen demages to the economic incentives structure, rather than political maneuvers.

Well put.

Till we have had a 1:1 ratio between full node and miner, the block reward
did pay for all the resoures involed in the process. Once such ratio started
to decrease, due to the introduction of mining pools, mining and full node
role became more and more decoupled.

The block reward remains on the miner side, though.

I understand. Thanks again for clearing some things up.

For the second time I will try to get my hands dirty with this. I have the client installed and the wallet backed up. Now I need some newbie type of help. I checked veritaseum.com for documentation and found the quick start video. It's hard to dig through the promotional talk and I stopped midway for now.

Is there some kind of written documentation somewhere on how to use the client and formulate orders? Is there a support chat on irc or a bitcointalk thread? I don't want to spam this beauty here.

Should have read this post before asking my question about his motives.


You apparently have fooled yourself into believing the market performance of Bitcoin had nothing to do with the promotion of Bitcoin by the mainstream media (and thus implicitly by the banksters who own the mainstream media) or that you believe the MSM can be induced to cover a grassroots, virally growing phenomenon w/o the blessing of the banksters. I assert that if you were to go against their aims and goals (which you won't be able to do any way, Gavincoin has already won), then they would pull the plug on your fork and you would learn about the reverse wealth effect (the fact that the market cap != the amount of capital invested in the coin and this levered effect is a snowball uphill and downhill).

The synergy of believing Bitcoin is an improved money along with the prospect of future scaling of Bitcoin to the world's txns, is what drives wealth effect you love. Take away one, you lose the other. I do hope you try to fork Gavincoin.


If one had unlimited number of side-chains, this would fundamentally scale even without changing the fundamental design of the ledger for those side-chains. Those side-chains might even be non-public and/or non-decentralized ledgers (and perhaps even fractional reserves, etc).

I don't consider that option as viable is because currency requires a fungible unit-of-exchange (although there is an argument against this with real-time exchange between side-chains, which is an argument I presented ... but not sure if this is realistic or not). So side-chains won't help scale to the transaction volume of the world. We must fix the fundamental decentralized crypto design, or accept centralized morass (which btw won't scale either so that is yet another reason the NWO coin is going to be a dying paradigm...to be toppled by 2033).

An unlimited number of non-fungible side-chains might be useful for smart contracts but not for money.


As much as the people jealously crave platinum, plutonium, and Astatine.  

I specifically didn't mention gold because it is shiny and dense and thus has other appealing attributes for people besides its rare monetary value.


Conceptually I agree. But realize that creative destruction of species is often a result of competition in evolution.

---

Okay so considering the trade-offs we have today to choose between (even VaporCoin was available, it would still be irrelevant to the choice made for Bitcoin), I have refuted side-chains. What is this back-office Bitcoin going to be used for then?

Of course I don't want Bitcoin to fail.  Could you possibly more dishonest and uncharitable?

If trade-offs did not exit, there would be no tension between Bitcoin (The Currency) functioning as both a store-of-value and widespread unit-of-exchange.

But here in the real world, bound by the pesky laws of thermodynamics, trade-offs do and will always exit.

The UXTO set is only the current bottleneck for scaling BTC to Visa++ levels of retail usage.  There are many others waiting in the wings (*cough, 10 min. block time, cough*).

Bitcoin's Mother-of-All-Blockchains is simply not the right tool for real-time retail POS interfaces.  Bitcoin's Mother-of-All-Blockchains is a back-office tool.

As for your VaporCoin, please either show us the whitepaper or stop hyping/teasing/marketing/pimping it.

Any mechanism you envision must also incorporate the fact that if collusion and monopolistic strategies are viable, they will be deployed.

Miners and pools have an incentive to include as many txns as they can get paid for and scale up the resource requirements to drive small miners to pools. So the community got up in arms about GHash.io, so no problem just hide your ownership behind a Sybil attack on the pools (that is surely the case today) so the community is either ignorantly pacified or can play Whack-A-Mole.

Even if you made txns free or negative cost (miners pay spenders), the incentive of the prior paragraph remains.

There is fundamental design flaw here that can't be fixed without radical overhaul of the design of PoW.

most of the comments in this UTXO thread don't seem to see it as too much of a problem.  the predictable concern trolls, like gmax, are in there as expected but the vast majority seem positive on dealing with UTXO growth:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/35asg6/gavin_andresen_utxo_uhoh/

Blockchain.info centralizes your wallet, but you control your private keys (server can't decrypt them) and all the encryption is done client side. Reggie is pointing out that the user of his wallet controls his private keys and signs transactions client-side and I suppose he is asserting that any the centralized functions (e.g. the data feed or the Facilitator) of his system do not impinge on the user's autonomous control.


In my posts prior this one from you, I did not state the oracle as my reason for suspecting centralized bullshit. I specifically mentioned for example patent trolling, apparently attempts at proprietary lockin (not just a protocol), and lack of open source. You appear to be entirely dismissing the social engineering aspects.

ftfy

It is the analogous  non-choice that we will be offered with the one-world reserve currency:

1. US dollar reserve currency hegemony over the world
2. One-world reserve currency with every nation sending a representative

These two choices are framed as being different, but in reality they are the same outcome. In both cases, the global bankster cartel is in control.

Ditto Bitcoin.

Any way, I support moving forward using Bitcoin to destroy existing banking systems and government issued currencies, and moving the world to a global digital currency (albeit I assert ultimately controlled by the banksters). Because the alternative is no better (as you point out) and at least by moving forward we bring more capital into crypto-currency (including altcoin experiments).

I agree with you there will not be another train in terms of scaling a crypto-currency to the masses before 2033. Bitcoin has this locked up already.

I do believe it may be possible to identify a market that is large but not the (lower 50% of the power-law distributed wealth curve) masses which Bitcoin can not reach and which an altcoin can. I am 80% sure about this. I don't care if the other attempts have fallen short. That doesn't rule out someone with appropriate insight creating one that hits the sweet spot. And the goal is not to topple Bitcoin (let the lower 50% have their pacifier to suck on). My thesis has been the upper 0.1% are going down with the lower 50% into the NWO. The Knowledge Age will rise up and take over by 2033. Let them have their Bitcoin in the interim. Smaller things grow faster. There is exponential growth available to the right altcoin.

---

Australia is a member of the Five Eyes nations.

Indeed this shows how desperate they are. As with Napster, they will just drive the movement to anonymity.

i think that's a really good idea.

from reading about how different wallets choose from different UTXO strategies to include in tx's (i think they all do it differently), this could be a no brainer which could help immensely.

TPTBCoin depends on BTC

Yeah I agree, thats pretty much why I dont care anymore, just fork it already.

We don't even need to consider whether Gavin has been compromised. He knows there is $billions of VC money depending on Bitcoin growth and he has an implicit fiduciary obligation to make sure Bitcoin scales. Decentralization was already a lost cause any way (gmaxell's delusions about CoinJoin being viable and other tech notwithstanding), so any realistic would realize that you might as well maximize the financial impact of Bitcoin in the mainstream.

The ideological aspects were lost the day v0.1 was released. We don't need to blame Gavin for what even Satoshi admitted he set in stone back on v0.1.

Disclosure: I don't think even if Bitcoin withered on the vine due to defeat of block size increase, that would stop the NWO outcome. Thus that path doesn't aid me at all, because such a non-anonymous store-of-value with such limited security (imagine the hashrate if you pull the plug on VC future) would not be a place I would store my wealth (not that I have any at the moment). I'd much rather see Bitcoin grow so we can use it as a reserve currency of altcoins. I'd much rather see the promotion and hype of crypto-currency grow because it brings more capital to the altcoins too. I'd much rather see all my predictions about Bitcoin-the-NWO-coin be demonstrated, because as I said we won't stop the NWO outcome in any case.

Thats the point, you can't know peoples intentions over the Internet, I don't even get Gavin's.