Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. [NooNooPol] - page 11. (Read 15271 times)

oh the admins locked it?

interesting.

So instead of moving it let's lock it?

life's work? its still there its not just cypher it's everyone how has contributed, i think the work of the last 5 years is dumping on the market right now. cheep coins

thread was locked by the admins for being off-topic.

I don't necessarily agree but I'm having a big laugh at how cypherdoc must be fuming right now. His life's work, all gone 

he locked his thread?

Anyone know why?

 

I got a mail in my inbox saying the post was deleted as 'off-topic'.  I didn't even bother to check.  cypherdoc's thread shows up as locked so it's not very interesting to me.

what do you mean its still here?

My little creation that I am espeically proud of fell victim to the censors:


Who's the shilliest shill we know?
  cypherdoc! cypherdoc!

Who's Mike Hearn's biggest Ho?
  cypherdoc! cypherdoc!

Who will nuke your eyes 'till they glow?
  cypherdoc! cypherdoc!
...

Great,

so apart from the last 2 pages of posts that were deleted this is where we left off:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.12175430

Shudder the thought!  bitcointalk.org is my life and I'm sure it is the same way for everyone

I followed up with this edit:

edit:  More seriously, I don't expect this thread to go anywhere.  I am pretty negative about censorship generally and I've credited theymos repeatedly for running a forum which is intolerant of it more than almost any I know of.  I can imagine only a tiny corner-case where I would censor any thread.

I never pay any attention to a moderated thread unless I don't notice that it is moderated.  In fact, I requested that moderated threads are more noticeable on the forum display as one of the few suggestions I've made on meta so I can not accidentally post to them or read them.

I believe that it is probably impossible to switch a non-moderated thread to a moderated one mostly because I've never seen it happen.  If it were possible cypherdick would probably have done it on his epic sister thread long ago.  Instead he just locks it from time to time when the going gets rough.

you mean leave bitcointalk?

**edit**
I was trying to use humor and implying most of the contributes to cypher's thread, even bitcointalk seem to have an almost unhealthy habit of checking in daily and spending a lot of time on bitcointalk.

i would consider carrying on as normal over here, if its not moderated. just wondering if you set up the page as self moderatored or not?  

Your text is a bit difficult to parse, but I would say: 'Yes, kicking your crack habit would be advisable if you can do it.'

edit:  More seriously, I don't expect this thread to go anywhere.  I am pretty negative about censorship generally and I've credited theymos repeatedly for running a forum which is intollerant of it more than almost any I know of.  I can imagine only a tiny corner-case where I would censor any thread.

I never pay any attention to a moderated thread unless I don't notice that it is moderated.  In fact, I requested that moderated threads are more noticeable on the forum display as one of the few suggestions I've made on meta so I can not accidentally post to them or read them.

I believe that it is probably impossible to switch a non-moderated thread to a moderated one mostly because I've never seen it happen.  If it were possible cypherdick would probably have done it on his epic sister thread long ago.  Instead he just locks it from time to time when the going gets rough.

Just a quick question (still need my fix as I'm having withdrawal) is you "crack" pure and un-moderate like the stuff I used to get over at the other place befor the authorities shut it down?

Something went wrong with cypherdoc's thread and his poll.  I thought I'd ping my sister thread at this juncture.  Here's the standing of the now-locked thread at fail time:


And, for logging purpose, here's there real poll of this thread:


I pointed out years ago that cypherdoc was acting a lot like Hearn's little ho-bitch.  Probably in association with one of Hearn's multiple attempts to insert tainting into Bitcoin Core.  Cypherdoc bristled at the time.  Now with the XT attack this reality couldn't be more clear.

I cannot easily parse much of your comment, but to your question, sadly 'not really.'

When I got started in Bitcoin I thought they were to be.  Not sure why I thought that other than that it would make a lot of sense in promoting a widely distributed system.  I'm glad I made a mistake here else I probably would have lost interest in Bitcoin right away.

Transfer nodes may at some point be rewarded insofar as they can autonomously verify that they are not being cheated rather than needing to rely on others (as does Multibitch which, if network traffic were subject to ISP level packet filterer, would be highly susceptible to sybil attacks I expect.)  They also may be able to operate on tainted coins as the operator chooses if coin tainting rears it's head and cannot be beaten back like it has over the last few years (often in association with the XT guy Mr. Hearn.)

If I were designing a system a share of the transaction fee rewards would be distribute to at least the last few of the transfer nodes which delivered it.  There would also be a concept of 'connection value'.  So, one AWS node passing a message to another AWS node would be worth almost nothing.  An AWS node passing a message to a radio linked node in outer Mongolia would be a very high value connection.  The hope would be that this would foster the growth of a very robust 'neural net' type structure.

Are the transfer nodes getting rewarded? The poll seems biased in itself. Somewhere down the line , if we see ,why does the poll even consist the option of a "No". Since people are at false impression of the consequences of a "YES".

Bump.

Oh, and BTW: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/psa-cypherdoc-is-a-paid-shill-liar-and-probably-epic-scammer-hashfast-affair-1105722

It won't make a difference.  He'll turn on a dime and wave his hands, explaining why what really matters is [Thing That Agrees With Him].

Just a quick bump.  It's worth note that poor cypherdoc is treading water mightily to keep above the 70%/30% rate now.  Hee Hee.

Bump and cross-pollination:


I pay around $10 per transaction and am happy to do it.  Bitcoin is vastly faster and less hassle than wire transfers, and more reliable than mainstream banking in my experience (having accounts silently shut down with no (written) explanation and no interaction but with a fully licensed and compliant entity (Coinbase).)  Edit:  BTW, my bank charges me $25 or so for wires.

In that case the revenue is more like a quarter-million dollars per hour, and my rough guess without researching it much is that at 1MB Bitcoin could already consume most of the world market for wire transfers.  Or at least international ones.

With these kinds of numbers, even running a pretty small mining setup solo would be better odds than playing the lottery.  If pools were attacked successfully most of the participants would fragment and those who could still obtain access to the Bitcoin network (receive transactions successfully) would likely keep right on chugging away.  In fact, in such an event the large mining farms who are not protected by the state would probably be off-line making the difficulty less.  Of course some of them might keep chugging away working on attacks (specifically, tainting.)

---

Another edit:

Hearn said famously about tainting:  'There is no difference between confiscating someone's BTC and keeping them from being spent for 20 years.'  His example was Qaddafi.  The 20 year figure comes from the Independent miners who were assumed to be priced out of the market by those operating on economies of scale and exploiting revenue streams not available to any but the largest entities on the global internet.

Non-trivial revenue from fees would throw a huge monkey-wrench into that plan, and in particular because a blacklisted (or non-whitelisted) transaction instigator could and would pay even higher fees.  I wonder (and suspect) that that is part of what is driving the desperation to not have transaction fees become a significant part of infrastructure support.