Topic: Miner cartel, Bankster cartel, or an altcoin? Your choice? - page 21. (Read 33250 times)

Again you use hand waving and opinion to directly refute 20 years of argument as written and lectured about by John Nash one of the greatest and most widely held thinkers of our time.  Someone who already redefined our understanding of economics when he was but a young adult:


Your assertion that the chaos must be regulated also goes against each of the philosophers I have quoted an cited already Nash Szabo Hayek Smith and Finney.  Regulation implies such a world government or indirectly a monopoly on the money printing system and such a premise is not inline with any arguments these men give.

Their arguments are clearly and simply that the system must be allowed to self regulate and when it is allowed, then it will self optimize.

Nothing you are assert is accepted theory and it is not based on logic.

Okay but only ultimately with a world central bank. Yes I agree. But not in an unregulated chaos. That short-lived chaos will end up just like what happened to the USA after the 1800s. The banksters will aggregate power as other banks fail with bank runs. The banksters whales can manipulate the public and cause bubbles and busts.

Rothschild created Bitcoin.

It is not Nash or Hayek's argument that fiat will fall.  That is a myth called hyperbitcoinization which is perpetuated by people that don't understand or accepted that central banks monetary policies COULD be adjusted to print money of superior quality, but that this is unlikely to happen if there is an existing monopoly on money supply.

Hayek and Nash each give very explicate and well reasoned arguments how the end of the monopoly on money supply could and would force fiat to Idealized not fail.

@dinofelis, but what about his argument that unregulated fractional reserve banking without a central bank will be some panacea? He is citing Hayek and I am saying Hayek's theory is nonsense.

No matter how big a financial crisis would occur, and no matter how, for matters of principle, I would love that (although practically, I would hate it because of all the horrors that would happen to me and my kin), I don't believe:
1) that big fiat currencies are going to "fall down"
2) that of all assets, bitcoin is going to be the preferred one.  I rather think that land, real estate, stock, and, in the end, food, is going to be preferred over some digital stuff the Chinese government can lay their hands on any minute or a few wealthy sleazy mobsters with a lot of bitcoin are possessing several percent of.
3) that TPTB will allow this to happen, if it escapes their control (and no, some high-charged maffioso with a filled bitcoin account is not part of TPTB).

However, I do think that the current crack down on everything financial that is not declared, for fiscal and "terrorist" reasons, makes bitcoin somewhat attractive for all that fiat that cannot see the daylight and has more and more difficulties hiding somewhere on planet earth in offshore banks.  However, bitcoin's transparency is maybe more of a problem than it seems at first sight.

So no, apart from some "black fiat money", I don't expect a massive exodus from fiat into bitcoin.  Especially because the way back is through more and more severely regulated exchanges.

And no, bitcoin is not very secure.  The massive PoW that goes into bitcoin is not sustainable with an upscaling (you really imagine wasting 40 billion $$ a year on mining electricity if bitcoin scales up 100 fold ?) and PoW is not cryptographically very secure.  It is just very wasteful. 

So no.  Bitcoin has a future, but not as a place to flee when people escape from fiat.  It has a future in big sleazy business that needs a non-fiat trustless settlement layer for their business.

@traincarswreck points out that it is the exodus from fiat to crypto-currency which could drive Bitcoin's price up and Bitcoin being more secure than altcoins, not scaling...

You don't recognize when you've already been refuted. For this reason, it is impossible to argue with a stupid person. If you go think and read and re-read many times, eventually you might figure it out.

...

You've refuted nothing, not once.

You've simply made a bunch of unbacked assertions, forcefully. Because you're (gasp) wrong


Refute what I've said with something you can actually substantiate

You are confused. I know it is disconcerting. Try reading.

The longest chain wins. Now who controls the longest chain (who ultimately controls the miners because of the complex game theory). Duh.

This stuff is above your pay grade. It is not a set of simple compartmentalized rules that you can just memorize or regurgitate. You actually have to understand.

Don't feel bad for making a mistake. The game theory is complex. Anyone could make mistakes when first learning this stuff. But do please learn that insisting (and adding condescending tone) when you are confused, is quite noisy and impolite.

This all started with you claiming that "longest chain wins no matter what", now you're changing your story to "whales win no matter what"....

Which? And why are you replying in the wrong thread, is it to give you and your thread much craved attention, or just trying to confuse the reader? hmmmmm?


Seriously, sort yourself out

Incorrect. You've already been told what to read upthread, and apparently you are incapable of comprehending it or didn't bother to read it.


It has already been explained. You've already been told what to read upthread, and apparently you are incapable of comprehending it or didn't bother to read it.


I guess you can't keep all the game theory options in your head at the same time. You've forgotten apparently the option that the whales have to change the PoW hash (and I've already argued the impacts of that upthread, so don't reply with some bullshit that ignores what was already argued upthread). I am not going to repeat and re-argue all the details that @dinofelis and I have already written in the prior pages. If you are incapable or refuse to understand what was written, that is your problem.

If you continue to write nonsense and attempt to force me to repeat everything, I am going to announce to everyone that I put you on Ignore. You're not on Ignore yet, so this is a warning.

Get a reality check dude. I know you've been here as long or longer than myself, and you probably think you are well informed, so it may be a shock to you but in terms of game theory you are not well informed (not even close to being an expert). Typing less and reading more would be your best option for now.


Jealousy is not a meritocracy. Stop writing nonsense.

What iamnotback (aka AnnoyMint) is missing....

• The whales have the BTC & BTU.
• BU has the hashpower.

Hashpower wins. With a combination of the BU design, and >51% nodes (sybil nodes) and >51% hashpower, the BTC price would go to hell, along with the network.



Explain, Annoymint, what difference will it make that BTC whales can shortsell BTU, when the BU chain can just drive the BTC chain into the ground, courtesy of it's design making it like a weaponised blockchain?

With USD/BTC dropping fast, fiat whales can inflate BTU price, while the BU chain can stop the BTC chain dead in it's tracks, killing USD/BTC.



Analysis fail. Give everyone their 9 pages of reading back, IMO

Here is sort of a summary of the prior two pages of this thread. Please correct me if I have an error...

Well perhaps a crack with the fud.

http://bitcoinist.com/bitcoin-unlimited-token-dives/

F2pool also quoted.

We likely are always going to see 30% of btc universe in lame ass disarray. We
Will be better off years to come, just ignoring such for the price dumps or other
Stuff expected from such antics. It likely will always be something stirring the pot
May as well learn now at 1k btc. The fud will even be more desparate at 5k coin.  Imho

The bigger the army. The louder the camp followers and the more rumor fud and trying to
Herd btc to the looney fridge. So expect more of this fake crisis drama and manipulation

Folk are already catching on. You can only cry wolf so many times till it is just noise

Nobody got a problem with that..only BU shills. But uber NOOBS like you dont know that Blockstream only got a few Core dev on there payroll while those miners are in control by 1 guy; Jihan. Jihan forces them to use his ASICS to run HIS BU...dont you get it NOOB? When BU gets adopted (very unlikely) this dictator Jihan controls not only the mining but also the protocol. How centralised is that you dumbass! You and all those idiotic shills are even to dumb to understand that. But no.... NOOBS like YOU prefer a HF asap while BU software is buggy... WTF man, BU NOOBS are even more stupid than i thought.

Readers I swear that @dinofelis and I have not colluded to make this point. He and I are genuinely debating/discussing. He and I often have different viewpoints.

If you had a system that scaled to any level of transactions on chain, and the world was going to end up doing all of its transactions on that blockchain (including all the database transactions that are currently done on centralized databases not just related to payments, e.g. StackExchange must die) then the growth could go on indefinitely. That is what my project is about. Steem/Ark (Graphene DPoS) is probably the other closest to what I am working on, but DPoS is controlled by the whales. Ethereum also in the similar field of innovation, yet it seems to encourage apps to make their own token and ICO (which I think is not the ideal funding model for apps). Yet it is alleged those were fraudulently distributed, e.g. an ICO enables the issuers to borrow BTC and buy the ICO from themselves and Steem had a sneaky stealth mine so 80% of the supply is concentrated in a few whales. Note Ark.io's ICO apparently failed (or I am not really sure what happened there). I hear Dan Larimer is preparing to issue another ICO soon. I wasn't talking about near-term speculation. Near-term it looks like all the quality small caps are being pumped round-robin since Bitcoin started to have this existential crisis. And Ethereum allegedly has USG.MIT as backers so we'll see a lot of mass media greater fool news for it and there are some important developments such as Raiden, the clone of LN.

I hope the gravity of the prior paragraph is not lost on readers. I'm talking about replacing all the centralized databases on the Internet, e.g. Facebook, Twitter, etc..


Well with centralization of the miners into a tightly organized cartel, it could scale as much as Visa scales. But it still couldn't scale to putting every database transaction from the Internet on a blockchain. I don't know if readers understand that Visa's infrastructure is entirely inadequate for the level of scale that some of us are thinking about. We want to change the world. (Okay I am hyping a bit yet serious)

And most people don't know (apparently Blockstream doesn't even know, lol) Sidechains are insolubly flawed and can never be secure (you can find a debate about that between @ArticMine and myself recently).


But without a FED backstopping the banking system, we'll have bank runs like we did in the 1800s with private banking and periodically have Bitcoin depressions. The Bitcoin economy could not survive this. Thus the banksters probably intend to fold LN into a world bank fiat system. This is why I have always stated that Bitcoin was created by Rothschild (and Wikileaks is also controlled by Rothschilds, just look at where Assange slept in the UK before he went to the Ecuadorian embassy).

As I wrote about a deflationary crypto-currency (which is where I think we are headed), afaics the knowledge age is not going to support a debt-based economy. The debt-based economy was for the fixed capital industrial age. Given those assumptions are correct, I conclude Bitcoin is the wrong paradigm.


A reserve currency without a central bank can't support a widespread (overly indebted) debt-based economy such as the one we have now. (Which is a good thing since we no longer need the socialism governance model that we required when laborers were fungible and capitalists could replace workers with cheaper workers)


1. The whales might be the banksters.

2. I explained upthread that the whales can be their own miners and prevent non-whales from mining (if the whales are sufficiently organized).

---

We already explained upthread that the miners can't take control if the whales are sufficiently organized.

And even if they could, then they could do evil such as mint a billion tokens and gouge us for fees.

It's funny how people rather be controlled by banks than by miners.

Guess there's too many noobs to bitcoin who don't even understand what bitcoin is.

How can you regulate a decentralized PoW currency unless have control/influence over 51% of the hashrate.

Arguably China is already subsidizing the miners with cheap hydroelectric power, taking electricity away from other needs in the society and capex (and environmental impacts) for dams are huge.