Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

cypherdoc

Well-Known Member
Aug 26, 2015
5,257
12,995
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
 

cypherdoc

Well-Known Member
Aug 26, 2015
5,257
12,995
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:

 

cypherdoc

Well-Known Member
Aug 26, 2015
5,257
12,995
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:

 
  • Like
Reactions: majamalu

Justus Ranvier

Active Member
Aug 28, 2015
875
3,746
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?
 

lunar

Well-Known Member
Aug 28, 2015
1,001
4,290
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
 
Last edited:

cypherdoc

Well-Known Member
Aug 26, 2015
5,257
12,995

cypherdoc

Well-Known Member
Aug 26, 2015
5,257
12,995
@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.:

 
Last edited:

theZerg

Moderator
Staff member
Aug 28, 2015
1,012
2,327
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

Well-Known Member
Aug 26, 2015
5,257
12,995
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]
 

Peter R

Well-Known Member
Aug 28, 2015
1,398
5,595
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.
 
Last edited:

Zangelbert Bingledack

Well-Known Member
Aug 29, 2015
1,485
5,585
@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.
 

Members online

No members online now.