Quote from: Dorky on May 06, 2017, 02:23:27 PM

You don't know the shadow elites do NOT need bitcoin to avoid regulation.

Yes they do because they need to quietly obscure their power so they will commingle their transactions with the dolphins.

Have you forgotten what David Rockefeller said about the importance of discretion. Rothschilds achieved his original fortune by employing deception.

You dont seem to understand that if the dolphins united, they could defeat the shadow elite, so the discretion must be employed until the next NWO stage is achieved then the power can become more overt.

Quote from: Dorky on May 06, 2017, 02:23:27 PM

This implies you do NOT understand how the shadow elites will use bitcoin/blockchain to regulate us. And what you are saying about people getting regulated because they have account on the Mt. Gox "banks" is utterly untrue.

The dolphins ($millionaires or $billionaires now, $billionaires as BTC appreciates) will be on chain in Bitcoin and they are the high priority for digital tracking on chain since they are next rung below the shadow elite whale $trillionaires.

The minnows are to be destroyed by their own nation-states as the nation-states collapse giving way to the NWO, so putting them off chain, regulated on LN where their nation-states can tax and confiscate them.

Yes ultimately everyone who survives the nation-state collapse into the 10 Kings regions will be on chain, but that is later when the NWO is established.

We have stages to go through first.

Dorky the chart of reality refutes you:

https://bitinfocharts.com/comparison/transactionfees-btc.html

P.S. I will not reply again to you on this topic of discussion about Bitcoins future transaction fees. Let this die now please. You may have the last word.

Edit: we are having a discussion over at slack and Craig Wright (@csw) the self-proclaimed Satoshi Nakamoto is participating. I am posting there as @anonymint. In the discussion, @macsga wrote:

Quote from: https://pastebin.com/S6quvGMk

macsga [10:47 PM]
no bans here

we banned Thermos

anonymint [10:47 PM]

Lol. +1

The entire discussion in context (and this pastebin will be updated if @csw replies):

https://pastebin.com/S6quvGMk

Code: (https://pastebin.com/S6quvGMk)

csw [9:49 PM]
https://web.archive.org/web/20160502203742/http://www.drcraigwright.net/tulips-myths/
Dr. Craig Wright Blog
Tulips and other myths - Dr. Craig Wright Blog
What common knowledge tells us and the truth of a matter is not always the same thing. One example is the relationship between tulips and economies.
April 26th, 2016 at 10:54 AM

[9:50]
Don't always believe what you are told.

zillionaire [9:52 PM]
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11127-006-9074-4
SpringerLink
The tulipmania: Fact or artifact?
The famous tulipmania, which saw the reported prices of several breeds of tulip bulbs rise to above the value of a furnished luxury house in 17th century Amsterdam, was an artifact created by an impli

fatman3001 [9:52 PM]
_"I think the three years core has stalled on chain development is a failure of their leadership"_
It's not leadership at all, and they're proud of it. They think it's some free flowing wishy washy approach for hippie anarcaps, but in reality it just means the ones who shout the loudest are the ones who are heard. Kind of like Gavin said it would be. Where is Gavin btw?

tomothy
[9:55 PM]
The reaction to bcoin and parity, in my opinion, illustrates that it's not about what's best for the market or for bitcoin, but blockstream/core. Anything perceived as a threat to that power structure is attacked and undermined. There wasn't any constructive feedback or discourse. Simply, "BAD! BAD BAD!" It demonstrates that something's rotten, to the core. (edited)

klee [9:56 PM]
They bullied Sergio from Rootstock FOR FUCK's SAKE

fatman3001 [9:57 PM]
Posted a question in the SegWit Q&A thread. I've asked before without much luck.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1682183.msg18900818#msg18900818
bitcointalk.org
Post your SegWit questions here - open discussion - big week for Bitcoin!
Post your SegWit questions here - open discussion - big week for Bitcoin!

klee [9:57 PM]
not to mention Emin...

zillionaire [9:57 PM]
is Emir Gun on core side?

tomothy
[9:57 PM]
The reason for my vitriolic response is that i saw how f2pool flipped after being attacked for supporting scaling. Would they flip again if they were attacked for not supporting scaling? These actions skew the economic market. Like someone playing pinball and tilting the machine. (edited)

klee [9:57 PM]
NO

[9:57]
he got bullied too

[9:58]
and trolled hard

tomothy
[9:58 PM]
Emin is more independent than most imho.

[9:59]
Hence I think he could be an interesting person to conduct studies or a student under. His neutral to bigger blocks and hated by core. Good enough.

zillionaire [9:59 PM]
we should have chief of propaganda lol.

tomothy
[9:59 PM]
No. That's a waste of resources.

[10:00]
You'd be better off hiring a similar troll army.

zillionaire [10:00 PM]
have some bot posting the same thing, banhammer lol

anonymint [10:03 PM]
joined private by invitation from @zillionaire

vlad2vlad [10:04 PM]
@zillionaire I've been calling myself minister of propaganda for iXcoin. So I agree. Core has theirs - we should have ours. :)

[10:05]
@anonymint !!!! Been looking for you?!!!

newliberty [10:05 PM]
Balancing core is beneath our dignity.

vlad2vlad [10:05 PM]
Lol. True story!!! ^^^^

[10:06]
Core needs to be disassembled. Enough wasted time.

tomothy
[10:07 PM]
Hey anonyumint, welcome. LOL

newliberty [10:09 PM]
@anonymint take notice of the pinned statements from @csw which presents a funded research offer. It might be something you could dig your teeth into.

macsga [10:09 PM]
@anonymint welcome buddy

[10:09]
enjoy your stay

anonymint [10:10 PM]
Someone share this with me, https://pastebin.com/TZY4aQU0 and also some other ideas from csw about how to scale Bitcoin by employing merchants as miners.
Pastebin
The Challenge - Pastebin.com (19kB)

vlad2vlad [10:10 PM]
What do you think about that, @anonymint ?

anonymint [10:11 PM]
Well @illodin also pointed out to me that csw seems to regurgitating the concerns Peter Todd wrote: https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-December/012103.html

newliberty [10:13 PM]
Todd's is a thought paper, the proposal is for demonstrating it with evidence.

cypherblock [10:13 PM]
yes csw posted link to that a while back

anonymint [10:19 PM]
It seems to be true that with SegWit, the minority miners who don't often win their own blocks, have an incentive to mine without validating, so they can decrease their losses due to mining sooner on the next block by not needing to wait for the propagation of witness data and validation delay. However, my thought is they can begin mining on the next block trusting without the witness data, but statistically they will nearly always have received the witness data and validated it long before they actually find a block solution. So from a theoretical standpoint, I am not understanding the big threat. Additionally, the majority hash rate miners (later we will get into why hashrate will always be centralized) will see their own blocks instantly thus they know they are validated. If the majority hashrate miners want to collude and do malfeasance, they already can with a 51% attack without SegWit. What am I missing?

2 replies Last reply today at 1:50 AM View thread

tomothy
[10:20 PM]
Incentive also to Mine non valididated blocks?

pesa [10:20 PM]
joined private by invitation from @tomothy

anonymint [10:20 PM]
Nice to see you again macsga.

vlad2vlad [10:20 PM]
@anonymint I didn't even finish reading your sausage message yet feel like you should win Satoshi's £36.000. Where should I sent it?

tomothy
[10:20 PM]
Afrokoin is pesa

[10:20]
Spelling my bad

vlad2vlad [10:21 PM]
Ohhh, just realized Dr. Wright strapped me down with multi-sig. He saw this coming. :)

anonymint [10:21 PM]
Lol.

vlad2vlad [10:24 PM]
We're getting world class people in this room.

hankdasilva [10:25 PM]
csw said that he visions 100 000 nodes (merchants?) mining, did he explain why they would be mining as they can't possible compete against large mining farms located next to power plants thus mining at a loss

macsga [10:26 PM]
world class yes

[10:28]
@anonymint got it immediately

tomothy
[10:28 PM]
Hankdasilva, I think it's the assumption that they want to support and include their own txs and security of them. I.e., Toyota finance, selling cars or leases, they want those txs secure and confirmed

macsga [10:28 PM]
we didn't have to argue about it

vlad2vlad [10:28 PM]
Mining nodes = profit sharing.

[10:29]
@tomothy yes, PLUS profit sharing

tomothy
[10:30 PM]
I mean, a supermarket POS upgrade is like 2-10kish the idea was $20k hardware... And yeah they can get their own fees back in return

[10:31]
I know theirs been talk of working with excess power generators on off time and mining with older hardware. Certain niches have an incentive to use excess supply

hankdasilva [10:32 PM]
if there are 100 000 merchanst mining then on average it takes 100 000 blocks to include their tx in a block if that's the reason for them mining in the first place, I'm confused (edited)

anonymint [10:33 PM]
@hankdasilva is my sockpuppet, lol. Well almost. Good job!

hankdasilva [10:34 PM]
yeah, except I'm almost always confused lol

tomothy
[10:36 PM]
But that's based on current size constraints right? What if there is no block size limit?

[10:37]
They're not trying to make money, merchants pay in average 3% of every cc txs. But it helps offset costs.

[10:37]
At least that was my interpretation. Phones dying. Back later lol.

cryptorebel [10:40 PM]
@hankdasilva some people think mining will become more decentralized over time: https://medium.com/@lopp/the-future-of-bitcoin-mining-ac9c3dc39c60
Medium
The Future of Bitcoin Mining Jameson Lopp Medium
Speculation about long-term changes to the dynamics of who and why people will mine bitcoins.
Reading time
----------------
8 min read

(401kB)
Dec 19th, 2015 at 10:19 PM

macsga [10:40 PM]
I was away for a couple of hours guys, do we have any takers on the challenge?

[10:40]
maybe @anonymint should be the supervisor of the team to test the hypothesis

anonymint [10:40 PM]
Although afaics SegWit does partially ameliorate the advantage that centralized mining has over minority miners in terms of being able to start mining sooner on the next block due to propagation and validation delay, it doesnt eliminate all the economy-of-scale advantages that drive centralization of PoW mining. In addition to economies-of-scale on electricity costs and being able to locate next to the lowest cost sources (or even perhaps corruption of having political connections to get utility power at below cost), economies-of-scale on hardware acquisition and being first to get new hardware, perhaps one of the most salient factors is that there are only two 14nm fabs in the world. So this tells me that the shadow elite control Bitcoin via Bitmain and their indirect control over large Capex infrastructure such as these two 14nm fabs.

zillionaire [10:42 PM]
Damn ... I didn't know what I did but now I know ...

vlad2vlad [10:44 PM]
@anonymint "Although afaics SegWit does partially ameliorate the advantage that..."

AmelioWhat? Stop that Anonymint.

anonymint [10:45 PM]
Also recently I explained that the whales and the miners are the same economic entity:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1887077.msg18859434#msg18859434
And they have no incentive to ever allow large blocks.
bitcointalk.org
Where are you 'Iamnotback'?
Where are you 'Iamnotback'?

klee [10:45 PM]
So BU does not actually want big blocks?

anonymint [10:46 PM]
No. It was only a PR game by Bitmain.

tomothy
[10:46 PM]
No. That's insane.

macsga [10:46 PM]
that explains it all

tomothy
[10:46 PM]
Will respond later.

macsga [10:47 PM]
I knew there was a conspiracy somewhere

anonymint [10:47 PM]
Please dont ban me. :stuck_out_tongue_winking_eye:

macsga [10:47 PM]
no bans here

[10:47]
we banned Thermos

anonymint [10:47 PM]
Lol. +1

klee [10:47 PM]
Interesting theory, seriously

anonymint [10:48 PM]
Somebody please give me a pastebin of this when we are done.

pesa [10:51 PM]
+1 me too. pastebin much better for tldr

zbingledack [10:51 PM]
Transacting on a soon-to-be dead chain seems pretty uninteresting for most whales, as does mining on such a chain.

[10:53]
Much more interesting to make profits from new investors because the chain is usable and grows

cryptorebel [10:53 PM]
I made a pastebin from when craig popped in earlier: https://pastebin.com/Wa1CMM1E
Pastebin
private by invitation from @jp zbingledack 7:48 AM @andy He was on the BU sla - Pastebin.com (19kB)

[10:53]
but I didn't make it public, don't feel comfortable making everything public

macsga [10:54 PM]
good thing @cryptorebel

fatman3001 [10:54 PM]
Anonymint?
https://media.tenor.co/images/9d06a86bdcd648c964e322559fdd3b80/tenor.gif (1MB)

macsga [10:54 PM]
we don't want the man out of here

cryptorebel [10:54 PM]
yeah true

anonymint [10:56 PM]
I didnt read the policies when I joined. Are we restricted or encouraged not to share this chat publicly?

fatman3001 [10:56 PM]
Restricted

cryptorebel [10:56 PM]
not sure, it does say the channel is not actually private

zbingledack [10:56 PM]
Impossible to enforce anything like that

cryptorebel [10:57 PM]
I was thinking maybe it would be good to make the chat public somehow, with a bot linked to IRC or something, then public can view, but trolls cant disrupt the discussion

klee [10:57 PM]
no need for restrictions I think, it is private in a sense to cut the trolls

zbingledack [10:57 PM]
The point of making it private is to keep it readable

macsga [10:58 PM]
^this

vlad2vlad [10:59 PM]
The assumption is the only way for a mining node to be profitable is as they are now.

100,000 merchants. Plus.

They have their own reasons and methods...

We will explain how in time... but no Protocol change needed other than the cap

macsga [11:01 PM]
@vlad2vlad thanks for clarifying this for the newcomers

vlad2vlad [11:01 PM]
That was from the Dr. Wright

macsga [11:01 PM]
:slightly_smiling_face:

andy [11:02 PM]
:slightly_smiling_face:

anonymint [11:06 PM]
@zbingledack why would Bitcoin be dead with 1 MB blocks? It will become highly sought after due to scarcity of transacting on chain unregulated in the reserve currency of the crypto-currency ecosystem.

tula [11:08 PM]
@anonymint that can only happen if 1MB is a natural limit, not artificial (edited)

anonymint [11:20 PM]
@tula there is no natural limit which is a tragedy of the commons. Thus it is a power vacuum which must be filled by a centralized power that sets a limit and has an economic incentive to enforce it.

tula [11:22 PM]
so current hardware has no limits?

anonymint [11:22 PM]
Btw, poor punctuation phrasing. I meant the lack of a natural limit, creates a tragedy of the commons.

tula [11:24 PM]
there are no commons, the network is owned by the miners

anonymint [11:24 PM]
The transaction fees are the commons.

tula [11:25 PM]
elaborate

anonymint [11:29 PM]
In a hypothetical decentralized scenario (which doesn't exist), the miners will fight with each other to compete to offer larger block sizes, thus lower transaction fees, and drive their revenue and thus security towards 0. There is no fee market without a block size limit. This is tragedy of the commons, thus even if mining wasnt centralized for the other stated reasons, it would become centralized in order to dictate a maximum block size. The whales and miners are the same economic entity and have no incentive to offer larger than 1 MB block size.

[11:30]
That is presuming the block size wasn't limited in the protocol.

macsga [11:30 PM]
That notion there just blew my mind

[11:30]
I need to sleep

anonymint [11:31 PM]
Sleep first.

macsga [11:31 PM]
good night everyone enjoy your stay

[11:31]
nice talking to you @anonymint

fatman3001 [11:31 PM]
gn

klee [11:33 PM]
Why security goes to 0?

fatman3001 [11:33 PM]
cause no fees

[11:33]
no block reward

klee [11:33 PM]
so spamming

[11:35]
Suddenly IOTA comes to mind

[11:36]
0 fees, but spamming supposed to secure the network (instead of destroying it)

[11:36]
Never understood how

anonymint [11:37 PM]
How do we know the real Craig Wright is posting here?

tula [11:37 PM]
@anonymint i suppose you are familiar with https://www.bitcoinunlimited.info/resources/feemarket.pdf
so what are your objections to that?

cypherblock [11:38 PM]
@anonymint earlier I requested he post a selfie of himself with this slack in background. he complied

vlad2vlad [11:38 PM]
@anonymint cause I pinky swear

klee [11:38 PM]
He posted a shit ton of photos taken live before some hours
anonymint
How do we know the real Craig Wright is posting here?
Posted in #privateYesterday at 11:37 PM

cypherblock [11:38 PM]
it is above somewhere unless deleted

[11:38]
background is somewhat blurry but I think it was this slack. I could sort of see my icon in the background

anonymint [11:38 PM]
I obliterated @Peter R's whitepaper in discussion on BCT. I will try to find a link for you. It was a long discussion.

fatman3001 [11:39 PM]
I disagree with @anonymint. I think competition of ideas will land the network at a place where profitability for miners, utility for users and security for the network will be balanced within an acceptable range. Some miners will see that it's in their interest to make the network as attractive as possible for it to grow and become more profitable. Some will mine large blocks altruistically. (edited)

[11:39]
search image.png in the slack

anonymint [11:39 PM]
I think the real reason they banned me is because I speak heresy.

cypherblock [11:40 PM]
who banned you?

fatman3001 [11:40 PM]
scrolling takes too much time

klee [11:40 PM]
Who gives a shit about Theymos et al any more

[11:40]
screw them

fatman3001 [11:41 PM]
not many of the cool cats left there (edited)

anonymint [11:41 PM]
@Theymos: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1887077.msg18861383#msg18861383
bitcointalk.org
Where are you 'Iamnotback'?
Where are you 'Iamnotback'?

[11:44]
@fatman3001, the altruistic miners are being bankrupted by Bitmain. Bitmain miners sells their hardware first to those who support the master plan. The altruistic miners get hardware when it is beyond its profitability life.

fatman3001 [11:44 PM]
We can't just have one asic producer forever

anonymint [11:44 PM]
He who controls the 14nm fabs, controls Bitcon.

fatman3001 [11:44 PM]
it's madness

klee [11:44 PM]
Where's Intel?

[11:44]
or AMD?

[11:45]
Why not in this biz too?

anonymint [11:45 PM]
Intel has 14nm fabs, but not available for custom ASICs. AMD's fab is Global Foundaries, one of the two 14nm available for custom ASICs.

klee [11:46 PM]
aha

fatman3001 [11:47 PM]
Maybe some of the other independent miners should go together and buy a chip dev firm. Globalfoundries will make chips to anyone and their mother as long as you pay them. TSMC too.

[11:49]
Soon they're going to want Bitcoiners to pay for their initial runs of 10-11nm processes

tomothy
[11:49 PM]
Mining and segwit. Segwit changes the economic incentives necessary for mining development to continue. Rewards from mining are necessary to encourage people to spend money on capital projects, they are rewarded with fees / BTC block reward. As miners compete, their efforts result in the network being secured. Segwit changes this economic incentive. Mining itself isn't centralized but mining production is. So long as bitmain doesn't censor who can or can't buy their tools that concern is invalid. Additionally price of BTC is an issue. You don't have large companies investing in hardware development because there isn't enough demand. These issues go away as bitcoin grows. However the incentives changed by segwit do not.

[11:50]
Growth has artificially been suppressed because of the cap. That's cws's whole point on all of this.

fatman3001 [11:50 PM]
chip design is the tricky part

tomothy
[11:50 PM]
He specifically States, no fees.

fatman3001 [11:50 PM]
Bitmain has a massive head start

tomothy
[11:50 PM]
Not only does he say no fees, he says no cap.

[11:51]
Sure but most companies could buy bitmain with pocket change at this point.

[11:51]
They may be a leader in their field but not a global leader.

anonymint [11:51 PM]
@klee not even spamming. Just the fact that without a block size limit then users dont have to include any significant transaction fee, because some miner will add it for the incremental revenue no matter how small it is. That is assuming miners havent colluded/agreed to set a maximum block size or minimum fee. A minimum fee dictates a block size limit as well. So therefor there has to be some protocol (or de facto agreed) limit else it is a tragedy of the commons. Iota requires proof-of-work to accompany each transaction and the game theory on that is obtuse and unclear to me as well. But I Iota has bigger problems in that afaics it doesnt converge on consensus without centralized servers.

fatman3001 [11:51 PM]
They're a global leader in their field

tomothy
[11:51 PM]
And don't the have 2nm now?

[11:52]
Sorry, global leader in their field, but still not mega Corp

[11:52]
I.e., Sony, etc etc etc

anonymint [11:53 PM]
@fatman3001 I heard the the fabs are oversubscribed and they prioritize their largest customers. Bitmain seems to have someone pulling strings for them, as their volume is not large compared to say AMD.

tula [11:53 PM]
@anonymint can you give me the gist of that orphaning rebuttal of yours? let me guess 100% centralization?

vlad2vlad [11:54 PM]
@anonymint you've got mail. :)

tomothy
[11:54 PM]
I think you're right that their are large behind the scene players. However the players are bitmain and bitfury. And bitmain at least sells to the general public.

[11:55]
Those Public sales help support more Decentralized mining as compared to the full setups by bitfury

anonymint [11:55 PM]
They sell the public, but the public seems to get the newest profitable versions somewhat later than the insiders.

fatman3001 [11:55 PM]
AMD doesn't want to pay for the initial runs. The price is high and the yield is terrible in the beginning. Basically the manufacturing process isn't really "finished" until it's run several runs and ironed out the kinks.

tomothy
[11:56 PM]
Sure but that's mitigated by a persons electric costs

anonymint [11:56 PM]
I heard that independent miners will tell that the ASICs killed their profits for the most part.

fatman3001 [11:57 PM]
Bitcoin ASICs is Gods gift to chip manufacturers.

tomothy
[11:57 PM]
Sure, if you don't have money you lose

[11:57]
But that's the nature of competition

[11:57]
You grow or die

[11:58]
But again a lot of that was due to price. If bitcoins' price was 2-3x smaller miners would still be profitable

[11:58]
Failing to grow not only hurt adoption but also chain security.

anonymint [11:58 PM]
I need to eat breakfast. Fasting since I took my TB meds. Famished now. Brb.

tomothy
[11:59 PM]
Np thanks for comments.

----- Today May 7th, 2017 -----
vlad2vlad [12:03 AM]
TB mess? @anonymint

[12:03]
Mess?

[12:03]
Meds *

klee [12:03 AM]
tuberculosis

vlad2vlad [12:04 AM]
@anonymint your profile pic, is that the mind of a muppet? Just askin'?

klee [12:04 AM]
Homer Simpson

vlad2vlad [12:04 AM]
Tuberculosis? @anonymint you 98 or you chilling in the jungles of Africa again looking for answers?

[12:04]
Haha

[12:05]
I like really like this @anonymint guy. A real genius. Shit, I hope I don't have to ban his shit. :)

tomothy
[12:06 AM]
Jesus tb is rough, sorry dude

cryptorebel [12:06 AM]
lol

vlad2vlad [12:06 AM]
Maybe he deserves it. Maybe he's a small Blocker. Just sayin'!

cryptorebel [12:07 AM]
he sounds like a small blocker

vlad2vlad [12:08 AM]
Luke is a small Blocker and he's coming to our global domination party. So it depends

tomothy
[12:08 AM]
Security is important and that's what this concerns, mining incentives and segwit

[12:08]
I think mining centralization and segwit incentives are different and this study just concerns the latter

vlad2vlad [12:09 AM]
We need @csw in here debating him on the centralized bankster nature of Segwit and LN.

cryptorebel [12:09 AM]
Craig was mentioning a big danger of segwit is the developers can set the mining fees, so it takes away power from miners and gives it to devs

[12:09]
we don't really want a centrally planned blockchain

vlad2vlad [12:09 AM]
Yeah. Segwit is a power play. Power stolen from the miners

anonymint [12:16 AM]
@klee & @macsga, after all my chronic illness was finally diagnosed in January as disseminated Tuberculosis. All those years since 2012 at least, I was fighting TB and didnt know what was causing my health problems. I never suspected TB because I did not have a cough. The TB was disseminated all over in my gut, lymph nodes, brain, etc.. The normal mode of death is an internal hemorrhage due to the disfigurement caused by the bacteria. So that explains the gut pain and liver disease I developed. Any way 15 weeks into very toxic TB meds, I am coming cured!! I can actually enjoy life again! Back to doing my intense sports, able to think without delirium, etc.. What a massive relief!!

klee [12:17 AM]
I read that

[12:17]
glad to found the reason

anonymint [12:17 AM]
Supercharged and ready to go!

klee [12:18 AM]
stay strong and fight the disease (we all fight some disease)

tomothy
[12:18 AM]
Jesus dude. Will it be fully gone after you finish the medication courses?

fatman3001 [12:18 AM]
Congratulations man

[12:18]
That's friggin insane

cryptorebel [12:18 AM]
you can never be fully cured of TB, there is only active and inactive form

elliotolds [12:18 AM]
joined private by invitation from @bitsko

bitsko
[12:18 AM]
thank you for joining @elliotolds

klee [12:18 AM]
You manage it for life

anonymint [12:19 AM]
Unless it is a MDR strain, I have a 90+% chance of no recurrence. If it is MDR and it comes back after a year, there are new superior treatments under Stage 2 and 3 trials at the TBalliance.org

klee [12:20 AM]
Going to sleep guys, tight XRP stop (shotring it)

anonymint [12:22 AM]
gn @klee. The inactive and active form of TB can be eradicated, but it is not 100% certain, because TB hides away and if you don't get every last one of those fuckers, it can come back again. The stats are roughly 93% chance of no reoccurrence after 5 years. And that includes people who maybe didn't do their meds every day. So the odds are pretty good. And the new drug regimens coming are probably even more effective.

newliberty [12:22 AM]
Grats anon, I was concerned for you for a long time, great news.

cryptorebel [12:26 AM]
sometimes i feel like blockstream is Bitcoin's TB

[12:27]
neverending battle

anonymint [12:27 AM]
@vlad2vlad I do hope @csw comes back. I had once cited him as being smarter than Nick Szabo and Gregory Maxwell on the issue of whether Bitcoin is Turing complete:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1284083.msg13239420#msg13239420
bitcointalk.org
Layman's Journey to Understanding Zerocash
Layman's Journey to Understanding Zerocash

cryptorebel [12:29 AM]
yeah Craig had some interesting comments about turing completeness on Bitcoin using a double stack architecture: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LdvQTwjVmrE&feature=youtu.be&t=17m11s
YouTube BitcoinInvestor.com
All-Star Panel: Ed Moy, Joseph VaughnPerling, Trace Mayer, Nick Szabo, Dr. Craig Wright

vlad2vlad [12:30 AM]
@anonymint I can guarantee you CSW will be back here but only if you respond to my PM. And he is smarter than Szabo et al. Dude, did you see how many degrees he wiped the floor with? Ludicrous!!!

[12:31]
Double stack? What?

fatman3001 [12:32 AM]
Pancakes

[12:32]
with syrup

cryptorebel [12:32 AM]
he said dual stack architecture, sounds interesting though maybe Craig could elaborate what he means

ajd [12:33 AM]
joined private by invitation from @bitsko

satoshi [12:35 AM]
Putting together some tools to facilitate opposition research.

anonymint [12:37 AM]
@tula, you were asking for a gist about my orphaning rebuttal. I presume you mean my rebuttal to @Peter R's BU whitepaper about a natural fee market with unlimited block size. Afair (and there may have been more details I am not remembering offhand), Peter's analysis assumed an equal orphan rate for all miners, but each miner has a different orphan rate determined primary by their proportion of the hashrate and other factors such as their connectivity for propagation.

vlad2vlad [12:37 AM]
uploaded this image: Double Stack!!!
Add Comment

vlad2vlad [12:37 AM]
Never in my life did I think my junk would have such meaning.

bitsko
[12:39 AM]
is there no place on the internet that is free from your junk pics lol

tula [12:40 AM]
@anonymint different cost is still not zero cost ...

anonymint [12:41 AM]
@tula I will dig up a link for you, bcz I have forgotten all of the issues offhand. There were game theories enabled by this fact that orphan rate is asymmetrical.

vlad2vlad [12:42 AM]
Fair enough

[12:42]
No junk

vlad2vlad [12:43 AM]
uploaded this image: Vlad2vlad - BIG Blocker!!!
Add Comment

fatman3001 [12:47 AM]
_wtf?_

satoshi [12:48 AM]
:eyes:

vlad2vlad [12:48 AM]
IXcoin. Ohhh. I keep forgetting to plug that

xhiggy [1:07 AM]
A miner that makes a block that can't propagate and be validated in less than ten minutes, would be at a substantial orphan risk.

[1:07]
Compared to a block that could be

vlad2vlad [1:08 AM]
uploaded this image: I just can't help myself. Oh...IXcoin!!!
Add Comment

newliberty [1:28 AM]
BitCoin already has an Alt-stack
https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Script#Stack
Turing machine can be made from a small number of deterministic outputs and functions. CSW is right in that BitCoin in its current state is Turing complete, but then so also is Conway's game of life.
Meaning that you can program anything that can be programmed with it.
Here's a digital clock with Conway's game of life:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3NDAZ5g4EuU

A Turing complete system is one thing, being able to do things with easily and economically it still another.
YouTube Mikhail Goncharov
digital clock in conways game of life

zillionaire [1:29 AM]
Dr. Conway ... mad respect for him. 4 hours of meeting was gold.

[1:29]
He was talking about Church, God, Turing and Russel

[1:30]
Explained 3n+1 conjecture, incompleteness theorem, turing, 2+2=5 joke, etc. (edited)

[1:31]
Had him personally taught "surreal number" and the monster.

anonymint [1:40 AM]
Why are some of my posts in this slack disappearing from history? Who is the moderator here?

tomothy
[1:41 AM]
10000 posts

[1:41]
and i don't think thats possible

anonymint [1:41 AM]
I scroll up and I can't find some of my posts.

tomothy
[1:41 AM]
slack sucks, there is that

[1:41]
has it loaded?

[1:42]
oh, you have to click" and more"

[1:42]
to unlock the prior pages

[1:42]
it's not like irc in that regard

[1:42]
well, it doesnt suck, i mean, emojjis

[1:42]
:dancing_penguin:

anonymint [1:44 AM]
The posts between 4am and 4:54am are gone.

[1:46]
Somebody is deleting more and more of the posts. Now the ones from 4:54 are gone also.

tomothy
[1:46 AM]
keep scrolling back and unloading more?

[1:46]
it only keeps 10,000

bitsko
[1:46 AM]
people are allowed to delete their own posts per the settings

anonymint [1:47 AM]
I did. I can see posts from 4am and before, and 4:56am after. But the posts between that time frame are gone. And those were the most damning posts I wrote refuting Craig Wright.

tomothy
[1:47 AM]
impossible

anonymint [1:47 AM]
I did not delete my posts!

tomothy
[1:47 AM]
i can't delete your posts and you can't delete mine

bitsko
[1:47 AM]
I am the only moderator, I am on not going to delete others posts

anonymint [1:47 AM]
So where are my first posts in this discussion?

tomothy
[1:48 AM]
let me do a search

[1:48]
did you say craig or csw/ or?

[1:48]
(trying to limit terms

anonymint [1:48 AM]
Somebody go look for any posts between 4am and 4:56am. Can anyone see any posts from that time frame?

tomothy
[1:49 AM]
i dont have same time, what time is it for you now?

[1:49]
i'm 750pm

anonymint [1:49 AM]
7:50am for me. So go look for posts between 4pm and 4:56pm your time.

tomothy
[1:49 AM]
kk

anonymint [1:50 AM]
Now there are no posts between 4am and 5:29am for me. The problem is getting worse.

tomothy
[1:51 AM]
i have some from 410+

[1:51]
you share the pastebin

[1:51]
i don't think its limit? is it limit?

[1:52]
stuffs missing

[1:52]
i think

anonymint [1:52 AM]
All posts have returned when I refreshed the browser page. Apparently it was some JavaScript glitch.

tomothy
[1:52 AM]
my whole cconversation with you is gone

[1:52]
wtf

[1:53]
ok. so i'm not crazy, but this could drive one crazy :smile:

[1:53]
:hypnotoad:

anonymint [2:15 AM]
@tula, I am glad you prompted me to go review my prior research on the two BU papers, because it caused me to realize something new and important! @dinofelis and I (along with @tromp from private msg) had reasoned[1] that Peter R's whitepaper was irrelevant because well before any posited equilibrium could be reached due to the limitation of orphan rate, that the network would have failed (or necessarily come under centralized control enforcing a lower block size equilibrium) due to bandwidth overload[2], asymmetrical orphan rate game theory strategies[3], or failure to converge on a longest chain due to too high of an orphan rate. I then refuted[4] Andrew Stones white paper on the grounds that regulating block size via empty block production will cause miner centralization. However, because as I explained in this slack[5] SegWit enables Xthin-like propagation with UTXO changes available immediately (with the witness proof to normally arrive statistically before the block solution is found), then there is no equilibrium point on block size and it is a tragedy-of-the-fee-commons power vacuum that must be filled by a centralized mining power that enforces a block size limit.

[1] https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1819153.msg18289475#msg18289475
[2] https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1739268.msg18260085#msg18260085
[3] https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1819153.msg18273645#msg18273645
[4] https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1837136.msg18323030#msg18323030
[5] My comment at 4:19am. https://btcchat.slack.com/archives/G583BUJ7J/p1494101954754652
[Suspicious link removed]
Do you think "iamnotback" really has the" Bitcoin killer"?
Do you think "iamnotback" really has the" Bitcoin killer"?
bitcointalk.org
Miner cartel, Bankster cartel, or an altcoin? Your choice?
Miner cartel, Bankster cartel, or an altcoin? Your choice?
anonymint
It seems to be true that with SegWit, the minority miners who don't often win their own blocks, have an incentive to mine without validating, so they can decrease their losses due to mining sooner on the next block by not needing to wait for the propagation of witness data and validation delay. However, my thought is they can begin mining on the next block trusting without the witness data, but statistically they will nearly always have received the witness data and validated it long before they Show more
Thread in #privateYesterday at 10:19 PM

tomothy
[2:19 AM]
Have you reviewed or evaluated parallel validation?

anonymint [2:25 AM]
By parallel validation you could be referring to either multicore usage on each miner, or you could be alluding to some sort of sharded block chain design?

[2:26]
Satoshis PoW can not be sharded. And multicore usage doesnt solve the scaling issues we are discussing.

bitsko
[2:28 AM]
https://github.com/BitcoinUnlimited/BitcoinUnlimited/pull/254/commits/cca06f89f9287e7b0412eeb649e6878170f8d203
GitHub
Parallel Validation by ptschip · Pull Request #254 · BitcoinUnlimited/BitcoinUnlimited
opening PR on the dev branch

tomothy
[2:28 AM]
and then bitcrusts'

[2:28]
https://bitcrust.org/blog-spend-tree
bitcrust.org
BITCRUST
BITCRUST, Second generation bitcoin software | Fast parallel block validation without UTXO-index (12kB)

[2:29]
https://bitcrust.org/blog-fraud-proofs
bitcrust.org
BITCRUST
BITCRUST, Second generation bitcoin software | Fast parallel block validation without UTXO-index (12kB)

anonymint [2:30 AM]
I am reasonably confident I already figured out what is going to happen, so I can tell you with high confidence the future.

Bitcoin will never be forked to increase the block size or add SegWit. It will remain 1MB forever. It will be the reserve currency and be used by the wealthy who can afford the high transaction fees. Litecoin will become the SegWit+LN off chain scaling coin. There will be no on chain scaling for most of us. We will be pushed off chain onto to regulated Mt. Box-like "banks" (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1887077.msg18888361#msg18888361). The shadow elite have planned this out well. Bitcoin was a trojan horse. And we've been totally fooled.
bitcointalk.org
Where are you 'Iamnotback'?
Where are you 'Iamnotback'?

tomothy
[2:31 AM]
I think that is a possibility, however, based on continued miner scaling support for an increase, I think there is a chance of that future not coming to pass.

bitsko
[2:31 AM]
:wut:

tomothy
[2:31 AM]
I think we'll probably get 2mbs on chain

anonymint [2:31 AM]
My question for @csw is what is your role in this? Are you a disinformation agent of the shadow elite?

tomothy
[2:31 AM]
but I think LTC will be an interesting experiment

[2:32]
as CW is suggesting the complete removal of a block limit; although he could be a disinformation agent, he still seeks onchain scaling, which runs contrary to globalist interests regarding control

[2:32]
especially if it is to be used to facilitate gaming in all it's shapes and forms...

anonymint [2:35 AM]
In case my links to Bitcointalk stop functioning (mods havebeen deleting posts and entire threads of mine), here is a backup archive: https://web-beta.archive.org/web/*/https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1887077.0;all

Does someone have a lifetime paid pastebin account to make a permanent pastebin of my discussion here?
4 replies Last reply today at 3:47 AM View thread

tomothy
[2:35 AM]
I think there was discussion of setting up an IRC relay; so text could be sent to irc via a bot, and then that text saved/archived

[2:36]
I'm not sure the status of that however

cypherblock [2:39 AM]
@anonymint are you anonymint on bitcointalk ?

[2:39]
or who

anonymint [2:40 AM]
@tomothy I posit there is no real support for an increase. BU and all that (including perhaps @csw) is just PR to keep us distracted from our self-enslavement which we are enabling with our fanatical support of these systems. @dinofelis says I have a confirmation bias because I am working on a consensus design which I claim/posit doesnt have these problems. I claim to have solved everything.

cypherblock [2:40 AM]
Iamnotback ?

anonymint [2:42 AM]
I am all of these accounts and my real name is Shelby Moore III (my photo is on my avatar at the following link):

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=400235.msg16925985#msg16925985
bitcointalk.org
rpietila Wall Observer - the Quality TA Thread ;)
rpietila Wall Observer - the Quality TA Thread ;)

tomothy
[2:44 AM]
I think you miss the forest for the trees; what i mean by that, is that bitcoin adoption is stalling because of the limit. bitmain has invested significant amounts of capital and needs a return on that which is dependent on again, increased adoption, and increased bitcoin fees

[2:45]
if bitcoin fails to increase on chain txs, mining won't be able to support itself after the next halving

[2:49]
so if there is no increase, bitcoin mining dies. it would have to change how it works and it would no longer be bitcoin

tula [3:05 AM]
@anonymint ok thx.. so it was as i thought ..you assume unregulated blocksize leads to 100% centralization ..because bigger pools have an advantage over smaller pools (no shit)
thus "proving" that bitcoin does not work (is a ponzi scheme) and we need a central bank.
also mathematically proving that generally free market capitalism does not work and thus the only system that works is communism (this should give you a hint where i think you made a mistake) (edited)

jesse [3:06 AM]
joined private by invitation from @bitsko

anonymint [3:33 AM]
@tomothy the altcoin ecosystem adoption is not stalling. Bitcoin is the reserve currency (the most liquid, least volatility) of this ecosystem. Bitcoin will continue to grow in value as the mother ship. Bitmain will profit handsomely. Besides, I am positing that Bitmain is just a front for the shadow elite, and most mined coins end up in the shadow elite's pocket because Bitmain makes sure that independent miners are not that profitable, by selling them hardware that is already months after first produced for the insiders. Nothing is dying. It is all going according to the master plan: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1887077.msg18897366#msg18897366
bitcointalk.org
Where are you 'Iamnotback'?
Where are you 'Iamnotback'?

anonymint [3:45 AM]
Coinmarketcap has a chart on total market capitalization that will show you the ecosystem is still growing.

tomothy [3:47 AM]
Yes the overall market has increased. However, I think increasing the blocksize would also increase bitcoin dominance (59). This is because more block space would allow more increased development. In doing so, it would also clearly weakens altcoin market.

anonymint [3:47 AM]
As well that BTC's share of the ecosystem has declined from 90+% to roughly 2/3 rather precipitously recently with the Scalepocalypse coming to moment of truth.

tomothy
[3:47 AM]
I think the global elite ideas is dependent on how that and the issue is framed

[3:48]
For example. If you have a bitcoin, now, you are part of the global elite. Think about how many people live on less than $5 USD/day. So it's about perspectives.

new messages
anonymint [3:49 AM]
@tomothy you are at best only a dolphin. Refer to my prior BCT links which explain what I think will happen to the dolphins and the role you play in the NWO.

tomothy
[3:50 AM]
In terms of global politics? I think there was an attempt to limit bitcoin Independence by suggesting segwit and refusing size increase. It failed. Now? Now bitcoin has the opportunity to vote on it's future. Will it change that future? Maybe. Maybe not.
Ok I'll take a look. And then AFK.

cypherblock [9:57 AM]
i would like to be a dolphin

anonymint [9:59 AM]
@tula correct fungible finance is always a winner-take-all paradigm. Marxism rose up (as promoted by the shadow elite to give us a way to deceive ourselves and keep us preoccupied) as a false antithesis because it is also a loser-take-all paradigm. Neither of these are the solution. But I have good news for you. Both of those paradigms are dying and I know the solution. The death of fungible money is underway and the rise of Inverse Commons in the knowledge age is coming (see links below for more details). My project is all about this. This is why @dinofelis says I have a confirmation bias on my conspiracy theories, yet my math and logic is cogent.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1837136.msg18526830#msg18526830
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1837136.msg18505797#msg18505797

cypherblock [9:59 AM]
wait maybe I am a dolphin. I would like to be a bitcoin dolphin though

[9:59]
sorry had a few glasses of wine

@cryptorebel wrote:
> @hankdasilva some people think mining will become more decentralized over time: https://medium.com/@lopp/the-future-of-bitcoin-mining-ac9c3dc39c60

Ah sorry I debunked the PoW as space heaters in my unpublished whitepaper:

https://gist.github.com/shelby3/943a7191771090600ba08d978a116534

checksum0 [11:28 AM]
Bitcoin mining has never been more decentralized since the advent of mining pool, it is not people arguing, it's fact. (edited)

[11:33]
Also, I don't believe in PoW as space heaters because machine are not build for that (they are built and design to be in mining farm). In the link you posted, the author argue that it is 4000 times more efficient to extract heat thru immersion cooling (citation needed?), well do you know how much efficient _NOT_ removing waste heat is?

[11:33]
I save tens of thousands of dollars every winter _NOT_ having to cool my farm

[11:35]
Bottom line is this: 1kw of heating or 1kw of computation produce the same heat, the idea is too offset you heating cost by mining, NOT to offset your mining cost by not heating the area (edited)

anonymint [11:42 AM]
@checksum0 I have this habit of calling people idiots when they fail to read carefully, because they waste my time causing me to repeat and explain what was already written for them to read. Please try to read again more carefully what I provided. I am the author.

Please read again before replying. (edited)

checksum0 [11:44 AM]
You mean the exerpt that is totally unreadable, that goes from 5.1.1 to 5.7 and then die off without even a conclusion

[11:44]
Yeah, no

[11:44]
fuck off

anonymint [11:45 AM]
Here come the idiot trolls again. They seem to follow me where ever I go.

checksum0 [11:45 AM]
Lol

anonymint [11:47 AM]
If you think it is unreadable, then you are admitting you did not comprehend it.