Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

Roy Badami

Active Member
Dec 27, 2015
140
203
Not a huge Peter fan but still WTF

This is what I wrote about this over on Reddit:


EDIT: Embedding Reddit media here seems to be buggy - if you can't read this even after clicking "Read more" (or if you don't see "Read more" at all) then click the link at the top right (saying something like "1 point - 36 minutes ago" to read the original on Reddit.
 
Last edited:

Zangelbert Bingledack

Well-Known Member
Aug 29, 2015
1,485
5,585
There's definitely a libertarian-paleo connection in terms of mindset, which makes a lot of bitcoiners get into paleo/primal/keto/LCHF-IF. (Such as Konrad Graf.) Eating based on evolutionary theory actually ties in nicely with Bitcoin, in that many of us have high hopes for the changes Bitcoin will bring to the world by weakening the fabric that holds together some of the most evolutionarily discordant aspects of modern society (the extremely over-large "tribes" we call countries and their large, over-trusted central governments with their maestro central bankers).

The Internet, Bitcoin, and things like prediction markets to be built on top of them seem likely to make modern civilization a lot more feasible despite large population sizes. In fact the sort of dietary revolution we are seeing, against government Food Guide Pyramid propaganda, has arguably been dramatically precipitated/accelerated by the Internet. Once Bitcoin has gone mainstream things will be moving even faster and in more channels at the same time.
 

Roy Badami

Active Member
Dec 27, 2015
140
203
Anyone know anything about MIT Connection Science and the MIT Internet Trust Consortium - and in particular their relationship with MIT?
 

cypherdoc

Well-Known Member
Aug 26, 2015
5,257
12,994
This is what I wrote about this over on Reddit:


EDIT: Embedding Reddit media here seems to be buggy - if you can't read this even after clicking "Read more" (or if you don't see "Read more" at all) then click the link at the top right (saying something like "1 point - 36 minutes ago" to read the original on Reddit.
 

albin

Active Member
Nov 8, 2015
931
4,008
Is it plausible we might see a re-test of some of those late spring / early summer 2014 levels?

I can't even imagine the bedlam if the ATH gets successfully re-tested and becomes support in the near future, all the mainstream media will have to rush to re-imagine their narrative about Bitcoin.
 
Last edited:

johnyj

Member
Mar 3, 2016
89
189
@johnyj:

Sounds like that design would take away financial choice from the user.


Introducing such a design would constitute central planning (on a small scale) in my view.
It'd be like the government deciding that when you sell your bike, your car also gets sold.
This is similar to centrally planned 21 million coin supply, it is to ensure the financial integrity of the monetary system. If every fork just double the amount of coin supply and becomes a QE, then what advantage bitcoin has over fiat money? The central planners just changed from FED to a couple of programmers

Destroy coins on the other chain will not take away the choice from users, they can select the chain they like, but they can't double their coins by simply do a fork
 

jbreher

Active Member
Dec 31, 2015
166
526
and to @jbreher point, while I like physical comforts they not necessary if one wants to live a content life. (3 Days in a hand made ice cave with no amenities in the mountains can give one a glimpse into how to prioritise. But for sure technology solves problems and there is a balance somewhere.
You're missing the point entirely. Yes, without obesity, we'd be healthier and arguably happier. Yet without the advances of the last several centuries, almost everyone that I currently interact with on a daily basis would be dead. Because living to thirty ripe years of old age was a statistical outlier.
 

freetrader

Moderator
Staff member
Dec 16, 2015
2,806
6,088
If every fork just double the amount of coin supply and becomes a QE, then what advantage bitcoin has over fiat money?
It's not the same. With QE in fiat, there are no real markets for "old money" and "new money". I don't have a choice to buy new $1 notes for $0.01 if that's how much value I put in them.
Destroy[ing] coins on the other chain will not take away the choice from users, they can select the chain they like, but they can't double their coins by simply do a fork
Like the 21M coins is a rather arbitrary number, it should highlight the fact that the number of coins of virtual currency you hold is pretty much irrelevant, what matters is their real world value.
Forking does not necessarily increase that - if every programmer forked Bitcoin for no reason other than to increase the number of available coins, the world would not care about those forks, they would have no value. Viz. 9999 shitcoins out there which no-one even cares enough about to look at. Do they matter? I don't think so.

It's about the forks that propose value to the market.
 

albin

Active Member
Nov 8, 2015
931
4,008
Because living to thirty ripe years of old age was a statistical outlier.
I think this is the rationale for more of the "ancestral" branding that kind of started catching on the last five years or so, and the Weston A. Price - style movements looking to more recent traditional pre-industrial dietary lifestyle for freedom from chronic disease instead of necessarily making the case for hunter-gatherer type modalities.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AdrianX and 8up

freetrader

Moderator
Staff member
Dec 16, 2015
2,806
6,088
Note to Chinese miners: You're only allowed to collude with one consortium at a time!
(this is re: the MIT ChainAnchor project's proposal discussed here)


@SysMan, perhaps freely scaling on-chain would be a preferable solution to having your company's investment carpet pulled out from under it by Core?

Or has ChainAnchor approached you guys already?
 

Ivanhoe

Member
Aug 28, 2015
55
73
Amsterdam
You're missing the point entirely. Yes, without obesity, we'd be healthier and arguably happier. Yet without the advances of the last several centuries, almost everyone that I currently interact with on a daily basis would be dead. Because living to thirty ripe years of old age was a statistical outlier.
That's not true. People who survived the age of 5 had a good chance to become around 50 or 60 years. Child mortality is included in the data about average age so therefore it is set around 30 years. Still we do get a good 20 years older than then though.
 

Aquent

Active Member
Aug 19, 2015
252
667
Interesting: https://github.com/OmniLayer/spec/issues/248#issuecomment-54772686

Quoting the relevant part just in case:

"
petertodd commented on 8 Sep 2014
FWIW I just got confirmation that Luke-Jr is working for with Austin Hill on the blockstream project, so there is an obvious undeclared conflict of interest here given that the Blockstream project is in direct competition with embedded consensus systems like Mastercoin. It's notable that Austin Hill has been trying to setup deals with large pools and other controllers of hashing power to merge-mine systems using Blockstream's technology as well as get the necessary changes to the Bitcoin protocol adopted by a majority of hashing power."
 

Zangelbert Bingledack

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

That's not how the mathematics of ledger copying works, and this is absolutely crucial to get so I'll explain it from another angle.

When you copy a ledger *there is no inflation whatsoever*. Inflation means *dilution* of some people's stake (of course entailing an increase in someone else's stake, as in QE). Inflation in that context is NOT effected by say (suppose by magic) simply doubling everyone's bank balance and every bill denomination in everyone's pocket; that would merely require rewriting price tags and such, no actual economic difference, no one having their stake diminished or expanded. No inflation in the usual negative sense.

Likewise, copying the ledger dilutes no one's stake. It is a 100% economically neutral accounting change. 42 million coins makes no difference if everyone now has exactly 2 BTC for every 1 BTC they had before. The total "money supply" is just an arbitrary term of convenience; what matters is how much of the total ledger you own. If you own 1% of the total ledger now, you will always own 1% of the total ledger no matter how many copies there are and how the coins on those copies shift in value relative to one another.

Imagine taking photos of the same pie and placing them side by side and shrinking or expanding some of the photos. If you had 1/3 of the total original pie, you always have 1/3 of every pie copy and also you always have 1/3 of the total amount of pie, regardless of shrinkage or expansion (or even extinction of some of the copies).

To repeat the point made in comments above, "I have 1 BTC out of 21M total BTC" is just a more easily graspable way of saying, "I have a 21-millionth of the total Bitcoin ledger." The latter is more unwieldy but it avoids such confusions as thinking forking or spinning off entails anything that is in any way like QE. "I have a 21-millionth of the total Bitcoin ledger" is a statement that clearly doesn't change no matter how many copies of the ledger you make, much like a stock split doesn't actually increase or decrease anyone's stake despite now having more shares - or for that matter the point Peter Schiff tripped up on, that infinite divisibility of BTC doesn't imply inflation.

It's all the same error. Thinking in terms of percentages or proportions of the total rather than "coins" clears up the confusion.
 
Last edited:
You're missing the point entirely. Yes, without obesity, we'd be healthier and arguably happier. Yet without the advances of the last several centuries, almost everyone that I currently interact with on a daily basis would be dead. Because living to thirty ripe years of old age was a statistical outlier.
It's a common statistical misunderstanding that medieeval People dies with 30. The average life-span was around 30 or 40, but considering early chield death, the truth is that only every second Person reached an age older than 18, but those who did had a good chance to get sixty or older ...
 

satoshis_sockpuppet

Active Member
Feb 22, 2016
776
3,312
@Christoph Bergmann
For example if one looks at Roman emperors length of life it seems people from the upper class had a reasonable chance to get way older than 60 years if they survived childhood even 2000 years before our time.
And if they didn't get murdered of course. Which every other did. :D
 
  • Like
Reactions: 8up and AdrianX

Richy_T

Well-Known Member
Dec 27, 2015
1,085
2,741
That's not true. People who survived the age of 5 had a good chance to become around 50 or 60 years. Child mortality is included in the data about average age so therefore it is set around 30 years. Still we do get a good 20 years older than then though.
However, some chunk of those extra years is statistically a pretty low quality of life.

I'd still rather live with the tech though.