Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[lunar]

A familiar sounding poster on Reddit


"Metanet means everything socialist about the Internet will be made capitalist.

Bitcoin not only becomes the plumbing for the entire global economy, but brings the entire information revolution under the purview of economic incentives.

It expands the scope of free-market interaction and efficiency to cover every last link, every last piece of data, every last packet, every last part in every last vehicle and appliance - the entire world of anything that matters made immutable, trackable, verifiable, searchable - with search and curation itself made rational for the first time by weaving economics into the very fabric of the Internet.

This is the 4th industrial revolution, bigger change than any of the previous ones. Take what the division of labor did for the global standard of living and square it. Bitcoin is capitalism in code form, and Blacknet/Metanet is the ultimate permeation of capitalism into every last useful piece of the world with all the efficiencies and opportunities that represents."


This is why there is no place for RasPi or hobby nodes. - DATA CENTRES

I have also come to the opinion that the schism in this thread is much bigger than just the dislike of one particular person, although that's often how unexamined thinking presents itself. Latch onto someone you dislike and use it and excuse, to whitewash it all away.
(Discussing people, is a bad habit)

This I believe is socialism versus capitalism. The former has no place in Bitcoin. It is utterly incompatible, and why so much cognitive dissonance is clearly on display here.

There is a sickness in the open source community. It comes from the misapprehension that information is or can be free. It appears free? It's a little like using the argument 'the air you breath, is free' This is an illusion of the supply and demand curve, and suitable, fractional pricing, mechanisms.
(we simply have a massive supply glut, so valuing air is not within human capability)

Information is not free. it's orders of magnitude easier to price than the air example, It has to be stored somewhere. It has to use cables and satellites for propagation. That's all patents and IP are really, a very crude system to value information.

Back to Metanet. If you think information or open source means free, you are basically admitting there is no distinction between random noise and the latest blockbuster movie. All value is subjective. It is precisely this subjectivity, that Bitcoin and by extension Metanet will solve. If Person A values something at price X, it is a socialistic fallacy to presume Person B will value it equally (even air). Finally being able to qualitatively ascribe differential values, to packets of data, will give a direction to humanity, like nothing we've ever seen. It provides the incentive system to produce quality over quantity, value over noise, and invert the current media dictatorship, where we are the product.

Capitalism like a rising tide, it floats all boats. Socialisms endgame, just makes everyone equally poor.

 

[cypherdoc]

oh my, grinding EVEN higher. poor ABC:

 

[bitsko]

im not behind the scenes, but as an investor in ABC im quite worried that the bitmain cartel wont be able to protect its hedge(ABC chain) indefinitely, particularly if the talk about its next gen troubles(high failure rate, loss of architect) are true.

 

[cypherdoc]

0.6

 

[bitsko]

Socialistic ideals vs. capitalistic ideals indeed.

also privacy versus anonymity needs to play out.

 

[cypherdoc]

when you're an overweening voluntaryist (some of whom also believe in multiple shitcoins) dev, socialism is everything you've ever wanted.
[doublepost=1543863441,1543862360][/doublepost]these are the only types of replay protection needed:

https://blog.btc.com/replay-protection-and-bsv-extraction-tool-f0ff3ed8ca2f

ABC thinks exchanges are in their camp. no, they're mercenaries too. otherwise, they wouldn't be allowing any trading of BSV at all.

 

[Tomothy]

Knowing very well, that posts like this are a sign of "the bottom is in". I'll do it anyway, because it's not about the price. I could have written something similar last year. What was different back then is, that there was still hope that BCH will carry on the torch. Not so now.

The Bitcoin (Cash) project is dead and almost no one has realized it (yet). Bitcoin for me was about getting sound money and power in the hands of the many. And in that one thing it miserably failed.

The space is captured and fractured. I don't see any value in exchanging the old fiat establishment for a new crypto one. And that is why I'll stop recommending to invest in Bitcoin. I even start to see the benefits of fiat.

I capitulated ideologically. It's either time to move on or to change my attitude towards crypto.

Good riddance.

Typically, I'm not one to find myself at a loss for words. But the above helps mirror my sentiment. This fork was like two children playing with an action figure/doll and it was ripped in half. Someone holding an arm and a leg but now it's broken and both kids screaming and pointing fingers. It doesn't much matter who/why/how, it's still broken.

I don't know how you put Humpty Dumpty back together again.

 

[yrral86]

The only way to save bitcoin is to decentralize mining. There are really only a few small groups that control the majority of hashpower. To accomplish this, we need Intel, AMD, and Qualcom to add sha256 cores to every CPU in every desktop, laptop, and smartphone. This won't happen unless Bitcoin really does become the foundation of a new networking technology. That will create the demand for everyone to contribute just enough hashpower to pay for their transactions. Proof-of-work as fee. We may still have issues with too few pools, but hopefully the connectivity providers for will get in on that particular game and provide more voices.

 

[Bloomie]

when I used to still control this thread, I felt an obligation to maintain its quality to a standard that would make it an interesting, strategic, insightful, go to thread on BCT and here initially. it took special attention to share experiences in investing, technical analysis and interpretation of current events. as well as to keep the trolls in line. I really tried to help people through difficult times. it really was a labor of love and took an enormous amount of time and effort. you have no idea. when Bloomie stole this thread from me by force reopening it against my wishes, all pretenses to that care and attentiveness disappeared. he claims it was for the good of the community but really all he wants is the ad revenue it generates. seriously, is he ever around contributing to Bitcoin? no. he's not interested in Bitcoin ; look at his comments. he'll only wander around here every five days or so to remove spam. since he now acts like he owns the thread, why don't you ask him to put the effort in to make it what it once used to be? he won't because he can't. you'll then scream, but Cypher, you were going to shut it down! to which I'd say, yes, and would have reopened it on Bitcoin.com or some other place. you'll say I could have done it anyways! but after reading all the unappreciative comments from certain folks who could give a shit about my efforts and who have no abilities to sustain a multi year thread themselves, I just said fuck it. so yeah the content has degenerated because I don't give a shit anymore and won't invest the effort to make it great. I'm just another guest. cry me a river my ass. Bloomie is your new OP.

My contribution to Bitcoin is allocating time to this forum almost every day of my life for the past three and a half years. I am grateful that Bitcoin Unlimited was born here, as were many ideas now used in the current implementations of Bitcoin and elsewhere in crypto. My promise with the creation of this forum was to give a voice to the people and ideas that were suppressed in other places. That mission has succeeded so far, and we need to carry on, because the toughest days may still be ahead.

I actually don't think the content of this thread has degenerated. People are frustrated, but, for the most part, the community is engaged in a civil, honest, and uncensored discussion. Stakeholders and gatekeepers are unable to interfere and suffocate the version of Bitcoin that they consider a threat to their version of Bitcoin or to their wallets. That was the whole point.

As for the ad revenue... please. I've been offered mind-numbing amounts of money from all sorts of people trying to buy this site (and yes, some of the more persistent offers come from China) and have told them to go fish every time. So far so good.

 

[lunar]

Gents, If you'll excuse my attempt at a little mediation.

Both @Bloomie and @cypherdoc we are all lucky to have you. Your opinions, past credentials and work are unquestionably outstanding. This forum, and specifically this thread have been a bastion for uncensored, free thinking, and imho unparalleled Bitcoin discussion. I for one, would not have made it this far and learned so much, if it were not for the time and effort you both put in.

A heartfelt thank you, to each of you.

That said, I don't think, considering our origins, that it is an unreasonable request by Cypherdoc, to have some moderating privileges. There are constantly spam here, and if only to lessen your work Bloomie, sharing the ability to delete it with Cypherdoc and perhaps a couple of others, would undoubtedly increase the S/N ratio. Would it not be a simple matter, to verify if this power was ever abused, and easily revoked, if necessary?

I recently suggested to Bloomie that we try an integrate Money button instead of the like button for each post. This would encourage quality, and why not have a small % of each tip sent to a forum upkeep fund at Bloomies discretion?

However this works out, I thank you both, for your many years of tireless work, dedication and intellectual curiosity.

 

[cbeast]

This is ridiculous. Why does a "low number of coins" reduce utility? Because you can't divide a satoshi? Of course we can add decimals, oh wait. on BCH we can, on BSV I guess you're stuck. Too bad it's unlikely either of those coins will ever *have* to.

You answered your own question about utility thinking you can add decimals, but if nothing else it raises the question on how much the smallest unit should be worth in trade.

Apparently you can't divide a Satoshi because Bitcoin doesn't use floating point math. But of course you can always keep forking it and breaking clients until you figure out how you or somebody else wants it to work.

I'll ignore the snark about price until we have a stable system anyone actually uses.

 

[cypherdoc]

That said, I don't think, considering our origins, that it is an unreasonable request by Cypherdoc, to have some moderating privileges. There are constantly spam here, and if only to lessen your work Bloomie, sharing the ability to delete it with Cypherdoc and perhaps a couple of others, would undoubtedly increase the S/N ratio. Would it not be a simple matter, to verify if this power was ever abused, and easily revoked, if necessary?

the irony of the previous situation when I was a mod here years ago, was that i was given the privilege of removing spam from the wider Economics Forum but for some reason not in this specific thread of which I was the OP. that never made sense to me which is why I requested only that specific additional privilege which was denied and then led to our disagreement. personally, it should have been the opposite, as my priorities and loyalties were much more to this thread's integrity given I was the OP and could care less what was happening at a wider level. and certainly, any post deletions on my part could easily be verified for their integrity as spam; not to mention the howling that would take place if I ever stepped over that line.

 

[molecular]

Partisan sniping aside...

If I have horded 1M coins, and everyone else burns/loses theirs until the rest of you are splitting 1 coin to capture the worlds economy. My 1M coins are worthless now, I can only really sell 0.0001 of them without disrupting anything.

I'm assuming you're constructing an extreme example to make your point easier to understand and you don't really think it's going to go down like that? That's ok, but you're drawing a conclusions (the worthlessness of your coins) that is only valid in this extreme case: Let's look at more likely scenario: If I have hoarded 1000 coins and 1% of other people lose their coins, my 1000 coins are not worthless because using them would not disrupt anything more than it would without the 1% loss. To the contrary they got a little more valuable, is all. Value moves to those able to safekeep their keys from those who were for any reason (carelessness, death,...) unable to. Sounds fine to me.

Also: at some point these old/lost coins can be bruteforced anyway. It's all in the bitcoin version 0.1 design (sorry for sniping again).

 

[cbeast]

Partisan sniping aside...

If I have horded 1M coins, and everyone else burns/loses theirs until the rest of you are splitting 1 coin to capture the worlds economy. My 1M coins are worthless now, I can only really sell 0.0001 of them without disrupting anything.

Appeal to the extreme fallacy notwithstanding, miners and the rest of the world could indeed value them, maybe even more so if you were so powerful a person that you made all those other bitcoins disappear. They would become stores of great wealth until such time that anyone other than nations and major corporations could afford them. Having said that, it's also a ridiculous exercise because that would limit Bitcoin to 100 million total divisible units as it cannot be divided further. It would be a useless tool because it would be relegated to being a collectible instead of money.

 

[molecular]

Bitcoin doesn't use floating point math.

and for damn good reasons. Using float for financial stuff is a horrible idea. You'd still use integers (a bigger one than now) and just name the new smallest unit something else. Anyhow, calling it a "myth" that this can be done is misleading because it implies it can't be done, which is false.

I'll ignore the snark about price until we have a stable system anyone actually uses.

I think we can ignore the whole issue for much longer.

If it ever becomes and issue we'll just do a split via contentious fork and the value will drop enough to make a satoshi worth little enough again. We also doubled the money supply, another 50% reduction of the problem in itself.

 

[wrstuv31]

A predictable, knowable, money supply is an advantage, no matter the ratios. I do not believe that you burning coins makes my coins inherently more valuable, only that it makes me hold a greater percentage of the total coins. I guess a temporary liquidity crunch would push the price up? Is that valuable for the ecosystem? Depends. I do not understand how throwing money away helps with the sound money network effect.

I would argue that by you burning coins, less exchange is possible, unless we go through the incredibly unstable event of adding another 0 to our currency. I'd rather go as far as possible with the same 21M coins, and we should plan for it.

 

[cbeast]

and for damn good reasons. Using float for financial stuff is a horrible idea. You'd still use integers (a bigger one than now) and just name the new smallest unit something else. Anyhow, calling it a "myth" that this can be done is misleading because it implies it can't be done, which is false.

I've heard people say this, but so far I cannot find a paper or technical discussion on the subject that supports the assertion. Just saying it can be done doesn't mean a solution should be done, and that's been the problem that has been plaguing the technology, a lack of vision.

 

[cypherdoc]

I guess a temporary liquidity crunch would push the price up?

not necessarily. an inability to easily access badly needed units to merely transact just might make the market deem the currency unusable ala Dec 2017 BTC where everyone just leaves altogether or goes off to an altcoin. even the venerable USD is illegal to burn.

 

[molecular]

Context: I said "float is bad idea for financial applications".

I've heard people say this, but so far I cannot find a paper or technical discussion on the subject that supports the assertion.

There are some good answers in this stackoverflow question, with examples:

https://stackoverflow.com/questions/3730019/why-not-use-double-or-float-to-represent-currency

The float and double types are particularly ill-suited for monetary calculations because it is impossible to represent 0.1 (or any other negative power of ten) as a float ordouble exactly.

For example, suppose you have $1.03 and you spend 42c. How much money do you have left?

System.out.println(1.03 - .42);

prints out 0.6100000000000001.

The right way to solve this problem is to use BigDecimal, int or long for monetary calculations.

btw: IBM once made CPUs that directly (that is: efficiently) handle decimal numbers. Guess what they're specifically designed for: right! financial applications.

 

[cypherdoc]

0.62