Topic: Made new video: "Solving Bitcoin's Centralization: NXT vs Clam" (Read 3588 times)

If you are not holding US stocks and USD in reasonably significant amounts, then you are not diversified for what is coming this year.

Well, I think direct democracy is an abject failure and I think representative government is the best of the worst.  I think the representative government could be greatly improved upon with strict term limits.  I'm curious as to your opinion of what is the best form of government.

I didn't pretend. I am frank about the challenges and I didn't ask for anyone to buy an ICO and try to fool them with a lot of bullshit like Bitshares and others do.

Rather you should just admit then that you are just here to mine the speculators and that all your idealistic bullshit (DACs, etc) is just a mirage to get other speculators to wet their pants and give up their money.

You can't decentralize everything. It will at the very least require on/off ramps for its beginning years (possibly for its entire existence), payment processors, exchanges, etc..

There will likely always be centralized components... even if you could decentralize one or a few of them.

Anyways.. have fun pretending you're always right to the other sheep around here. I'm out for the night.

You are apparently highly confused. I never wrote I was excluding speculators, which is in fact impossible in any coin market. You have a quite annoying bratty abrasive method for asking questions by rather asserting that you know everything.


Bittorrent is decentralized. Bitcoin isn't. Go get an education first, then we can talk.

The best design and marketing would be useless without speculators, because otherwise it will never garner the attention of most of the world's population. You include marketing, but you can't fund a sufficient marketing campaign without speculators or doing an ICO. Proper marketing is expensive.


Your cryptocurrency will be no different if it gains enough steam. The rich (or big brother) will always find a way to control and profit off of everything that is profitable. There is nothing you can do to stop them from doing so.

Also, politics are necessary if a cryptocurrency has enough success. Bitcoin is finding this out now. Countries are cracking down and/or banning Bitcoin. Other alternative cryptocurrencies are finding politics to be an issue for different (non-governmental reasons.) Some have formed groups and banded together... Blocknet, Supernet, etc... You need to be politically correct or no one will help you with your vision. If you slam everyone's investments and tell them you wish they'll go broke... don't expect much help. I would like to extend this point to social skills, networking, etc... all things you are not very good at. Many things give cryptocurrencies value, and no you are not a jack of all trades.

So you question why everyone is combative and why we can't all get along, and then you transition to "I hope you lose all of of your money." 

Just so you can sleep tonight.. I have some physical gold and silver, 10% of my crypto portfolio is in bitGOLD/bitSILVER, and a separate portfolio with stocks/bonds and a 401k. I am well diversified.. even in my crypto portfolio owning at most 6% of any certain alt coin and ~50% in Bitcoin.

What is the point of selecting a coin based on which one has the best politics?

Even if you had every single speculator from the Bitcoin universe investing in your coin, it would all be useless if you didn't have the design and marketing to gain adoption.

Bitcoin was marketed by the global elite in their MSM and they are mining you the speculators taking all your money with their zero cost mining in China.

Crypto is one big corruption to take all your money. You fools. I am trying to create a fundamental innovation and a real revolution. Just keep criticizing me and handing your money over to your slave masters.

What most intelligent people have decided is that it is much easier to play along and find a way to mine you, than to attack the much more difficult problem of a true revolution. I try against all odds and have never asked for a dime from the investing public, so therefor you don't like me because I don't want to steal your money.

Insanity.

That was not smooth's point at all. His point was that no coin is yet significant relative to USD. He didn't say that Bitcoin has 0 network effect.

But personally I am delighted to hear you are 50% in Bitcoin. Hopefully you will eat some humble pie soon if my prediction of < $150 comes true. I hope you have all your life savings in crypto as well. You are young and lesson is more valuable than not losing everything. I've lost everything more than once in my life. It was a good lesson.

Yup. I will never play in that arena. It is an intentional effort to destroy politics. I detest politics with a venom. Every one of my successes was achieved without any politics whatsoever.

I believe in and want to promote meritocracy.

So all of you who are picking coins based on who is best at manipulating the others politically, I aim to destroy you. And if there is a way, I will. If there is no way, I will quit.

I may manipulate marketing wise, but not designed to siphon funds in a zero sum game. Rather to expand the pie for everyone.

Ahem what is the distinction between the two? Afaics, there is none. Martin Armstrong seems to be under some delusion that if people could vote directly on each issue of governance (i.e. each law, etc) then we would avoid the evils of the representative government we have now. Yet of course it is impossible to have a direct democracy function on anything larger than a tribe (and even for a nuclear family unit it rarely works!). And you seem to be unde some delusion that the representative government we have in the USA is functioning well. Or you have sold yourself down the river of tears that there is some rainbow of a perfect fix. Sigh. Never has been in the history of man and never will be. The Iron Law of Political Economics is immutable and insoluble. Please refute if you can (but you can't).

Or perhaps you merely accept that representative governance fails, but it is the least worst (or the only option)?

If we are just here to put some shiny new block chain ribbon on existing corruption of representative (or any other form of) democracy, then I will quit. I don't see the point. If there are efficiencies that can be gained in spite of not dealing with the fundamental issue of trustless governance, then maybe I can be convinced. But the original ideal of Satoshi's white paper was trustless governance (consensus) of the block chain.

You do realize Bitshares is a small part of my portfolio, around 6%, right? BTC has a huge network effect compared to all alternative cryptocurrencies and is why I am ~50% in Bitcoin. You guys telling me that you will break Bitcoin's network effect because USD has the ultimate network effect is blasphemous. Something can be very successful even though it is not adopted by everyone. We live in a large world with a large population. Yet, Bitcoin's network effect compared to all alt cryptocurrencies combined dwarfs them.

It doesn't work that way. It takes much more than one developer or an idea (or, in your case... ramblings on an internet forum...) to start a revolution. There are many revolutionary technologies that exist, yet most of them will die and not ever be very widely used. Either because better technology comes along and you don't evolve (Kodac), better politics (hddvd vs bluray), or better marketing (Apple.) You claim to have A figured out, I have an inkling that you really suck at politics, and the jury is out as to how well your marketing scheme will work.

Realize I could say the same, and I have more skills and experience than you do in technology, marketing, and hands on business experience. For example, I negotiated a $205,000 non-exclusive license sale of my CoolPage software in 2001 with Homepage.com. Inflation-adjust that.

Any way this discussion has devolved into a shouting match with a juvenile (who has some religious devolution to his cargo cult leader Dan) that is tailing off to be completely devoid of any further informational value, so I will ignore you from now on. Thanks.

Given enough money, it would be a walk in the park. I could hire 10 people smarted than you and I would be set to go. There is a reason there is not only a CTO, but a CEO, CFO, board of directors, etc....

Furthermore, you are about to get a lesson in network effect. Many coins have been released that are technically superior to Bitcoin have failed. You think you are a genius marketer, and have the emission/distribution all figure out, and people are going to be lining up to build services for your superior "master race" cryptocurrency (etc.) We are all idiots that have not done as much research as you, and even if we did we couldn't understand it, right? I hate to inform you that is all subjective, has not happened yet, and is extremely optimistic- even if it eventually does it likely will not be nearly as successful as you imagined.

Exactly. And the usership of Bitshares is of those who aren't investors? 3 people (Manny, Moe, and Curly)?


Otherwise we have the zero sum game of mining each other.

So now we are back in the sandbox like 5 years olds. I meant that you drink the KoolAid about decentralizing a corporation. Daniel Larimer has pulled the wool over your eyes with his unrealistic nonsense.

I am very critical of my own designs and I am always trying to think about in what way they are unrealistic. This is one reason it has taken me so long to finalize a design. And it is a reason I could still decide to quit. Also I am developer for decades with loads of experience and I am basing my analysis on deep experience, knowledge, research and debate with very smart people such as smooth et al. Whereas, you close your ears and declare, "I am a young idiot and you devs are the same as me".

Good luck with that.

I can see my obfuscation strategy is working well.

Perhaps you would contemplate that I not as clueless as you think I am.

Of course everyone here will be involved (if my plans succeed), but not the way it has been done up to now. I certainly won't be selling them any ICO nor providing them a way to obtain coins from mining.


I know that. Did you ignore what I wrote upthread, "But one dev does not a global coin make.".

My point above is that you can't create any great innovation for a crypto coin, because you lack the technological and economics depth and breadth. You couldn't lead the devs. Whereas I can. I am saying I can beat what ever you could do even with a lot of money, all by myself. But I am not saying I can create a successful coin all by myself. I might (just maybe but not good odds) be able to launch something by myself, if I cut some corners along the way. But I will surely need help asap if it is growing usership.


The peasants are whom I intend to help, not crush. You are the one who started off this discussion by being so boastful about how you (without the technological depth) can go beat smooth, myself and other devs just because you will have enough money to fund your effort. That is ludicrous. Any experienced software developer knows you can't lead if you don't understand the technology. And if you hire a CTO, the problem is you can't communicate effectively to the CTO and too much will be lost in the translation. This is known as the Mythical Man Month.


I try to state only facts. Any developer who hates facts is not a developer I would want to work with. If another developer stated some facts about my work, then I would endeavor to fix the problems and respect that developer for his effort and expertise.

So thus only the best developers will work with me. And the other ones who have problems with objectivity will not work with me.

But any way, I don't think it works that way at all. If someone creates something that is a revolution, then everyone has an incentive. If not revolutionary, then it is a big yawn any way.

As do you.  

It sounds like you've already failed. The proclamation "I can easily defeat you all by myself" eludes to the fact that you will not allow members of the cryptocurrency community to get involved (whether it be mining or whatever) with your cryptocurrency. That doesn't sound like a cryptocurrency at all and is by far more centralized than you are claiming Bitshares to be. Unless you are giving any free people the ability to participate willingly, then I guess your statement would just be wrong.

How can you be certain that you will "defeat us all" if we have a fair chance to participate ourselves?


You will find out soon enough that making a successful cryptocurrency is hard work. You are certain that you will crush the peasants, but it may not be you that's doing the crushing and you may come to find out that you were just a peasant all along. It is why I don't own more than 6% of my crypto portfolio in any one certain alt coin.


You fuel the fire with every post and this statement is hypocritical. What sane developers that are already involved with the cryptocurrency world would ever work with you? You've said derogatory things about them and all of their projects which they've worked hard on for years. You fuel the combativeness by proclaiming that you are never wrong, you are the best, you've been doing this since we were born, that coin is going to die, the developers of this coin are scammers, that coin doesn't solve any problems, I've already beaten you, etc.... you just said in the same post that you want to defeat us all...

Purposefully obfuscated from competitors. Cliff notes (white paper) come when something is shipping.

But young know-it-alls spout off at the mouth before doing their homework. And they blame their overloaded schedule on someone else, as if it is my job to do your research for you (my schedule is overloaded also).