Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

bitsko

Active Member
Aug 31, 2015
730
1,532
the plan: buy all the coinbase.com shares, tell brian 'stiff biscuits' in a shareholder's meeting and make them list BSV
Post automatically merged:

it looks like a coinbase.com bug if someone can add to their bsv balance post split lol.

the truth in my view is the reason it is one of the most held on coinbase is that people do not want to take the time to make other arrangements for their bsv.
 
Last edited:

79b79aa8

Well-Known Member
Sep 22, 2015
1,031
3,440
@AdrianX
it would be simple enough for electrumsv to deploy distinct wallets based on prior code, depending on use-cases. for now they are learning and pushing the tech. none of it makes them any money.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AdrianX

AdrianX

Well-Known Member
Aug 28, 2015
2,097
5,797
bitco.in
for now they are learning and pushing the tech. none of it makes them any money.
The nature of entrepreneurship is to pursue and develop an idea that you think will provide value that others may pay for. The successful ones are rewarded with profit. Bitcoin adds a second layer to that equation, one can invest in the network by buying the token and then add value to the network to create demand for the token, aka grow the pie.

The BSV's hegemony (CSW) seems opposed to the idea of saving the token (aka hodl) for some fundamental reason. I understand people need to work to create value, but saving is just as important and incurs equal risk when you don't know where work should be directed. Case in point even the most fundamental work as in PoW supporting the network's algorithm, Taal, for example, are working on BTC, supporting BTC, thinking it's supporting BSV)

I don't see ElectrumSV future value proposition, they seem dependant on serving the BSV hegemony, that's a valid strategy but I'm not convinced they're the leaders worthy of serving, it's the network of people that the people should be serving. (The market)
 
Last edited:

AdrianX

Well-Known Member
Aug 28, 2015
2,097
5,797
bitco.in
In response to the anti-HODL movement in BSV. Saving is exactly what people should be doing when one is uncertain about the future. As to what to save, well that's up to the individual, and the costs of being wrong is carried by the saver.

Sure we can't all save the principle behind the anti-HODL position, but Bitcoin is amazing in that way. If CSW is satoshi I'm certain he doesn't appreciate the full workings of his design, that's my observation given his disdain and criticism for savers, AKA HODLers. In bitcoin an imbalance in savers aka too many, eg the more people are using it to save, the more resources and value there is in the network that encourages entrepreneurs to build for the future where Bitcoin is the solution.

CSW's efforts in this regard, demonstrate his lack of understanding on how Bitcoin's network effects encourage entrepreneurs and is fueling BTC's growth at BSV's expense as it is undermining the BSV savers and BSV growth as future expectations are diminished.

The little I've seen in public about CSW, is he'd rather fight the criticism than chang his behavior. The man has lots of very well conserved strategies, but this lack of understanding of uncertainty, saving and trust in governments to provide certainty is a threat to the future of Bitcoin.
 
Last edited:

cbeast

Active Member
Sep 15, 2015
260
299
I don't think CSW is really against saving BSV. I think he recognizes that it's cash, not money. Governments can (like China already has) make exchanging the raw token itself illegal, at least without a license. Instead, BSV may be tokenized with a different value than the raw satoshis. Raw tokens may even be worth less than "colorized" tokens depending on taxes or other regulations. So I think he's just asking people to get out of the get rich quick mentality because real life doesn't work that way unless you're a crook.
 

Zarathustra

Well-Known Member
Aug 28, 2015
1,439
3,797
In response to the anti-HODL movement in BSV. Saving is exactly what people should be doing when one is uncertain about the future. As to what to save, well that's up to the individual, and the costs of being wrong is carried by the saver.
Yes, that is the case in an unnatural, hypercollectivist (=egoist) environment (civilization). In a natural environment in the rainforest with solidarity communities, that's exactly what you should not do. Everyone shares everything with everyone. It is not up to the individual. No money, no problem.
 
  • Like
Reactions: sgbett

AdrianX

Well-Known Member
Aug 28, 2015
2,097
5,797
bitco.in
In a natural environment in the rainforest with solidarity communities, that's exactly what you should not do.
We originated in Africa most probably on the coast or in the savanna, not rain forests. None the less, in most of Africa you can live day to day and survive as a nomadic or subsistence farmer, one does not need to save, and until recently most people lived that way.

Why the Europeans were able to come to Africa and take slaves was because in Europe you needed to save to survive. The winter can kill you if you done save. To be encouraged to save you needed to imagine an uncertain future and prepare for it. People who save think more because they need to saver to survive, it makes them seem smarter.

Those who learned to save thrived and invest the excess savings resulting in what we call progress. Those who did not save had no need of progress and ultimately end up serving those who do.

Balance is restored by understanding our past, and designing the future, not by regressing and allowing humanity to make the same mistakes, over and over.

We share everything now, thats how we prosper. Money is just a technology that was invented to prevent parasitic relationsips from taking too much, it was invented as a necessity when we outgrew our communities. Money's the idea has been perverted. Money is memory. Savings doesn't need money. Saving involve imagining a future and preparing to thrive in it, those who get it correct can share more than those who dont. We encourage those who can share more by whatever means necessary for the prosperity of all.
 

Zarathustra

Well-Known Member
Aug 28, 2015
1,439
3,797
Yes, Progress, in Orwell's language. War is peace, destruction of the planet is progress.

Hunter-gathering communities are nomads and cannot save. At least not to a significant extent. And certainly not increasing every year.

The story was very different. Systematic and ever increasing saving began with the invention of organized violence (church and state), with the invention of the individual, from whom tribute (taxes) was demanded at the deadline. For that you need savings! And if you didn't have enough of it, you had to borrow it. And so the money (=credit), the interest and based on it the so-called economy was invented / enforced. And that did not begin in the north, but in Mesopotamia, Egypt.

Taxes enforce growth. No taxes, no growth
 
Last edited:

AdrianX

Well-Known Member
Aug 28, 2015
2,097
5,797
bitco.in
FT;FU destruction of the planet is not progress.

Doing things better is progress, destroying the planet is not progress.
I probably agree with you on most things but I don't see a solution in the past, I see the solution by changing all the things that don't work. Either way, we need to understand how to balance "being" in nature, not how to go backwards, or even to want it.

Hunter-gathering communities are nomads and cannot save.
of course, they do, they make tools and then save them to use the next day, they then also don't live in environments where they can't hunt or gather and save. Other intelligent animals make tools use them and then don't save them hence they are stuck at the mercy of those who do save.

To optimize for the future we can't grow, for glims on how it all works moving forward, we have to understand by looking backwards. Check out Joseph Tainter's lectures online to understand what progress is and how it works.

It's all about (EROI) energy spent and the metabolic costs of living with growing complexity. As you point out with Tax it's just one way to pay to organize, it's observably not an efficient one.

You will enjoy his lectures, but if you think they justify your perspective it's a result of "The law of the instrument's"

Your perspective is quantified by avoiding complexity to keep a community's metabolism in balance with the environment. But you need to understand entropy. Entropy it seems is a law of nature and with it comes the unavoidable result complexity as energy dissipates and becomes abundant at the boundary. That results in life and evolution and us being conscious. So we are adapting, but to adapt continuously you need a practical model of reality.
 

Zarathustra

Well-Known Member
Aug 28, 2015
1,439
3,797
of course, they do, they make tools and then save them to use the next day, they then also don't live in environments where they can't hunt or gather and save. Other intelligent animals make tools use them and then don't save them hence they are stuck at the mercy of those who do save.
As I said, they don't save in a significant way. Their savings are growing ZERO in 1'000 years. Money based savings of a society always grow rampant until they collapse, and with it the whole societey. Because society = cancer. Based on debt and organized violence. It never works.

To optimize for the future we can't grow, for glims on how it all works moving forward, we have to understand by looking backwards. Check out Joseph Tainter's lectures online to understand what progress is and how it works.

It's all about (EROI) energy spent and the metabolic costs of living with growing complexity. As you point out with Tax it's just one way to pay to organize, it's observably not an efficient one.

You will enjoy his lectures, but if you think they justify your perspective it's a result of "The law of the instrument's"
I know Tainter very well. Societies are by nature 'problem solving societies'. Each solved problem generates several additional problems. I described Tainter's law as follows: Diminishing Return on Additional Investment in Additional Complexity/Energy/Debt. It cannot work and therefore it never worked.

Your perspective is quantified by avoiding complexity to keep a community's metabolism in balance with the environment. But you need to understand entropy. Entropy it seems is a law of nature and with it comes the unavoidable result complexity as energy dissipates and becomes abundant at the boundary. That results in life and evolution and us being conscious. So we are adapting, but to adapt continuously you need a practical model of reality.
The citizen (formerly human) is an obvious evolutionary dead end. Many species did not find their way out of this impasse. We will be just one of those many species that cannot adapt. Obviously nothing is getting better. It gets more idiotic every year. The China virus (not the flu) is seizing the once democratic states at a rapid pace and the western citizen welcomes it. As a species, we deserve what we get.

 
  • Like
Reactions: sgbett

cypherdoc

Well-Known Member
Aug 26, 2015
5,257
12,995
My Gaud, I'd thought I'd seen it all:

dang, i cannot get this doge jingle outta my head (admit it, you can't either). is it the chick in the leotards? if this is all it takes to get billions more into a big block variant, why aren't we doing it?
 

bitsko

Active Member
Aug 31, 2015
730
1,532
too-long-mempool-chain

bsv has broken free of some deep kludgy segwit tarpits but its miners arent upgrading and configuring things in time to catch a potential wave of interest in BSV.

im pretty sure the services will collapse if bsv pumps.
Post automatically merged:

dang, i cannot get this doge jingle outta my head (admit it, you can't either). is it the chick in the leotards? if this is all it takes to get billions more into a big block variant, why aren't we doing it?
the enthusiasm would need to be there.

I bet a big influence on that girl is her shitcoining boyfriend in the back there.

things are starting in places like twetch at least.

doge had scale issues, bsv should wrap doge, bsv is ready i think to scale in that fashion, just not quite ready to chain long chains of tx
 
  • Like
Reactions: cbeast

AdrianX

Well-Known Member
Aug 28, 2015
2,097
5,797
bitco.in
It cannot work and therefore it never worked.
It works, always has, it's a metabolic variable in an ecosystem, it works flawlessly we call it evolution.

You're reminiscing back to the time when advanced single-celled organisms lived in harmony with nature ;).

Complexity has a metabolic cost and while the benefits are greater than the energy cost there is room for growth. It's only when we spend more energy than we get in return relative to the added complexity does the system reverts back to a simpler state. (we're burning capital like it's income thinking if we just manage Co2 we can continue burning capital and prosper)

Bitcoin's blockchain simplifies much bureaucratic complexity and waste generated by inflationism, all be it at the exact time when society's complexity is delivering ever-diminishing returns. By my estimate, large negative returns, when you look at the energy footprint relative to energy income, not to mention we're cannibalizing the natural systems we depend on to maintain our unsustainable trajectory.

It's just a matter of perspective, where you are sitting, we're at a time in history where we think we're flying when in fact we're in one of those first flying machines having just jumped off a cliff, think we're flying.

Depending on your perspective:
Some people optimize for a more simplified state (aka a hard landing - societal collapse - you'd fall into that class)
Some can't see the problem and what to maintain the status quo (the majority they think we're flying - conservatives)
Some see the problem and want everyone to jump out thinking it'll fly if we just had population control and flight attendants to tell people where to sit (those be liberals.)

...and then there are a few who are optimizing metabolic efficiency to rescue our energy and environmental footprint to build a flying machine while we're falling, those would be the innovators.
 
  • Like
Reactions: sgbett and KoKansei

AdrianX

Well-Known Member
Aug 28, 2015
2,097
5,797
bitco.in
OK I remember when a $1 increase in price was a huge thing, and people laughed at the idea that BTC could go up a $100 in a day and people wouldn't blink. Well, today it jumped a few thousand dollars in a day.

in other news the why? Tesla

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/0001318605/000156459021004599/tsla-10k_20201231.htm

Tesla's ANNUAL REPORT - Dec 31 said:
Thereafter, we invested an aggregate $1.50 billion in bitcoin under this policy...

...we expect to begin accepting bitcoin as a form of payment for our products in the near future
I see a little bit of a problem given recent news as an investor.

The report doesn't mention BTC they just refer to bitcoin, so maybe they do mean Bitcoin Cash, or Bitcoin SV, or maybe they are trying to confuse people into thinking BTC is and will be used as digital cash and not some other digital gold in a digital vault that trades IOUs on a separate network and calling that bitcoin.

Maybe other investors could be confused and sue them for the confusion.

They really need to differentiate BTC and bitcoin, especially now that there are pending lawsuits claiming BTC is passing off as bitcoin. Tesla also needs to be clear about BTC IOU's traded on a separate network, eg, the Lightning Network.

It really it makes a lot of science accepting Bitcoin (aka BSV or BCH for payment for remote internet all over the world.) I can only hope CSW does not come out and fuck it all up.

Please if you do ask them to change the word bitcoin to BTC to prevent passing off, and to be honest when they say they accept it as payment vs LN payments. Please look for the win-win not paying lawyers and fucking over those of us who've held onto our bitcoin (BSV).

Tesla will in time use the best tool for the job so don't hammer the learning process, help encourage it, make bitcoin better, rather than picking a fight over the name.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: cbeast and bitsko

Zarathustra

Well-Known Member
Aug 28, 2015
1,439
3,797
It works, always has, it's a metabolic variable in an ecosystem, it works flawlessly we call it evolution.
Yes, cancer 'works'.
Adrian, you are a dreamer. It never worked flawlessly. The opposite is true. We are dealing with the worst of all possible worlds. But only very few realized that. Siddharta Gautama, Arthur Schopenhauer, Voltaire, Petrarca et al.
As an omnipotent creator, I would be ashamed of my creation.

"Mille piacer' non vagliono un tormento" Francesco Petrarca

Schopenhauer:

To return, then to Leibniz, I cannot ascribe to the Théodicée as a methodical and broad unfolding of optimism, any other merit than this, that it gave occasion later for the immortal “Candide” of the great Voltaire; whereby certainly Leibniz s often-repeated and lame excuse for the evil of the world, that the bad sometimes brings about the good, received a confirmation which was unexpected by him… But indeed to the palpably sophistical proofs of Leibniz that this is the best of all possible worlds, we may seriously and honestly oppose the proof that it is the worst of all possible worlds. For possible means, not what one may construct in imagination, but what can actually exist and continue. Now this world is so arranged as to be able to maintain itself with great difficulty; but if it were a little worse, it could no longer maintain itself. Consequently a worse world, since it could not continue to exist, is absolutely impossible: thus this world itself is the worst of all possible worlds. For not only if the planets were to run their heads together, but even if any one of the actually appearing perturbations of their course, instead of being gradually balanced by others, continued to increase, the world would soon reach its end. Astronomers know upon what accidental circumstances principally the irrational relation to each other of the periods of revolution this depends, and have carefully calculated that it will always go on well; consequently the world also can continue and go on. We will hope that, although Newton was of an opposite opinion, they have not miscalculated, and consequently that the mechanical perpetual motion realised in such a planetary system will not also, like the rest, ultimately come to a standstill. Again, under the firm crust of the planet dwell the powerful forces of nature which, as soon as some accident affords them free play, must necessarily destroy that crust, with everything living upon it, as has already taken place at least three times upon our planet, and will probably take place oftener still. The earthquake of Lisbon, the earthquake of Haiti, the destruction of Pompeii, are only small, playful hints of what is possible. A small alteration of the atmosphere, which cannot even be chemically proved, causes cholera, yellow fever, black death, &c., which carry off millions of men; a somewhat greater alteration would extinguish all life. A very moderate increase of heat would dry up all the rivers and springs. The brutes have received just barely so much in the way of organs and powers as enables them to procure with the greatest exertion sustenance for their own lives and food for their offspring; therefore if a brute loses a limb, or even the full use of one, it must generally perish. Even of the human race, powerful as are the weapons it possesses in understanding and reason, nine-tenths live in constant conflict with want, always balancing themselves with difficulty and effort upon the brink of destruction. Thus throughout, as for the continuance of the whole, so also for that of each individual being the conditions are barely and scantily given, but nothing over. The individual life is a ceaseless battle for existence itself; while at every step destruction threatens it. Just because this threat is so often fulfilled provision had to be made, by means of the enormous excess of the germs, that the destruction of the individuals should not involve that of the species, for which alone nature really cares. The world is therefore as bad as it possibly can be if it is to continue to be at all. Q. E. D. The fossils of the entirely different kinds of animal species which formerly inhabited the planet afford us, as a proof of our calculation, the records of worlds the continuance of which was no longer possible, and which consequently were somewhat worse than the worst of possible worlds.*
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: sgbett

bitsko

Active Member
Aug 31, 2015
730
1,532

8 megabytes, the competition is heating up!

nO sWeAt 😎
Post automatically merged:

idk, unless its really hot, one would need to work hard to sweat.
 
  • Haha
  • Like
Reactions: sgbett and AdrianX