Topic: Martin Armstrong Discussion - page 171. (Read 647054 times)

I technically called the bitcoin top 11 months ago in the following post if you count segwit as 2MB blocks:



The rationale for this post is that bitcoin doesn't actually function as a store of value.  It's so called value is entirely based around flow and not stock.  It cannot derive value from anything besides the utility it provides to facilitate turnover in commerce.  I estimated the point at which bitcoin is forced to morph from a general commerce system to a mostly settlement layer, and that is the point at which the invisible hand of the market crushes it because there are far better stores of value to use as a settlement layer like gold and silver.

The purpose of a real settlement layer is to do things like store generational wealth without having to worry if the bottom dropped out of it over night.  The value of things like gold and silver is NOT based entirely on flow like bitcoin. They can derive value more from stock, while bitcoin can't.  If you stash away a pile of imaginary bitcoins for 10 years, you have no idea if the value will be higher, lower, or completely zero when you come back to them.

Technically, increasing the TPS of bitcoin is beneficial to price, but that's only if you can trick people into believing it's decentralized when it's not actually possible to create a decentralized digital currency.  The only core reason for most of bitcoin's commerce right now is an attempt at regulatory arbitrage.  Due to the extreme centralization of bitcoin, the govt will easily destroy that use case causing it's lack of fundamentals to be exposed, nullifying anything people attempt to do with TPS or propaganda claiming it's decentralized when it's really not.

Post where I made that prediction:

https://steemit.com/bitcoin/@r0achtheunsavory/the-roach-report-vol-10-why-bitcoin-is-currently-a-roach-motel

LOL, the Szabo view makes the erroneous assumption that PoW doesn't centralize more by the day resulting in something resembling a federated chain.  So yea, his stupid economic view might work if everyone pretends a federated chain is "decentralized".  The so called fundamentals are all lies pushed by people who know it but lie anyway, while the price is entirely a fraud as well.  People like the Winklevoss have 200,000 coins they bought for next to nothing they can send to Coinbase and use as margin collateral to 10-50x the price overnight (the same thing that was done to create the artificially high Ethereum price on Poloniex).  

Do you really think it's a good idea for people to be able to rig markets by putting up collateral that not only has no real value due to not being a real commodity, but it's a completely imaginary asset that doesn't exist in the first place?  That's an even bigger scam than the fraudulent Wall Street markets that existed before it.  And it's not just bitcoin, they can create an infinite amount of coins and do this over and over.  How is that not a scam? lol.  These markets are all just fraud bubbles and the only type of assets that have real value are ones that exist in the real world you can take physical delivery of.

You still havent read the szabo article I linked to you many times. Do that first. Iota i agree on.. spectre protocol is much better (aviv's project). But your wrong on so many levels its hard to know where to start with u other than telling you to read more.

Gold isnt fungible because bars can be blacklisted along with 100x other things that bitcoin is better at than gold. Also we can engineer a solution to our problems. Zcash is anon use that then wash your money and head back to bitcoin as sov. Maybe CT will be soft forked in making.bitcoin anon.. maybe.another breakthrough will break the fake walls you keep throwing up trying to convince yourself that the market is wrong and you are right. Well ive already explained how your so dead wrong you missed the bus crying foul and continue to do so while we are hard at work fixing messes types like you have created and put us in.

Perhaps take those rose coloured glasses off and try to think on how to solve your problems through crypto and you may end up on the right side afterall

It's amazing people don't understand bitcoin isn't fungible and never will be fungible even if you do mix the outputs (and yea, of course Monero is also not fungible for the same reason):

Technology is just a tool like a hammer, though; a means to an end but not the end.  This makes the word technologist, transhumanist, and all derivatives like that kind of like saying you're a stapler.  It's not hard to make the argument humans have no purpose (nihilism), but if you think the opposite, there's definitely not going to be any purpose found in being a stapler.

Don't play stupid.  You know damn well bitcoin is not fungible nor money by definition, and that an "evolving protocol" is also never going to be fungible even if you do mix the outputs.  I bet you've also made conflicting statements before about segwit claiming that it's really a fork or something even though the wallets are technically compatible, thus fit within your definition of equivalence in fungibility.  

If you assume each transaction type has completely different surface attacks vectors like attempting to turn segwit transactions into anyone can spend transactions or what have you, how could they possibly be fungible?  This is the never ending cycle of a so called "evolving protocol".  Just about nothing in it is fungible.  There's also not much difference in a hard fork and soft fork if both alter fungibility.

Fungibility is simply the property that any unit of some substance is functionally equivalent to all other units of that substance.

We all know bitcoin does not solve byzantine generals.  Maybe there's another universe where Satoshi solved byzantine generals and Anonymint is not a stapler.

It solves the generals problem

For our lifetimes it is adequate. It is a paradaigm shift for money. It solves the generals problem without completing it in a way where 51% consensus is required to attack it. Incentives for attacks not to occur are builtin and are functioning as it has been proven since 2009. There will be no paradaigm shift ontop of bitcoin for a long time. Competing currencies will have to settle for other niches (other than the complete sov) which bitcoin wins hands down.

I'm a technologist.

Where's the Sidhujag cure to fix this problem that makes bitcoin worthless?


Or this other rather impossible to fix problem?

The r0ach report 29: Bitcoin is similar to the double slit experiment in practice - It only works if you don't use it

http://steemit.com/bitcoin/@r0achtheunsavory/the-r0ach-report-29-bitcoin-is-similar-to-the-double-slit-experiment-in-practice-it-only-works-if-you-don-t-use-it

I already talked about why it's not fixable, because anyone that can create a miner and have it spit out rewards to you while on cruise control without you doing anything is the same thing as INTEREST.  Then instead of one man one vote, you get to scale your interest generating machine to one man infinite votes.  The only way to stop that would be forcing people to do manual labor to solve blocks (captchas), but people would just create bots to solve the captchas and you're back to square one.

At it's heart, bitcoin is nothing more than a variable number multisig. With current mining centralization, it's probably a 2 of 3 or 3 of 5 multisig. So the only question is how big of a multisig is needed for it to be considered "decentralized"?

The fact that bitcoin is nothing more than a multisig in practice also makes it kind of bogus because a multisig is obviously not an open entropy system. For it to be an open entropy system, instead of using 6 confs, you would probably need to use literally infinite confs. That's kind of how bitcoin is a con in practice, because given an infinite timeline, you can attempt to make the claim bitcoin is a decentralized, open entropy system, but if you actually try to use it on a finite timeline, it morphs into nothing more than a centralized multisig. People claim that's "probabilistic", but no, it's just a centralized multisig when a finite timeline is applied.

So there you go folks, the only way for bitcoin to properly function is by not using it because the act of a human using it applies a fixed timeline and makes it's mechanics fall apart.

(and anonymint is going to argue the confs can be rolled back at any time during the middle of this process making whatever number of confs pointless in the first place)