Topic: Miner cartel, Bankster cartel, or an altcoin? Your choice? - page 19. (Read 33250 times)

That is okay for the power money because high finance knows how to arbitrage, but for the simpleton end users of money, they want a single unit-of-account wherein their expenses and income are in the same unit.

We hackers and knowledge age producers are simpletons when it comes to money. We have our minds in creating, not finance. Yet we are very, very important in the new (not legacy) economy. And traditional finance can't access our value. It is non-fungible.

As in the Invisible Hand and Hayek's magic, our value interacts informationally with the overall economy, yet you can't capture it fungibly or at least not completely.

Not a single unit, a stable unit, and its more so for meta players.

Yes, but altcoins are not a single unit-of-account and the public demands a single unit-of-account.

For the legacy economy that Bitcoin is aiming form, the regional regimes apply to the private banking variants.

But for the knowledge age, we need one global unit-of-account (because we do our activity on the Internet which has changed everything for us).

The legacy economy is larger, but our knowledge age hacker economy is growing faster. And we have primarily a gift economy with an Inverse Commons and thus we don't primarily encode our value exchanges with money.

Thus the winning blockchain in the knowledge age economy sector will be one with very high transaction rates and scaling.

And we will kick ass on Bitcoin, because our economy is growing faster and is much more important. The legacy economy would collapse without us. We run all their technology.

Bitcoin does not do those things. It is centralized by whales'. Trusting those whales to be honest is not an objective standard. One day it will fail. It is not anti-fragile.

I've taken @traincarswreck off ignore because he decided to finally start making substantive arguments instead of appealing only to authority. Seems he has to learn what open source and meritocracy mean in our hacker culture. I guess he is not a hacker.

The point is that people buying altcoins don't think they buy bitcoins.  While people having $10 000,- in their bank account don't realize they have bank dollars, and not "dollars".

This is good and fine and correct.  The rest you don't need.  Bitcoin does these things and Nash's argument is premised on it.

Some ground rules have to be explained so that readers can make sense of this, so they can clearly discern who is the idiot with inkblot comprehension skills.

1. Nash's theory of Ideal Money has as its very foundation, the absolute requirement that the standard money (aka the high valued settlement money) must be absolutely honest, impartial, and have a predictable schedule of debasement. If this requirement is not met, then the entire theory crumbles to sand, because for example as Nash explained, the system of national currencies we have now is non-informational because there is no honest, predictable standard value which can enable the information of the free market to anneal. In other words, a totally relative system is a circle jerk of the blind leading the blind (bad money measured against bad money). But we know already from our upthread analysis of Bitcoin that it is completely controlled by the whales, and thus there is no reason to believe it will forever remain honest. Rothschild controls Bitcoin and when he is ready in future when the entire world is dependent on this standard money, then he can start to do dishonest things with it and bring the world to Revelation with all the wealth of the world concentrated on the hill in Jerusalem, as predicted in the Bible. Everything is proceeding exactly as predicted, so it is very easy for me to discern what is happening.

2. The good currencies are destined to wipe out the bad currencies over time as the public and the free markets anneal to the survival-of-the-fittest wherein those systems which had employed the good money as their unit-of-account will have prospered. But this means a lot of pain in the interim time while old systems fight against the good money and there booms and busts in bad money regimes. The private banking in Bitcoin off chain LN will be beholden to the (regulations, central banks, etc) regions wherein they do business, unlike the Bitcoin on chain money which will be global money immune to regulation because of the nature of its regulation being the secure/immutable protocol of the blockchain (and this is a key point!). This is entirely my point that unleashing unregulated fractional reserve banking on off chain Bitcoin transactions denominated in BTC (at par) globally would cause extreme distress just as the Greece borrowing in Euros when their industrial productivity is not as high as Germany has bankrupted Greece. This is the 10 Kings stage of regional currencies as predicted in Revelation in the Bible. This is the pain and chaos that precedes the final stage when the entire world submits to a single world currency and the 666 mark on everyone's forehead, as mentioned for item #1 above.


Bitcoin is the NWO coin. It was created by Rothschild and he controls it behind the scenes.

Now my point is that during the 10 Kings stage, these regional currencies (e.g. the Yuan for the Asian Union) and any private banking "BTC" derivative notes issued within those regimes, will not be a global unit, because they will have failures which are independent of each other (because they are not on chain protocol enforced money). Thus my point is that during that period, the knowledge age economy which is already globalized and to a large extent ignores and is immune to regional regulation, will desire a unit-of-account which is global and protocol enforced on chain. I intend to provide this unit with my project and our money will diverge from Bitcoin's universe. We will bifurcate away from Bitcoin's old world economy which is trying to convert the legacy political and financial systems of the world to the Ideal Money. Instead we will go directly to Ideal Money enforced on chain and ours will be even better than Bitcoin because it will be deflationary instead of only 0% inflation.

And we will kick ass. Those who want to suffer and moan in pain will go with the banksters and their Bitcoin lie. It is a lie because of that I wrote in #1.

And I don't care what that idiot writes, because it should be now very clear he is an idiot who deserves his appointment with his future pain and suffering.

In the Bible it says that the Beast is wounded. I am telling you I think our work is what wounds the Beast (just mentioned for entertainment value, not that I base anything unfalsifiable beliefs).

While you were concocting some wacky conspiracy theories Nash was attending to the problem of our financial system:


And he understands what prevailing faction controls it:

And Nash's definition of Keynesian is a central banking proponent that has no regard for the value proposition of the currency they control:


BU supporters are Keynesian.   Nash's proposal for a monetary unit takes the power from money printers to arbitrarily control the value of the money we use.

@iamnotback doesn't know what he is talking about.

As expected, free banking has historically only worked for idealized scenarios for limited periods of time in only a few countries. For example, all those cases where it worked, all the bank notes traded at par, which is what I was asserting that people demand a single unit-of-account, and all cases had no significant interference by any outside force such as government or war. In essence for free banking to have any chance of working properly, government would need to remain benevolent all over the world (or there would not be a single global unit-of-account, i.e. not all notes would trade at par).

http://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/selgin-the-theory-of-free-banking-money-supply-under-competitive-note-issue#lf1544_head_007

So free banking is incompatible with a universal unit-of-account. And this is a very interesting insight, because I've noted that the plan of the globalists has been to create a high-powered money then have regional currencies float against the high-powered basket. Now I understand why. This is so the fractional reserve notes can be separate unit-of-account for each different governance regime, since governance will highly impact the quality of the fractional reserve system.

So this means if we want a globalized unit-of-account for the Internet then it can't be fractional reserve. A ha! This is all fitting in now with my theory of bifurcation of the currency system of the world with knowledge age money and industrial age money forking away from each other. So Bitcoin is the old world NWO money.

And so now I know what I am creating and why for my altcoin. And we are going to kick ass on Bitcoin.

This is the proper context....It is what Finney suggests that bitcoin could and should and would become:

A view purportedly supported by Szabo since he just tweeted it out in relation to his bitgold idea which has the same premise.

Every teacher I have ever had has described my reading comprehension as exceptional.  I didn't edit any of your text, and parsing quotes is standard forum use. My cognitive skills are stronger than yours by far.

Do you think there is anyone else on this forum that will publicly back your stance about Szabo Finney Nash Hayek Smith's view in light of all the evidence and sources I put forth?



You have not refuted anything I have said.
http://unenumerated.blogspot.ca/2017/02/money-blockchains-and-social-scalability.html

I voted Altcoin my loyalty to Bitcoin as the De-Facto currency remains if we can transition successfully to an asset-class over a transaction mechanism.
However at the point we are capping ourselves at the amount of transactions we process and this is a serious limitation on future growth and usage in the long run strangling Bitcoin.
Miners may profit in the short term but may well be F***ing themselves in the long run by limiting their growth and returns.
The block reward may decrease but capping transactions will also cap transaction fees to this volume forever instead of future exponential growth.

@traincarswreck has very poor reading comprehension. He even edited my text and removed words from what he quoted. I really would prefer if you didn't quote him, because I have no interest in reading his nonsense. The guy has very poor cognitive skills.

Indeed Szabo is saying that we need the most trustless systems we can get and that for the large value settlement we should maximize the security but even Szabo admitted that Bitcoin had sacrificed the absolute mathematical security of insuring that every client had received a copy of each block and the Bitcoin instead chose a probabilistic propagation. As well even the finality of the Bitcoin is only probabilistic and not absolutely secure.

And Szabo is saying that for smaller valued transactions should use a lighter security with more efficiency, but he points out that systems which are not trustless (such as LN by implication) are not ideal for social scalability. He would of course like something more trustless than LN, but he doesn't know any better way to do it.

I guess I have to state all this because retards such as @traincarswreck are incapable of comprehending the issues unless they are spelled out.


Oh come on. I've only been telling everyone why for the past 4 years.

When you want to destroy nation-state central banking and start a new world central bank which swallows everything, what better way to start then planting a virus named Bitcoin.


The trustlessness is so that it can swallow the dying fiat system. As the defaults proliferate as our global economy collapses over the next decade, nobody is going to trust any bank.


That is a huge flaw but maybe it is better than the alternatives as the global implosion ensues.

And maybe the whales are part of WoT that spanks any who get out of line (rubber hoses and all).

James Bond indeed. Take a look at MP. This appears to be our new reality.

I am not the well educated one in this battle in regard to some of these amazing minds, but I'll not that I also took some time to traverse Selgin's work and lectures that Finney referenced.

To refute this argument you have to traverse and refute Smith, Szabo, Finney, Nash, and Hayek.  These men are giants.  It will never happen.

YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT and I do, and I have shown this over and over in both these threads and everyone now knows it.

Evidence, proof, citations, and sources.

You linked to a paper that didn't even exist!  

The argument of Hayek And Nash Which Finney and Szabo clearly support is that it's the monopoly on the money printing which causes the inferior quality of and inferior operation of banks. Bitcoin changes that.  Bitcoin in a high value settlement system is not inferior, it is far superior to gold, which is a trillion dollar market, and its far superior to any existing system of today.  


Money printers (ie central banks) are now in a competition with alternative options in which they never had to compete with before, this means if they don't properly serve their customers want for a stable money then they will lose those customers.  This is the argument of how Ideal Money will now surface.

Bitcoin is not going to crash, it's going to grow into a digital gold like it was designed, but not like it was explained to be, expect by a few sparse quotes and articles by the men responsible for the different components that made it up.

And the only people that think bitcoin will be forked are those that have not read the supporting literature and do not have any understand of macro-economics theory.  No active devs believe bitcoin will be forked, it's just an annoying group of irrational exuberance and vocal loudmouth college kids and socialist that don't know what science is and don't know how to base an argument on it.

That is the key problem. And because the public wants a single unit-of-account, then we end up always with a central bank backstopping these fractional reserves.


They are doing that. Altcoins are pumped & dumped by whales so they can steal more money from n00bs and get more Bitcoins.

@iamnotback How does it feel to argue with someone that knows what they are talking about?