Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.
- Thread starter cypherdoc
- Start date
albin
Active Member
- Nov 8, 2015
- 931
- 4,008
That article on the self-appointed cypherpunks w/ the brilliant brilliant cartoon really reinforced my overall impression that Satoshi had the inspiration to come up with a creative practical solution to a problem that was eluding them, and now because they happen to have been hanging out on the same mailing list that Satoshi publicized his work, they deserve to be in charge of everything. Literally failing upwards.
I used to hang out in places where a few people here and there became pretty successful professional recording artists. That doesn't mean I should be in charge of the music business.
I used to hang out in places where a few people here and there became pretty successful professional recording artists. That doesn't mean I should be in charge of the music business.
- Aug 22, 2015
- 1,558
- 4,693
Off-topic for Gold Collapsing but on-topic for Bitcoin UP and main-chain scaling:
Bitcoin Unlimited new members and technical BUIPs including another gem from @Peter Tschipper : Datastream Compression.
VOTING IS OPEN for BUIPs 16, 17, 18 & 19
BU members please do vote.
Bitcoin Unlimited new members and technical BUIPs including another gem from @Peter Tschipper : Datastream Compression.
VOTING IS OPEN for BUIPs 16, 17, 18 & 19
BU members please do vote.
Who is this dumbass?
We have to remain vigilant. The inflationists have been talking for a while now in more subtle ways than this through core dev:
https://medium.com/@rextar4444/a-finger-trap-for-central-banks-and-governments-bitcoins-dilemma-is-a-false-one-576741bc0c1e#.h06hfveju
"Bitcoin needn’t be inflationary free in order become relevant in this world. Nash is very explicate in pointing out that simply knowing the future schedule of a money allows contracts to be adjusted in relation to it."
We have to remain vigilant. The inflationists have been talking for a while now in more subtle ways than this through core dev:
https://medium.com/@rextar4444/a-finger-trap-for-central-banks-and-governments-bitcoins-dilemma-is-a-false-one-576741bc0c1e#.h06hfveju
"Bitcoin needn’t be inflationary free in order become relevant in this world. Nash is very explicate in pointing out that simply knowing the future schedule of a money allows contracts to be adjusted in relation to it."
Last edited:
Bagatell
Active Member
- Aug 28, 2015
- 728
- 1,191
The takers are going to pull out all the stops to make sure the makers never get access fixed-supply digital cash as if their very survival depends on it.
That issue is where you'll see what side people are really on, and who is for sale.
That issue is where you'll see what side people are really on, and who is for sale.
adamstgbit
Well-Known Member
- Mar 13, 2016
- 1,206
- 2,650
and look
" the 1mb block size Satoshi left us with "
"I don’t think the nature of bitcoin in relation the block size is in danger of being changed. I think Satoshi’s conjecture will always hold."
as if to say Satoshi was a small blocker. thats not true, Satoshi was a big blocker.
[doublepost=1461947946][/doublepost]
bitcoin collapsing?
- Dec 16, 2015
- 2,806
- 6,088
- Dec 16, 2015
- 2,806
- 6,088
I haven't seen this linked (sorry if I missed it) but I enjoyed the read:
http://www.ofnumbers.com/2016/04/28/self-doxxing-dynamic-block-making-and-re-decentralization-of-mining/
http://www.ofnumbers.com/2016/04/28/self-doxxing-dynamic-block-making-and-re-decentralization-of-mining/
I may be stupid, but it was not clear to me whether the writer is a smallblockist and if he is an inflationist.
Anyway, the answer is that A; the blocksize does nothing for value of bitcoin directly, and B; a predictable inflation is possible (does not make the money unsound), but unnecessary.
Anyway, B will never happen, because if tried, we will have an immediate blockchain fork, and the noninflationary fork will persevere, even if most miners support the inflationary fork initially.
albin
Active Member
- Nov 8, 2015
- 931
- 4,008
I'm convinced that these people don't know jack about what fungibility actually means, they're just parroting Adam Back's terminology, and applying homomorphic encryption to blind tx amounts has basically been the lever by which Back has taken control. This was the rationale behind sidechains existing in the first place, and Back's original concern-troll talking point to portray himself artificially as some kind of ideological defender of Bitcoin's values.
It isn't just a technical problem, it's a legal principle. Even with cryptographically-perfect privacy, a government can require AML/KYC on every single legally-operating intermediary on every transaction and re-create their own chains of custody.
The issue in question is the applicability of the principle behind Crawfurd v. The Royal Bank to cryptocurrency, which is not something that can be solved entirely technologically.
[doublepost=1461968181][/doublepost]And it gets even crazier:
https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/4h1s7z/anticoinbase_fud_has_infiltrated_even_the/
Somebody is trying to re-write what fungibility means to highlight Coinbase and Bitcoin. How crazy is that?
It isn't just a technical problem, it's a legal principle. Even with cryptographically-perfect privacy, a government can require AML/KYC on every single legally-operating intermediary on every transaction and re-create their own chains of custody.
The issue in question is the applicability of the principle behind Crawfurd v. The Royal Bank to cryptocurrency, which is not something that can be solved entirely technologically.
[doublepost=1461968181][/doublepost]And it gets even crazier:
https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/4h1s7z/anticoinbase_fud_has_infiltrated_even_the/
Somebody is trying to re-write what fungibility means to highlight Coinbase and Bitcoin. How crazy is that?
- Dec 16, 2015
- 2,806
- 6,088
@albin : that Wikipedia editing is pretty crazy. The entire truthvoice article linked to in that entry does not even mention the term 'fungibility' once. Nothing to do with the subject really. 
AFAICS the user who added that is on a Dash-related editing spree though. So I think it's just to make Bitcoin look worse in comparison.
AFAICS the user who added that is on a Dash-related editing spree though. So I think it's just to make Bitcoin look worse in comparison.
All my arguments against Core have been because of the short-term damage they are inflicting. In antifragility we know short-term damage actually makes a system stronger in the long run and should be welcomed as a training challenge. Yet we are part of that system, hence we fight to build that strength, that immunity.
Unfortunately, in the thick of battle, many people lose sight of the big picture of antifragility and start to imagine that since we are fighting an attempt to take the seat of control of Bitcoin, that Bitcoin therefore has a seat of control. The focus on personalities lets us easily fall back into thinking things like, "If only our guy was in control." At that moment we have lost sight of decentralization. With that trick pulled, Core has successfully created another weak hand, or shown a strong hand to be a weak hand who never really understood Bitcoin.
The bar for understanding will only get higher. Most people in this space will lose money (the Dictum of Cypherdoc).
Unfortunately, in the thick of battle, many people lose sight of the big picture of antifragility and start to imagine that since we are fighting an attempt to take the seat of control of Bitcoin, that Bitcoin therefore has a seat of control. The focus on personalities lets us easily fall back into thinking things like, "If only our guy was in control." At that moment we have lost sight of decentralization. With that trick pulled, Core has successfully created another weak hand, or shown a strong hand to be a weak hand who never really understood Bitcoin.
The bar for understanding will only get higher. Most people in this space will lose money (the Dictum of Cypherdoc).
