Topic: Miner cartel, Bankster cartel, or an altcoin? Your choice? - page 20. (Read 33250 times)

I don't think you actually read this article.  The conclusion of it directly refutes every point you make:


There is no one that will agree with you that humans don't value money, its the most ass-backwards thing I have ever heard someone assert.
Yes he wrote a quote that you provided, but you didn't give any reason you provided it.


Nick is not advocating to sacrifice the security he is explaining why Satoshi is a genius for sacrificing efficiently and availability but NOT security.

No, no one with pull in the industry is bending on security so you can have a coffee money.

No it never did, and never will.  You are asserting this silly claim.

As I linked to in the other thread Szabo "tipped his hat" to me today for bringing to his attention a quote by finney which perfectly refutes your assertion:

https://twitter.com/NickSzabo4/status/846492284036145152




So Szabo and Finney disagree and you have twisted Szabo's conclusion to be exactly opposite of his conclusion THAT I QUOTED AT THE START OF THIS POST.
Because you say so but every intelligent person that matters disagrees.

I took a snapshot of Szabo's twitter that proves you are full of shit.

It was Szabo that dropped MY name when he tweeted a Finney quote that shows you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.
YOU are implying it, Szabo and Finney both CLEARLY support micro-transactions/2nd layer solutions and a fractional banking style solution.

I'm a great admirerer of the Austrian school, even if I think that some of their views are outdated.  But I'm also convinced that there is nothing fundamentally wrong with fractional reserve banking.  The reason why people think it is wrong is because they don't really understand what it is about (and everything is done to confuse the issue, true).

What is fractional reserve banking ?   It is issuing a DIFFERENT ASSET that is kept on-par with a base asset through a fund that serves as a form of collateral for individual transactions.  People, however, are made to confuse the new asset with the underlying base asset, and this is where the system looks like cheating.

If you go to a bank X and have a bank account there in $, you don't hold "dollars".  You hold "bank X dollars", an asset that bank X issues.  An "alt coin".   In order for this to be CREDIBLE, bank X has to have a fund, so that it has enough reserves to settle with other banks, so that bank X dollars are also accepted in bank Y.  So what bank X has to do, is to make sure that the INBALANCE between bank X and all other banks, never becomes larger than its "collateral for inter-bank settling", its reserve of base dollars.

If, statistically, bank X dollars are about as much versed to bank Y, than bank Y dollars are versed to bank X *it doesn't matter how many X dollars bank X and Y dollars bank Y have brought in circulation* ; they can always settle with a small mutual collateral in base dollars.  But of course, for this to happen, bank X and bank Y must have about the ratio of scarcity of their X and Y dollars.  A big bank can emit more dollars than a small one, because it has more demand, more customers.
A bank that emits too much money will see more of its dollars go to the neighbours, than it will receive from the neighbours, and hence, will have to deplete its stash of base dollars in settlements.

Once the settlements are exhausted, its bank dollars will not be accepted any more by other banks, and hence, the market value of its dollars plummet.  *there is nothing wrong with that*.  Its customers were holding a coin that simply wasn't valuable !  They shouldn't complain !  They only think they have been cheated upon because they lived in the illusion to hold "real base dollars", while they only held Bank Y coins, that were kept on-par with base dollars as long as the bank had sufficient collateral to settle with neighbouring banks.

So, in as much that people realize that when they have money at a bank, they don't possess "base money",  but only "bank money", and if they can have a CLEAR VIEW ON THE EMISSION of the bank money, they take the risk, or they don't.  They buy litecoin or they buy monero.  They buy citibank dollars or they buy HSCB dollars.  Knowing that these dollars are only kept on par with US FED dollars as long as the collateral reserves last.  Which can be considered an acceptable, or unacceptable risk.

By letting go broke banks that emit too much dollars, (and letting go broke their customers too), this system auto-regulates and kills of the most greedy ones regularly.  The only problem is the gullible masses that will complain that they are broke and should starve to death because of their ignorance.... As long as people will want to be compassionate (or pretend to be so), such autoregulating systems will always end up put a burden on the reasonable, to let the greedy reap in benefits when it works, and to let the reasonable pay for their mistakes when it goes wrong.

I don't know how valid the following analogy is, but you could see fractional reserve banking as bitcoin whales making new altcoins of which they control the minting, and they pump (with their bitcoin stash) the price of their altcoin to a given level.  As long as they have enough bitcoin stash to pump the price, this alt coin lives on happily a stable price level.  This can last very long, even if the market cap of the alt coin is way way larger than the bitcoin stash of the whale.

http://unenumerated.blogspot.com/2017/02/money-blockchains-and-social-scalability.html


He implied it by the context and what LN is (and that LN is not trustless):

The bold is your argument and its a ridiculous lie.

@traincarswreck been put on Ignore for not making any substantive arguments. Meaning I won't be responding to him because I won't read what ever vacuous, diversionary name dropping tactics he is employing.

Your argument is that Nash didn't believe that what he was saying WILL happen, is possible.  You argue he spent 20 years describing something he didn't even believe in. How would I refute such a nonsensical and irrational claim?

And Szabo confirmed yesterday he envisioned bitcoin to unfold as a settlement system 20 years ago and he retweeted today that quote I linked by Finney that is also in line with this.

You don't have a leg to stand on, you are simply arguing an opinion, not reading the associated literature, and referring/citing papers that don't exist.

So If YOu own A large bitcoin mining rig and set it to mine a lesser value coin you could possibly control the Blockchain never mind the speed of it.
Hence transaction speed.

Great way to Delay money So if u get suckers to buy a coin across a few crypto exchanges and then shut off ur miners or switch to a different coin
Basicaly freezing a coin while all the others rise
This is busy happening with Dogecoin Price is low because alot of people are holding Doge and they hope by dropping the price people will get scarred and sell. They then pick it up for bottom dollar.

 

@traincarswreck that is not a substantive rebuttal. You have made no cogent response to any of the numerous points of economics I have made. You simply name drop. And I doubt the people you are name dropping would agree with you if you showed them what I am writing. Invite Nick Szabo to come here to comment if you like.

Hayek gave a well respected treatise on the denationalization of money, which is cited by Szabo, who is pretty much the most respected thinker in bitcoin.  Your assertion that Nash spent 20 years arguing for something he didn't believe could exist is asinine. And calling me an idiot doesn't help your argument especially when you have only hand waved away 5 of the greatest philosophers of the fields of economics and crypto economics.

If you have anything of substance to offer, do so now, or forever hold your peace.

Hayek's theory is complete nonsense. He doesn't seem to understand the nature of money at all.

1. The value of money is based on public confidence, not Hayek's theory of perfect free market information. Humans are acting more like herd w.r.t. money (and speculation as well). He got that wrong, so that already shows he is a complete idiot when it comes to money. Other greats have commented on this such as Milton Friedman:

https://mises.org/library/hayeks-plan-private-money
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Denationalization_of_Money#Criticism

2. Hayek's theory stands in opposition to the fact that the public desires a common unit-of-account, because exchange risks add costs and are a derivative contract not money. Additionally what is being proposed for Bitcoin's off chain banking is not even what Hayek proposed. Instead what will happen is users will think they are getting BTC when in fact they are being lied to and being given private banking IOUs (thus not the free market perfect information that Hayek assumes). When the bank runs come, then the public clamors for bailouts. The banksters step into the power vacuum and eventually we end up with a world private central bank, i.e. the NWO World Bank. It is quite obvious that this Bitcoin off chain banking plan (aka Lightning Networks) is a plan of the banksters who leech off humanity (no more!).

3. As @CoinCube and I have discussed many times (his research example came from evolutionary biology) that systems with too many degrees-of-freedom lose information and diverge. That is why there is a power vacuum and that is why there must be a power-law distribution in nature.

4. Even Nash admitted that the ideal money concept was unworkable in the real world.


Get off my lawn pompous useless idiot. Take your academic nonsense back to MIT, Cornell, or what ever troglodytic trove of misinformation you hail from and tell them to shove up their dumb asses. If you have a detailed argument to make, then make it. Stop obfuscating. You are wasting precious time.

Right so you have no link to the source, so I can't read it, so how can I refute it?  Let me ask you, have YOU read it?  Because so far you haven't read a single argument that you refuted for example Hayek's.

And how could you possibly think citing random people on reddit makes a paper that I can't read and you can't source/link to, more credible? And what time and event in the 1800's are you constantly referring to? I want to know so I can directly refute it.

You are making noise in this thread because you don't read what is written:

iamnotback, you cited a reddit thread, can you link me the source material please?

edit: you are citing reddit quotes my friend.

No you don't understand what I wrote, because you are a smart idiot.

Here it is explained in a research paper that has apparently been excised from the universe by your bankster cohorts.

Hayek's theory is too idealized and only works in glass cathedrals, not in the real world. His theory is based on fungibility and substitutability which is exactly the antithesis of the knowledge age economy we are marching into now.

Who cares if they did?



I've already handled this before. It's irrelevant who created it in the end, it is what it is, and it cannot be stopped.

That's the whole point. People misunderstand these megalomaniac, they see them as evil incarnate. Sure they've been sordid as hell in the past, and one could argue that this demonstrates their human fallibility, not their omniscience.



But there's one thing these uber-whales seems to get right consistently: extra long term planning, based entirely on logic. Like their inter-generational wishlist to the Santa Claus of totalitarianism

Examples of Elites planning Long-Term

Monotheistic Religions

From the Pantheon (and Paganism before it), the flocks were led to monotheism. Monotheism was simple organisational logic, it put all the wisdom and authority into a single set of stories, administered by a single, internal hierarchical structure. The Pantheon couldn't confer the hierarchical structure that Monotheism did, simply because it was not hierarchical, the anthropomorphised forces of nature that each deity represented could contradict one another in power plays, as it was a oligarchy, not a monarchy. Monotheism took the power structure and the mythology, and placed it all under a single ruler, "One nation under god".


The Book of Revelation

Written nearly 2 thousand years ago (i.e. not in the gnostic Bibles), predicted today's "mark of the beast" situation, not by divine inspiration, but by logic alone. The merchant's logic told the authors that a system where the control of who is permitted to buy or sell was the ultimate "key to the granaries". It took hundreds of years of refinement, but the ultimate such system is nearly upon us today, in the guise of the sleepwalk into the cashless society (and buttressed by ideas like the PRC's "social credit" system)


Crowleyism

Crowleyism was a smart invention of a British MI6 agent, Aleister Crowley. He basically parodied liberalism into such a cleverly devised caricature that even today people are being expected to believe it (not totally sure how widely believed it really is).

But even for those that do not believe it, Crowleyism is still very powerful, but used still used against disbelievers as a smokescreen. Classic British TV serial "The Prisoner" evokes Crowleyism subtly to associate individualism with Crowleyism (and conservatism). What did the first exhibitor of the JFK assassination Zapruder film footage underground cable news presenter Geraldo Rivera go on to cover in the 1980's? Crowleyism (by way of the "Satanic Panic"). What was Charles Manson associated with subsequent to the Tate murders? Crowleyism. Stanley Kubrick very subtly associates nationalism, liberalism and Crowleyism together in various films. What was British TV personality sir Jimmy Saville associated with shortly after the media coverage of his decades of paedophile rapes and sexual assaults? Crowleyism.

And last but not least, modern Libertarianism has already been conflated with Crowleyism by a veteran of the Libertarian circuit, Doug Casey. And the soft-fascist corporatism we know and love has been given double treatment, whereby soft-fascim is conflated with Liberalism (read the now popular "neo-Liberalism" buzzword), which in turn evokes Crowley's parody of Liberalism and Individualism.

Clever stuff. Essentially, whenever the establishment want to sweep something under the rug, or sully it, they invoke Crowleyism somehow. The world and the child-beings who inhabit it appear to accept this.


These people (like the Rothschilds) are not stupid. They plan very assiduously, and the idea that someone like the Rothschilds funded attempts to create a decentraised cryptocurrency is plainly very plausible. The cypherpunk mailing group discussions that people like Hal Finney, Adam Back and Nick Szabo contributed to were available for all to see, and the evidence that the establishment began to investigate the possibilities of cypherpunkism abounds. What does everyone think the ultra-rich powerbrokers do all day, sit around fingering each other's assholes? They plan. And if it's possible, they front-run it, so that they're always the ones who get there first, ready to take first spoils.

Is that proof that some lone individual wasn't Satoshi? No. But just blurting out "it waz The Rothschilds!!!1" is chilidish and without merit or reason. Sure they could have been behind Satoshi, they will have given themselves every opportunity. But one does not become an ultra-rich dynasty without being a realist, which means these people wear many hats, both ruthless and pragmatic alike.

I understand you perfectly. You didn't read either Nash or Hayek but you quoted a history they are well aware of, much more than you, and which they used to found their arguments on.  I need you to reference me exactly the period you are talking about, and I am going to show everyone exactly how you are mistaken, while simultaneously claiming myself Nash and Hayek, two of the greatest economical thinkers of all time are also mistaken.

Hayek didn't make a mistake and you haven't read his argument that you have an opinion about.

Here is a wiki on the panic of 1819, are you referring to this specifically?  Or perhaps a later or earlier time?  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panic_of_1819

You don't understand what I am writing. I am not claiming that chaos in general must be regulated. I am not making any such claim. I am writing about what happens NATURALLY when fractional reserve banking is unregulated. It is a winner-take-all power vacuum as evident by what happened in the empirical example of the USA in the 1800s.

You are either very dumb or disingenuous or both.

I realize it is big shock to you that Hayek is simply wrong. As the empirical evidence contradicts his stupid theory.

Hayek's mistake is he didn't factor in the game theory environment and the power-law distribution of power and influence.

I don't give a fuck if Nash was brilliant. I am also brilliant. And everyone makes mistakes.

Liar

I didn't write that. You don't even comprehend what is being discussed.

You seem to be oblivious to the power-law distribution and what happened naturally in the USA in the 1800s with unregulated fractional reserve banking.

You deny the empirical evidence of what actually happens. And you refuse to respond on that point. Thus you are disingenuous.


I am providing empirical evidence. That trumps theory. You should know that if you are an academic.