Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[cypherdoc]

Bottom-line: the latest claims of ISIS/Islamic State using Bitcoin come without evidence, even though Bitcoin's architecture makes it uniquely easy to provide evidence. The people making the claims are known bullshitters. This doesn't prove that ISIS/Islamic State isn't using Bitcoin, but there's no particular reason to believe that they are.

https://ello.co/zooko/post/4oIyphoYjCmOmnu-HOAOEw

 

[sickpig]

@cypherdoc or put it in another way:

"The amount of energy necessary to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than to produce it" -- @ziobrando's "Bullshit asymmetry principle"

I dare saying that most of the time you need two order of magnitude rather than one.

 

[cypherdoc]

btw, the $DJI bottomed precisely where the daily cycle predicted it would for the short term. i'm expecting it to roll over again soon:

 

[Justus Ranvier]

They're lying to you about Bitcoin and terrorism so that you'll be talking about terrorism rather than the fact that they've begun to seal the exits prior to enacting capital controls and bail-ins.

 

[cypherdoc]

gold was way overdue for it's bounce so i say let it run for now before the next roll over. i'll be looking to reinstitute my short at that time.
[doublepost=1447951668][/doublepost]2 more hints that this is a countertrend bounce in the $DJI:

[doublepost=1447951943][/doublepost]

@cypherdoc or put it in another way:

"The amount of energy necessary to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than to produce it" -- @ziobrando's "Bullshit asymmetry principle"

I dare saying that most of the time you need two order of magnitude rather than one.

what's really interesting is that the author of the article, Lewis Sanders @postmoi, deleted a tweet of his yesterday that i personally scrutinized where he stated that someone in his editorial dept had inserted the part about an ISIS funded Bitcoin address w/o his permission. yet now he is defending his article as originally written. he's hiding something or was told by his superiors to delete that admission:

https://twitter.com/postmoi
[doublepost=1447952531,1447951517][/doublepost]here is the 10yr weekly of Sotheby's. deflating:

 

[Justus Ranvier]

what's really interesting is that the author of the article, Lewis Sanders @postmoi, deleted a tweet of his yesterday that i personally scrutinized where he stated that someone in his editorial dept had inserted the part about an ISIS funded Bitcoin address w/o his permission. yet now he is defending his article as originally written. he's hiding something or was told by his superiors to delete that admission

Did you take a screenshot of the admission before it was deleted?

 

[Bagatell]

@Justus I can still see it. (took a pic in case)

Lewis Sanders IV on Twitter: "@zooko @jony_levin Just realized the issue here. There's no $20m BTC wallet "tied to" IS. Unfortunately this was added after I filed report."

 

[lunar]

Thoughts on mikes new position? Does this mean XT and lighthouse are going to be left out in the cold?

Secondly, I am beyond excited that Mike Hearn has joined us as our Lead Platform Engineer. He brings half a decade of experience of blockchain and cryptocurrency development and over seven years of experience helping run some of Google’s most heavily-trafficked websites. The combination of deep understanding of blockchain technologies and real-life experience of building rock-solid internet-scale production platforms is truly unmatched in the industry. And his involvement in the recent bitcoin blocksize debate gives me confidence he can hold his own against a group of very opinionated bank architects…

http://gendal.me/2015/11/19/introducing-the-r3-technical-leadership-team/

What's known about R3CV are they in the business 'bankchaincoin' tm?

update:
As for MH

 

[cypherdoc]

@Justus I can still see it. (took a pic in case)

Lewis Sanders IV on Twitter: "@zooko @jony_levin Just realized the issue here. There's no $20m BTC wallet "tied to" IS. Unfortunately this was added after I filed report."

why can't i see it in his list of tweets from that timeframe of Sept 27?

 

[Bagatell]

@cypherdoc does the link work for you?

 

[cypherdoc]

@Bagatell

yes, but when i browse thru his tweets during the Sept 27 timeframe, i don't see the tweet.

also, great article from Hussman on the current situation:

http://www.hussman.net/wmc/wmc151116.htm
[doublepost=1447956064][/doublepost]here's the 2 yr chart junk bond mkt ETF Hussman talks about.

Make no mistake: the preferred objects of speculation during the QE bubble have been low-grade debt and the entire stock market, indiscriminate of industry, sector, quality, or capitalization. We are now beginning to observe internal divergences that signal increasing risk aversion among investors. The greatest casualty of the QE bubble will also likely be low-grade debt and the entire stock market, probably just as indiscriminately.:

 

[albin]

The /r/Bitcoin Blockstream mob wants ideological purity of the highest order from Mike, for having a reasonably unrelated day job. Jesus Christ is the pot calling the kettle black!

 

[cypherdoc]

Geezuz crimony! I swear, what a screwed up world:

GHOST SECURITY GROUP BITCOIN ADDRESS:
1MfUH1ThpU1dMjBAc5jcewLToE2efQxu7K

http://www.newsbtc.com/2015/11/14/isil-militants-linked-to-france-terrorist-attacks-had-a-bitcoin-address-with-3-million-dollars/

 

[theZerg]

sounds like XT is in a holding pattern (after all its prime purpose BIP101 is finished) and that Hearn was expecting industry leaders to step up and support XT before now. He can only work with no salary for so long, unless OFC he bought lots of BTC early.

 

[cypherdoc]

looks legit:

[doublepost=1447970355,1447969208][/doublepost]remember all the commodity bulls like Jim Rogers? and how that extrapolated to the precious metals?:

[doublepost=1447971205][/doublepost]

 

[Zangelbert Bingledack]

A poll asking why hard forks require broad consensus:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1251433.0

So far 2/3 of respondents say hard forks do require broad consensus, with 1/3 saying they don't. Somewhat more of the "consensus required" people justify this morally than technically.

 

[cypherdoc]

my favorite perversity:

https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/how-a-bitcoin-backbone-gives-small-miners-a-leg-up-matt-corrallo-s-relay-network-1447961203

 

[Peter R]

A poll asking why hard forks require broad consensus:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1251433.0

So far 2/3 of respondents say hard forks do require broad consensus, with 1/3 saying they don't. Somewhat more of the "consensus required" people justify this morally than technically.

I think part of the problem is that if you ask it this way, then it seems that by "hard forking" to a larger block size limit that we are changing something about Bitcoin's nature (indeed, we are changing a line of code in the reference client that has historically rarely been used as visualized on this new Reddit thread).

However, by not forking we are changing something about Bitcoin's nature too. We are completely changing the economic model that Bitcoin has operated under over its entire history (that the free-market equilibrium block size was smaller than the limit).

I would argue that forcing a new-economic paradigm for Bitcoin by not changing that line of rarely-used code is a vastly greater change to Bitcoin's nature. I bet if your poll was written this way, your poll would have shown support for changing that line of code.

 

[cypherdoc]

Keys under doormats: mandating insecurity by requiring government access to all data and communications



http://cybersecurity.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2015/11/17/cybsec.tyv009.full?ijkey=mjwJomF75oqYdwm&keytype=ref

 

[Zangelbert Bingledack]

@Peter R

I fully agree with your reasoning there.

My purpose for this poll was actually not to see how many people thought hard forks require consensus, but rather how many people who do think hard forks require consensus think so for moral/image vs. technical reasons.

This has been a puzzling point in debate for me, and I guess the poll results explain why: there are plenty of people who think one or the other or both. It's very hard to convince someone that hard forks don't require consensus when I'm making technical points but their objection is moral, or vice versa.