Topic: Open Letter to GMaxwell and Sincere Rational Core Devs - page 24. (Read 34840 times)
I'm one of those idiots who bought some Freicoin. Wrong economic theory. Silly me.
CORE wants change and BU wants change.
No its based on science and observable reality. There is no consensus for change and there never will be, because there are not enough people that are stupid as you.
Actually, there is consensus on multiple sides for change.
CORE wants change and BU wants change.
YOU are the only public party who is advising capture.
Change will come eventually.
Just no one knows what it will manifest as.
But if I am wrong, so be it, let this forum record my "stupidity" for all time.
No its based on science and observable reality. There is no consensus for change and there never will be, because there are not enough people that are stupid as you.
Lol, obviously you do not understand.
I support conservation scaling, both on-chain and off-chain.
It is not the Anti-CORE people you need to worry about, it is the CORE supporters.
Consensus will come when the time arrives in which it must.
Consensus never ends or freezes, it is a long negotiation.
You are asking the community to give in and accept capture.
Very anti-Bitcoin, IMO.
No you are confused. You think you understand Bitcoin.
The REALITY is no one does and it is in a state of continual evolution.
Everyday in Bitcoin world is like a year.
A TPS high consensus could come tomorrow or 5 years from now.
It doesn't matter when since time is irrelevant.
Your arguments that consensus is dead or too hard now, is based in wishful thinking.
You can't know the future based on the limited info you have now.
Tomorrow is a new day.
Lol, obviously you do not understand.
I support conservation scaling, both on-chain and off-chain.
It is not the Anti-CORE people you need to worry about, it is the CORE supporters.
Consensus will come when the time arrives in which it must.
Consensus never ends or freezes, it is a long negotiation.
You are asking the community to give in and accept capture.
Very anti-Bitcoin, IMO.
No scientist would reject human eugentic arguments.
Yet due to the Nazis, scientists stay far away from such scientific discussions.
They are taboo and go down a road most do not wish to travel.
Not all scientific arguments whether provable, deserve to be realized.
That is what you do not understand.
Your theory is 100% malicious, until you have high consensus.
Lol, obviously you do not understand.
I support conservation scaling, both on-chain and off-chain.
It is not the Anti-CORE people you need to worry about, it is the CORE supporters.
Consensus will come when the time arrives in which it must.
Consensus never ends or freezes, it is a long negotiation.
You are asking the community to give in and accept capture.
Very anti-Bitcoin, IMO.
No scientist would reject human eugentic arguments.
Yet due to the Nazis, scientists stay far away from such scientific discussions.
They are taboo and go down a road most do not wish to travel.
Not all scientific arguments whether provable, deserve to be realized.
That is what you do not understand.
Your theory is 100% malicious, until you have high consensus.
What you just said, doesn't address anything.
You are ignoring a possible future of your theory manifested, because it doesn't fit your final conclusion.
But then the scientists that you can not capture will likely fork the chain and
invisible community members will maliciously attack and invade the systems
of your miners. A cyber war will begin because you captured the honey badger.
You and your chain will be the enemy of all sides who find interest in Bitcoin,
other than the Nashians.
http://gavinandresen.ninja/a-definition-of-bitcoin
Quote
“Bitcoin” is the ledger of not-previously-spent, validly signed transactions contained in the chain of blocks that begins with the genesis block (hash 000000000019d6689c085ae165831e934ff763ae46a2a6c172b3f1b60a8ce26f), follows the 21-million coin creation schedule, and has the most cumulative double-SHA256-proof-of-work.1
No scientist would reject human eugentic arguments.
Yet due to the Nazis, scientists stay far away from such scientific discussions.
They are taboo and go down a road most do not wish to travel.
Not all scientific arguments whether provable, deserve to be realized.
That is what you do not understand.
Your theory is 100% malicious, until you have high consensus.
What you just said, doesn't address anything.
You are ignoring a possible future of your theory manifested, because it doesn't fit your final conclusion.
But then the scientists that you can not capture will likely fork the chain and
invisible community members will maliciously attack and invade the systems
of your miners. A cyber war will begin because you captured the honey badger.
You and your chain will be the enemy of all sides who find interest in Bitcoin,
other than the Nashians.
http://gavinandresen.ninja/a-definition-of-bitcoin
Quote
“Bitcoin” is the ledger of not-previously-spent, validly signed transactions contained in the chain of blocks that begins with the genesis block (hash 000000000019d6689c085ae165831e934ff763ae46a2a6c172b3f1b60a8ce26f), follows the 21-million coin creation schedule, and has the most cumulative double-SHA256-proof-of-work.1
What you just said, doesn't address anything.
You are ignoring a possible future of your theory manifested, because it doesn't fit your final conclusion.
But then the scientists that you can not capture will likely fork the chain and
invisible community members will maliciously attack and invade the systems
of your miners. A cyber war will begin because you captured the honey badger.
You and your chain will be the enemy of all sides who find interest in Bitcoin,
other than the Nashians.
What you just said, doesn't address anything.
You are ignoring a possible future of your theory manifested, because it doesn't fit your final conclusion.
No, in reality that is how it works, because otherwise other forks will be created and we
will start a blockchain war where sides will specifically and maliciously target miners and
infrastructure to cripple the other coin. It would be an act of war. People will not hold hands
and hug the way that ETH & ETC did "for the sake of knowledge". The natural state is war
and currently we are all unified under one chain. You will break that "truce".
If you are successful in stopping TPS change indefinitely, IMO a war will begin that makes
CORE v BU arguments and positioning look like childsplay. The coldwar will end.
You have confused "not reaching consensus" with "actualized malicious obstruction".
What you just said, doesn't address anything.
You are ignoring a possible future of your theory manifested, because it doesn't fit your final conclusion.
No, in reality that is how it works, because otherwise other forks will be created and we
will start a blockchain war where sides will specifically and maliciously target miners and
infrastructure to cripple the other coin. It would be an act of war. People will not hold hands
and hug the way that ETH & ETC did "for the sake of knowledge". The natural state is war
and currently we are all unified under one chain. You will break that "truce".
If you are successful in stopping TPS change indefinitely, IMO a war will begin that makes
CORE v BU arguments and positioning look like childsplay. The coldwar will end.
You have confused "not reaching consensus" with "actualized malicious obstruction".
The real issue is not whether you are correct or not, the issue is whether
Bitcoin IS the device to facilitate your wish to complete Nash's theory. And
since many Bitcoiners think that Bitcoin will scale, whether on and/or off chain,
means that it IS NOT or WILL NOT be, in the future.
IMO, it is not about intelligence, it is about whether the whole community
will agree that the experiment has ended and we are at near perfection for
a higher purpose. I would argue, the Nashian purpose, was not our purpose.
No, in reality that is how it works, because otherwise other forks will be created and we
will start a blockchain war where sides will specifically and maliciously target miners and
infrastructure to cripple the other coin. It would be an act of war. People will not hold hands
and hug the way that ETH & ETC did "for the sake of knowledge". The natural state is war
and currently we are all unified under one chain. You will break that "truce".
If you are successful in stopping TPS change indefinitely, IMO a war will begin that makes
CORE v BU arguments and positioning look like childsplay. The coldwar will end and a hot
war will begin and escalate.
You have confused "not reaching consensus" with "actualized malicious obstruction".
The real issue is not whether you are correct or not, the issue is whether
Bitcoin IS the device to facilitate your wish to complete Nash's theory. And
since many Bitcoiners think that Bitcoin will scale, whether on and/or off chain,
means that it IS NOT or WILL NOT be, in the future.
IMO, it is not about intelligence, it is about whether the whole community
will agree that the experiment has ended and we are at near perfection for
a higher purpose. I would argue, the Nashian purpose, was not our purpose.
... And no one can hold a candle to me on this subject. Or bring them to the dialogue.
The real issue is not whether you are correct or not, the issue is whether
Bitcoin IS the device to facilitate your wish to complete Nash's theory. And
since many Bitcoiners think that Bitcoin will scale, whether on and/or off chain,
means that it IS NOT or WILL NOT be, in the future.
IMO, it is not about intelligence, it is about whether the whole community
will agree that the experiment has ended and we are at near perfection for
a higher purpose. I would argue, the Nashian purpose, was not our purpose.
I think Gavin and Mike had/have no idea what they are talking about. And no one can hold a candle to me on this subject. Or bring them to the dialogue.
Quote
The script or plan for my talk linking the “ideal money” with the choices and actions of “thrift” or “savings” by persons or by “economic agents” was influenced by concerns that it would be wise not to speak too incautionsly of “the Keynesians” when the times are such that massive public opinions maybe supporting actions by which a state administration can act without going through the parliamentary processes to write new legislation.
So in the rush of political campaigns and elections (for example in the USA) it is difficult to sell a national monetary policy which, if followed consistently on a “long run” level, would result in the specific nation state existing as if on a higher level of economic civilization.
(For example, Sweden and Argentina might be usable, over a long time comparison, to represent comparable “economic civilizations”.)
Therefore, I had arranged for 2012 to talk more cautiously in relation to whatever would impact with “the Keynesians” and with the political interest relating also to the scholarly factions allied with (or forming) “the Keynesians”.
And this caution carries over naturally to 2013 also.
~public note from John Forbes Nash’s university homepage
So in the rush of political campaigns and elections (for example in the USA) it is difficult to sell a national monetary policy which, if followed consistently on a “long run” level, would result in the specific nation state existing as if on a higher level of economic civilization.
(For example, Sweden and Argentina might be usable, over a long time comparison, to represent comparable “economic civilizations”.)
Therefore, I had arranged for 2012 to talk more cautiously in relation to whatever would impact with “the Keynesians” and with the political interest relating also to the scholarly factions allied with (or forming) “the Keynesians”.
And this caution carries over naturally to 2013 also.
~public note from John Forbes Nash’s university homepage
Quote from: ideal money
So let us define “Keynesian” to be descriptive of a “school of thought” that originated at the time of the devaluations of the pound and the dollar in the early 30’s of the 20th century. Then, more specifically, a “Keynesian” would favor the existence of a “manipulative” state establishment of central bank and treasury which would continuously seek to achieve “economics welfare” objectives with comparatively little regard for the long term reputation of the national currency…~Ideal Money
Do you mean Gavin purposefully played on peoples assumption that an increase is good, and nefariously tried to use ignorance to change bitcoin so it wouldn't finger trap central banks?
Jump to: