Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. [NooNooPol] - page 13. (Read 15367 times)

Cypherdoc's poll seems to have gotten a recent infusion of  interest on the XT side of things not reflected in mine.  Just a bump to remind the interested to make 'their' thoughts known as widely as possible.

Checkpoint update (Tue Jun 23 10:06:41 PDT 2015):

 - Cypherdorc:

 - Here:

What, and leave you all alone on your gold thread to continue to display your years long man-crush on Mike and Gavin?

good point. i would vote for that one for sure

you know, you two should just move here and stay here.  then you can circle jerk one another.

you were made for each other.

I was going to say 'my bad', but it seems that I can no longer select the updatable radio button.  Perhaps since I change the poll text to match cypherdoc's new one (with my own propagandist spin of course.)

I like the origin Bitcoin principles embodied in my preferred alt master Blockchain.  
i cant change my vote this time is that by design?

Every incompatible protocol difference is an 'alternative'.  This includes the so-called 'core'.  If something doesn't survive it loses the 'alt' label.

It's not an Alt. And won't survive as one.

Notice the gradual effort to turn Bitcoin into NWOcoin. They can't be too overt. They will go overt against a supreme threat to hegemony such as anonymous drug markets on Tor hidden servers.

So any counter-effort must be sufficiently disguised as a lower-level threat initially. And there must be a plan to enable a "force-field" protection before going to the overt threat stage.

That "force field" can entirely nullify DDoS, Sybil attacks and even make it impossible to find the nodes involved. So then when the protocol is encrypted and the "force field" is on, the bastards are toast.

There is a reason they didn't let the Silkroad sites establish a following. Because once knowledge age capitalists taste freedom to profit and innovate, they don't stop innovating new ways to achieve it.

Once you build an ecosystem around true anonymity, the bastards can never put the cat back in the bag.

Bingo!

If you assume that, then just stop now and shoot yourself. Game over. We will sink into a Dark Age and everything will be expropriated.

I assume mankind wants to fight when given the tools to do so.

The system the bastards rely on doesn't run without the knowledge capitalists. We run their system.

If even a few % of us start working on an ecosystem of solutions, they are toast.

They must obscure any takedown as DDoS or hackers, because if they simply filter data on the internet backbones, this will be a clear signal to the hackers that we've entered a war of totalitarianism. If they overtly declare war on hackerdom, they will lose and they know it.

So instead it will be proxy battle.

I'll be impressed if your solution can operate with less than 100% degradation under a situation where all global (and regional) internet infrastructure providers are highly incentivized to attack it to oblivion and do so with vigor.  A related assumption is that the U.S. NSA or a like replacement 'owns the net' and their analytical abilities of traffic down to the individual packet level are very high.

Your (or A) solution does not need to perform in such an extreme environment indefinitely but it must have a realistic potential to hold out for a period of years.

These threats are not at all far fetched to my way of thinking.  A solution which cannot deal with them is simply not very interesting of valuable to me.  If we don't see such an environment it means that mainstream solutions continue to work more or less as they do now, and to me they work just fine.  I'm interested in how to deal with a world in which they do not.

Actually the solution you desire to have 100% censorship-free transfer is the same solution that makes the TPS scale to any level.

Your mistake is thinking these are duals, whereas in fact they are the same network design. You just haven't seen that design yet.

Much will change...

...believe me your assumptions are wrong because you haven't seen what you can not see.

Not really.  Mostly having fun.  Sure the phraseology is biased but it is also spot-on accurate.


Polls are easy to do.  Go for it.

In fact I don't care a lot about mining.  I care more about transfer nodes than mining.  Indeed, I don't even care that much about nodes specifically either.  A neuron in a biological specimen is not very important.  It's the interrelationship between them that is critical.  The neural net as it were.

Somehow when I first read up on Bitcoin I was under the mis-impression that transfer nodes would also be rewarded.  Not sure how I made that mistake, but I thought I remember finding it again when I looked in probably 2012.  Last I looked it was either completely memory-holed or it was always a figment of my imagination.  Had I not made this mistake I would not have taken the position I did and may have lost interest in Bitcoin completely...so it was a fortuitous mistake!

Probably a successful 'reserve currency' will need to put some focus on making the transmission network as robust as possible and absolutely through analysis and reward of it.  Any successful exchange currencies will probably be centralized which is fine (with me) as long as they have a very robust and decentralized backing store to ride on top of.  I don't think that Bitcoin actually will be able to develop a strong transmission network so Hearn's attempts to crash it are not completely unwelcome to me in some ways.  Some of the methods which will eventually be required to crash it will ultimately make it crystal why a high functioning 'neural net' is of critical importance.

edit: minor

Frustration?

May I suggest a more accurate poll.


If the other side isn't going to explain all the issues, then why be 100% fair in the way you explain it. The truth is that both smaller and larger blocks will destroy low valued transactions unless centralization is achieved.

Ummm...no shit.

Poll seems biased.

Bump for new poll question.