pointless lecture and threats
Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. - page 430. (Read 2032286 times)
Ignore means ignore lads.. just in case you are tempted to answer him.
Don't rise to the bait. He knows he's full of shit, or maybe he doesn't. It's irrelevant really.
I know he is and so do most of you here. You also know why he is here and what not to do.
Thanks.
PS: Anyone quoting him or any of his SP's will go on ignore too.
Don't rise to the bait. He knows he's full of shit, or maybe he doesn't. It's irrelevant really.
I know he is and so do most of you here. You also know why he is here and what not to do.
Thanks.
PS: Anyone quoting him or any of his SP's will go on ignore too.
Technology allows us to separate a "blockchain" from "bitcoin" and all they do is shout their (very personal) ideologies.
Technology makes banks irrelevant.Banks will try to use politics to force people to use their services, but technology allows us to bypass politics too.
To the extent that the banks are able to compel companies and individuals to use their permission-based systems, those companies and individuals will lose in competition to companies and individuals who use permissionless technology.
Those companies and individuals will scream for more politics to protect themselves from that competition, but then we right back to developing technology to protect people from politics.
Tim Swanson nails it.
Of course people in this thread are butthurt
Technology allows us to separate a "blockchain" from "bitcoin" and all they do is shout their (very personal) ideologies.
Even if enough people agree with your "i just watched "money as debt" on youtube this morning" ideology, no, they are not going to dump everything for a 7 transaction per second irreversible "a hacker stole my private keys now I'm poor" volatile still in beta experimental currency
Usually there's gold for that. If you are really into that shit.
The only pragmatic argument against "blockchains without bitcoin" is usually stuff like "but you need an incentive to mine!", "but decentralization is always preferable!". Those arguments are slowly being stripped away from you (an the reasons for bitcoin to exist are quickly vanishing).
Of course people in this thread are butthurt
Technology allows us to separate a "blockchain" from "bitcoin" and all they do is shout their (very personal) ideologies.
Even if enough people agree with your "i just watched "money as debt" on youtube this morning" ideology, no, they are not going to dump everything for a 7 transaction per second irreversible "a hacker stole my private keys now I'm poor" volatile still in beta experimental currency
Usually there's gold for that. If you are really into that shit.
The only pragmatic argument against "blockchains without bitcoin" is usually stuff like "but you need an incentive to mine!", "but decentralization is always preferable!". Those arguments are slowly being stripped away from you (an the reasons for bitcoin to exist are quickly vanishing).
Gold cannot be traded on a decentralized and globally distributed electronic transaction. Yet they seem to keep trying to create a fractional reserve system with no accountability. IBM, dang you to heck! You enabled Vitalik's megalomania.Taaki has a devil put aside for you!
And the 'blockchain not bitcoin' narrative continues unabated, fuelled by the banking sector and advisors to non-decentralized players.
"Banks will remain wary of Bitcoin because its "permissionless ledger" relies on anonymous participants to validate transactions, cryptocurrency researcher Tim Swanson writes in "Consensus as a Service: A brief report on the emergence of permission, distributed ledger systems." This setup means that there is no one to hold accountable in legal disputes over the ownership of assets, should someone tamper with a transaction."
http://www.americanbanker.com/news/bank-technology/banks-can-cherry-pick-the-best-bits-from-bitcoin-report-1073642-1.html
I'd rather respond to that article with Tim Swanson's face photoshopped on to this image: http://www.quickmeme.com/img/73/73f07f805a0ac0165ab2bd0f09bc1375cd0812da578a97bae454cde2c1ddff30.jpg , but instead I'll point out that he's making an implicit assumptions that it matters what banks do and that their assets will remain valuable in the future."Banks will remain wary of Bitcoin because its "permissionless ledger" relies on anonymous participants to validate transactions, cryptocurrency researcher Tim Swanson writes in "Consensus as a Service: A brief report on the emergence of permission, distributed ledger systems." This setup means that there is no one to hold accountable in legal disputes over the ownership of assets, should someone tamper with a transaction."
http://www.americanbanker.com/news/bank-technology/banks-can-cherry-pick-the-best-bits-from-bitcoin-report-1073642-1.html
Mostly what banks own is debt and the long term value of that debt depends on the willingness and ability of borrowers to repay, and the willingness and ability of governments to assist the banks in recovering collateral after defaults.
None of those things should be taken inevitable.
you beat me to it. Timmay is an idiot. how are they going to "tamper" with tx's on the blockchain?
And the 'blockchain not bitcoin' narrative continues unabated, fuelled by the banking sector and advisors to non-decentralized players.
"Banks will remain wary of Bitcoin because its "permissionless ledger" relies on anonymous participants to validate transactions, cryptocurrency researcher Tim Swanson writes in "Consensus as a Service: A brief report on the emergence of permission, distributed ledger systems." This setup means that there is no one to hold accountable in legal disputes over the ownership of assets, should someone tamper with a transaction."
http://www.americanbanker.com/news/bank-technology/banks-can-cherry-pick-the-best-bits-from-bitcoin-report-1073642-1.html
I'd rather respond to that article with Tim Swanson's face photoshopped on to this image: http://www.quickmeme.com/img/73/73f07f805a0ac0165ab2bd0f09bc1375cd0812da578a97bae454cde2c1ddff30.jpg , but instead I'll point out that he's making an implicit assumptions that it matters what banks do and that their assets will remain valuable in the future."Banks will remain wary of Bitcoin because its "permissionless ledger" relies on anonymous participants to validate transactions, cryptocurrency researcher Tim Swanson writes in "Consensus as a Service: A brief report on the emergence of permission, distributed ledger systems." This setup means that there is no one to hold accountable in legal disputes over the ownership of assets, should someone tamper with a transaction."
http://www.americanbanker.com/news/bank-technology/banks-can-cherry-pick-the-best-bits-from-bitcoin-report-1073642-1.html
Mostly what banks own is debt and the long term value of that debt depends on the willingness and ability of borrowers to repay, and the willingness and ability of governments to assist the banks in recovering collateral after defaults.
None of those things should be taken inevitable.
And the 'blockchain not bitcoin' narrative continues unabated, fuelled by the banking sector and advisors to non-decentralized players.
"Banks will remain wary of Bitcoin because its "permissionless ledger" relies on anonymous participants to validate transactions, cryptocurrency researcher Tim Swanson writes in "Consensus as a Service: A brief report on the emergence of permission, distributed ledger systems." This setup means that there is no one to hold accountable in legal disputes over the ownership of assets, should someone tamper with a transaction."
http://www.americanbanker.com/news/bank-technology/banks-can-cherry-pick-the-best-bits-from-bitcoin-report-1073642-1.html
"Banks will remain wary of Bitcoin because its "permissionless ledger" relies on anonymous participants to validate transactions, cryptocurrency researcher Tim Swanson writes in "Consensus as a Service: A brief report on the emergence of permission, distributed ledger systems." This setup means that there is no one to hold accountable in legal disputes over the ownership of assets, should someone tamper with a transaction."
http://www.americanbanker.com/news/bank-technology/banks-can-cherry-pick-the-best-bits-from-bitcoin-report-1073642-1.html
I am so tired of all the "asset contracts" using stakechains coming out. Just had to vent that.
Except that there is a very serious attempt to get rid of traditional bearer money (cash) and replace it with traceable electronic money that supposedly solves these problems. The technology was getting to the point where that would be entirely feasible (and is close to fact in a few countries) except for this little cryptocurrency wrinkle.
The US will never dump cash.How would congressmen collect their bribes?
Overpaid consulting gigs etc. for their friends, family and future. The heavy hitters don't get their bribes in cash.
Except that there is a very serious attempt to get rid of traditional bearer money (cash) and replace it with traceable electronic money that supposedly solves these problems. The technology was getting to the point where that would be entirely feasible (and is close to fact in a few countries) except for this little cryptocurrency wrinkle.
The US will never dump cash.How would congressmen collect their bribes?
looks interesting, the blurb reads like the book might be worth a read. Key point is that all bitcoin's 'problems' as perceived are just moneys problems ... find me a form of money that hasn't attracted criminals, prostitution, drugs, scams, frauds, those are humanities problems, money is just the tool by which we betray our value interactions with each other, amongst other things. Bitcoin seems to make an excellent looking glass by which to view human failings.
Except that there is a very serious attempt to get rid of traditional bearer money (cash) and replace it with traceable electronic money that supposedly solves these problems. The technology was getting to the point where that would be entirely feasible (and is close to fact in a few countries) except for this little cryptocurrency wrinkle.
...
A lotto ticket is much less likely to strike than the case of striking gold with bitcoin.
A lotto ticket is much less likely to strike than the case of striking gold with bitcoin.
ORLY? Or could it be you just don't have the vision? C'mon, buy some scratch tickets! Nature favors the brave!
Why are ye fearful, O ye of little faith? Then he arose, and rebuked the winds and the sea; and there was a great calm.
Now then, Lambie, you naughty boy - don't make me follow you round the neighborhood! Just because your friends dont like you on Wall Obby doesnt mean you can come over here and annoy the grown ups. Go on, off home with you - and say sorry to the nice Doc for farting in his thread!
Popper (Karl, that is) has some amazing quotes attributed to him:
Litmus test: the book mentioning bitcointalk.org or not....
Quote
Whenever a theory appears to you as the only possible one, take this as a sign that you have neither understood the theory nor the problem which it was intended to solve.
Quote
Our knowledge can only be finite, while our ignorance must necessarily be infinite.
Quote
Science may be described as the art of systematic over-simplification.
Litmus test: the book mentioning bitcointalk.org or not....
looks interesting, the blurb reads like the book might be worth a read. Key point is that all bitcoin's 'problems' as perceived are just moneys problems ... find me a form of money that hasn't attracted criminals, prostitution, drugs, scams, frauds, those are humanities problems, money is just the tool by which we betray our value interactions with each other, amongst other things. Bitcoin seems to make an excellent looking glass by which to view human failings.
Hence he should have to pay you a lot of money in royalties
Jump to: