Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. - page 979. (Read 2032272 times)

Thanks for this piece of very valuable information.

This part for me is enlightening:

What we see at present is a battle between the central banks and the collapse of the financial system fought on two fronts. On one front, the central banks preside over the creation of additional liquidity for the financial system in order to hold back the tide of debt defaults that would otherwise occur. On the other, they incite investment banks and other willing parties to bet against a rise in the prices of gold, oil, base metals, soft commodities or anything else that might be deemed an indicator of inherent value. Their objective is to deprive the independent observer of any reliable benchmark against which to measure the eroding value, not only of the US dollar, but of all fiat currencies. Equally, they seek to deny the investor the opportunity to hedge against the fragility of the financial system by switching into a freely traded market for non-financial assets.

It is important to recognize that the central banks have found the battle on the second front much easier to fight than the first. Last November, I estimated the size of the gross stock of global debt instruments at $90 trillion for mid-2000. How much capital would it take to control the combined gold, oil and commodity markets? Probably, no more than $200 billion, using derivatives. Moreover, it is not necessary for the central banks to fight the battle themselves, although central bank gold sales and gold leasing have certainly contributed to the cause. Most of the world's large investment banks have over-traded their capital so flagrantly that if the central banks were to lose the fight on the first front, then their stock would be worthless. Because their fate is intertwined with that of the central banks, investment banks are willing participants in the battle against rising gold, oil, and commodity prices.

Kodtycoon and Mr. E: That paper is completely fluff.  It reminds me of Nxt's "transparent forging" claim that is supposed to make Nxt robust to "91% attacks" (a statement I think is most likely nonsensical).  Don't you find it strange that the real innovations and technical details in bitcoin can be explained at any level of depth that you're interested in, yet many of these "alt-coin innovations" remain hidden and vague in perpetuity?   Don't you find it odd that very few of the many bright people here are even interested?  

For example, how is James going to implement cross-chain trading (what he calls InstantDEX)?  I've heard Nxt advocates talk about trustless cross-chain trading, yet it's generally accepted that it's impossible to transact with external systems/blockchains in a trustless manner.  If it's not trustless, but rather "low trust," then a solution using m-of-n oracles is already known.  There's never a need for things to be "powered by Nxt."  It seems like a ridiculous statement to me.  
  
The alt-coiners don't appreciate the importance of Satoshi's contribution.  If bitcoin adoption continues, it will be written about in textbooks for centuries to come.  Some of the developers here such as Greg and Gavin will likely be famous historical figures too.  The alt-coin sideshow is largely a distraction.  I don't want to say that all the alt-coin work is crap, because I think there's a small amount of genuine innovation [for example, I think Cryptonote's ring-signature approach made a contribution, and I think the concept of sophisticated contracts popularized by Ethereum made a contribution too (although I think it's much better executed using m-of-n Oracles as per Gavin's suggestion)].  If the alt-coin community does make a real innovation, we are going to take notice.  But to date, the vast majority is either a folly or a scam.    

"Cryptoland"?

So one becomes a "volunteer" by purchasing assets?  Pass.

True, it merely means that no one else knows what he is doing.
We'll have to wait for the code before we will know.
Satoshi did it similarly, except he didn't talk about it much before the code was done.
In the mean time, as usual folks will buy the rumor and sell the news.

The difference here is that James has managed to prove himself time and time again. His source code is out in the open and many of the other projects listed are either in beta or near completion. By simply reading the different posts he makes and witnessing the speed in which he can pump out innovative and original code, doing things I've dreamed of crypto doing for the past years, it will become extremely apparent that this man means business and most definitely has the skills to pull something of this caliber off. Not only does he have the skills but he appears to be doing it all for the right reasons and in the spirit of truely decentralized ideals and values.

Do you guys actually think that bitcoin is going to stay exactly as it is and that crypto 5 years from now is not going to be unimaginably different then what it is today? Why is it so hard to consider that changes in this landscape are not going to come out of left field and alter people perception of what crypto does or is? Do you really think all the exciting innovation is going to stop? This shit is going to continue moving faster and faster until we barely recognize the world from what it was. Why not embrace it?

Not to mention the whole point of this thread is about the problems with today's economy and everything that bitcoin is going to be able to do to help solve it. If we really believe in these ideals then why is the thought of using any other tools, cut from the same cloth, to help solve the same problems such an evil concept?

bait and switch?? whats that? get them to trust with the first thing then scam with the second?

and not everything is done "normally".. crypto wouldnt exist if everyone just followed what was normal.. actually nothing would ever change if everyone stuck to doing what was "normal" at the time.. progress is only ever made by people who do things or create things that are different and therefore do not fit into the present norm. so things should not be written off simply on the premise of not being the norm. that is very very short sighted imo.. actually thats practically mainstream..lol you sure your a crypto head?

Wow, there is not a single technically described idea in that document at all.  Its like 10% trying to be cool, 30% marketing, 40% imaginary ideas that are not original and 20% garbage.  Can I charge you for my time?

Smelled like a bait and switch.

Normally technical documentation have the key results and core novel concepts described in the abstract (the first paragraph on the front page.) E.g. read Nakamoto's paper.

Yup exactly!

He didnt give any technical documentation of how multigateway works until it was very near finished i dont think.. And that turned out far far better than expected. Just because he hasn't given a technical explanation of how it will work doesn't mean he doesn't know what he is doing.

He wants different crypto currencies to use each other's features without even trying to explain how (on any abstraction level). You'd think he'd put that in the document if he had any idea what he were doing.

I'd put that as my pic thing if i was able

The only thing that irritates me is when people dismiss things with out prior unbiased research into the subject matter..

@watchwoord iv followed it from the start long before btcd was chosen..(got in at 50k sats). It really is going to be seriously disruptive if it can be pulled off.. And im confident that james can. He is a very skilled dev. Multigateway is arguably the one of most revolutionary features if used in a crypto. Once instantdex comes into play and these features become available in the supernet coins, its going to change the status quo of altcoin so and altcoin trading forever. If all coins were on super network.. The altcoin exchanges would cease to exist. And as much as I know many of you dont like nxt.. That is what makes all this possible.. I think most if not all supernetwork tx's will go into the nxt blockchain so if you believe metacaffs?? Law.....

You cant deny though..if it works like it is supposed to.. Things are to change around the altcoin and possibly bitcoin section.. Bitcoin could also be included in this network so that it can then also benefit from the features of the different coins added to the network. Imagine the power of bitcoin if it suddenly had that amount of power with out the risk of making changes to the core... Atleast i dont think it would require changes.. I'm not sure.. Would be cool though.

Well, at least you have a sense of humor. 

+1

It will indeed

I read it because I wanted to know what all the fuss was about.

hahaha thats brilliant..lol

@watchwoord well time will tell i guess..

I read it start to finish. There's no plan in there at all and the idea doesn't seem realizable at all.

BTW: Who are my peers? 

He's back!

Did you actually read it or just follow/repeat what other altcoin hating skeptics have said about it so as not to be different from your "peers"?

yes, it's just decentralization at the exchange level. tbh, it's actually looking quite good at the moment with so many exchanges in so many different countries.  if anything, the US is behind, mainly b/c the apparatchiks are sensing USD danger from Bitcoin.  they need to wake the hell up quick as time is running out and businesses are anticipating that NYDFS won't get an epiphany.

while the alts have subtracted from Bitcoin in the short term, i think that will dissipate if not disappear entirely in the long term.

"no one's dismissing it.  i've been worried about it all along.  it's just that i think manipulation can be capped b/c we're talking about an international monetary unit whose security is in the interest of all nations, not just the US.  these types of manipulations would occur at the exchanges.  the fact that the highest volume exchanges are in China today would make it hard for the US gvt to manipulate Bitcoin at this time, imo.  we need to have a large # spread out round the world, preferably in jurisdictions that vie against each other otherwise, like China, Russia, and the US."

I think that may be the key. If Satoshi had read those five criteria -- and he probably did -- then he may have surmised that the only way bitcoins could avoid being manipulated would be for it to become a universal and dominant currency.  I wonder if he anticipated so many alts being created.