Quote from: Hyperme.sh on October 17, 2017, 01:55:42 AM

Guys I appreciate your feedback. I am busy doing errands. Will reply later and delete this post.

Hey Satoshi was not some Japanese nerd in his garage. Get a grip on reality. Bitcoin subjugates the nation-state central banks to a global ledger. And thus control over that global ledger is control over the world.

Proof-of-work will not converge to a decentralized consensus any more once the revenue from transaction fees exceeds the revenue from the protocol block reward. Thus Satoshi designed it such that it must become centralized, else it dies in a forkathon.

Permit me to issue and control the money of a nation, and I care not who makes its laws! Mayer Amschel Bauer Rothschild

Come on guys, the logic is straightforward. Present cogent rebuttals please.

Quote from: bones261 on October 16, 2017, 08:59:29 PM

Why on Earth would Wu implement this attack on the mainnet? It would likely end up killing his goose that lays golden eggs for him. With the low liquidity in the markets, he would likely only gain a small morsel of foie gras from this. Even if he tried to implement this attack on the down low, since his company is the one most likely to implement such an attack, he would be under extreme suspicion and become anathema to the community.

Does the current minuscule community really matter in the larger scheme of things?

Do the masses really care what Theymos or any other Legendary BCT member wrote?

Quote from: bones261 on October 16, 2017, 08:59:29 PM

It would probably be more prudent from him to demonstrate that this attack is possible on a testnet. After releasing his demonstration, he would be seen as the hero; confidence in Core would be shaken; and people would likely buy up BCH and anoint it as the true bitcoin.

That is an interesting theory.

My popcorn is ready to watch the drama over the next months and years.

Quote from: Last of the V8s on October 16, 2017, 11:47:06 AM

I've never bought your assertion that miners and whales are one.

When fees rise due to a limited block size and competition (and when fees are the only revenue/reward for mining blocks), whales can pay themselves their fees by being a miner, so that only the dolphins pay fees to the whales.

I posit that Mr Popescus error when he correctly did the math on why mining is a horrible business to be in, is that he didnt consider the benefits of monopolizing mining in that whoever controls the mining, sets the fee level to the maximum the market will bear (and in the distant future when nobody can realistically mount a competitive fork, also can print new coins out-of-thin-air and otherwise use this 666 system to bring the nations to their knees analogous to how the EU brought the member nations to their knees employing the Euro).

Afaics, the foundational flaw in Trilemas outlook is that they expect they can keep the mining decentralized amongst a group of non-defecting whales, but research indicates that proof-of-work does not provide decentralized consensus when the protocol block reward diminishes. Academic peer-reviewed research shows that as transaction fees rise, proof-of-work becomes incentives incompatible with consensus.

I posit the Zionists have outwitted you all. They have designed the perfect monetary weapon which at the end game they control completely. You are all deceived and I think that is quite hilarious.

Do you think with all their money over the past centuries that they have not been able to hire 180 IQ geniuses to map out their (Satans or whatever shit you want to believe) strategy for the end times?

I see no cogent rebuttal, yet some clowns anonymously vote youre looney (without making any argument in the thread) because this is the Internet where useful idiots think their vote means anything.

Quote from: Last of the V8s on October 16, 2017, 11:47:06 AM

The Zionist stuff is silly. satoshi designed it, but couldn't quite understand all its ramifications.

[]

the tax tracking stuff you just posted is silly. i told you before there is no taint or title in bitcoin. read my dad's (tardigrade) few questions in the logs. and there's already a tax system in place for bitcoin.
the tangible economy stuff too. we defeated the nazis before with russian blood and western tears and leaders. you think the incomparably less efficient cia will be a problem?

And also refute the compelling evidence and arguments that Mossad did 9/11 presented by PhDs and scholars.

I remember a qntra.net page and Trilema log about how Mr Popescu seemed to be claiming that the TMSR had wrecked Hellarys presidential bid because she threatened to make encryption illegal, yet it was Wikileaks who wrecked Clinton and the ties between Julian Assange and the Rothschild family are documented. They installed the buffoon Trump so they wreck him in the public eye. Now I see Qntra.net has been down since Sept. 25.

So if this TMSR is so powerful and is going to destroy the Zionists who created Bitcoin and who have their fingers significantly in control of global finance, geopolitics, and Five Eyes (G5) national securities agencies, why cant they keep their website online?

Nobody defeated the Nazis. Come on you guys are hallucinating. The entire thing was a dog & pony show created by the Zionists to justify the creation of the Jewish homeland which they would control per Revelations. The Zionists created the Bolsheviks, etc, etc.

@CoinCube had an interesting post on how the mud defeated the Nazis on the Eastern front, not the Russians.

Quote from: Last of the V8s on October 16, 2017, 11:47:06 AM

Anyway I think you started using 'whales' in a slightly different sense, not as someone who dominates an exchange, but merely as someone who controls a vast sum of btc.
And yes going back there is this Roger Ver/Wu Jihan axis that is a miner/largish holder axis.

Jihan Wu refers to his clients. His clients are anonymous. We do not know how many BTC they have. I now believe the Zionists were mining from the start and control all of Satoshis million BTC hoard and a lot more than than I bet. I expect they will not move those coins until they are ready to demonstrate their power some decade or so from now.

Quote from: Last of the V8s on October 16, 2017, 11:47:06 AM

But no other miners can possibly even have 100,000 to their name. So not really 'whales' or large holders to my mind.

Indeed the whales control the miners, not vice versa. The whales can mine them own blocks if need to, so the other miners no longer get paid, once the block reward declines and all revenues come from transaction fees.

Tthe Zionists will still have control over most commerce even after the monetary resets (including the rise of the Bitcoin they created and they control surreptitiously). Mr Popescu seems to think he is only battling against the USG and nation-state fiats, lol. He has been fooled. He is battling against Satoshi.

Of course most people will be deceived, even the venerable Mr Popescu.

Quote from: Last of the V8s on October 16, 2017, 11:47:06 AM

Mr Popescu certainly has nothing to do with miners or mining. Indeed they unwisely crossed him once. (and Mr Datskovskiy often calls mining 'a bug'.)

Thanks for confirming that.

Quote from: Last of the V8s on October 16, 2017, 11:47:06 AM

centralisation of mining is not a great problem, there's even a 'core'-camp article on this. miners just don't matter, they mine or get bricked. someone will always mine.

Afaics, this is an oversimplification which then thus arrives at the incorrect conclusion because it fails to incorporate the most salient facts.

Fact is that the whales will control the mining (when the protocol block reward diminishes) because they pay (a power-law distribution) more transaction fees. In other words the top few percent of whales hold more than 50% of the money supply and thus will pay more than 50% of the transaction fees.

Additionally, peer reviewed academic research has modelled that as the block reward diminishes, then consensus is no longer incentives compatible, thus the whales MUST take control of the blockchain, else it will diverge into chaos of ever increasing number of long-lived (not quickly orphaned) forks.

So yes the whales can control the miners (i.e. the whales and miners are the same economic entity ultimately) and thus the blockchain will be controlled by a few people at the end game.

It is quite a brilliant deception that the Zionists have hoisted on all of us. Am I the only one here capable of not being deceived on this?

If I happen to be entirely incorrect about this, I will be most grateful to the person(s) who can explain to me why so.

Off-topic:

Quote from: Last of the V8s on October 16, 2017, 11:47:06 AM

Anyway look there's no point you or me or anyone discussing any of this here. we have no skin in the game.
but, you think you have a better bitcoin. great. discuss it with bitcoin, the most serene republic. they too want that.
they will easily see where you are right or wrong and they will help you if you are right. they know it's not perfect
but you'll never get anywhere on your own like this telling us fleas to read your material when you refuse to discuss theirs with them.

I do not know if what I have designed is really going to solve the decentralization problem. And the security model requires a WoT for objectivity. I have not gone over to the TMSR freenode chat yet because my liver is still causing me to have brain fog. I dont think I am in a cognitive state to match wits with them and be able to pull from long-term memory when sometimes I do not even have the mental energy to remember where the door is. Im trying to pull everything together and my higher priority at the moment is to get an altcoin project launched than it is to thresh out the peer review of what I have in mind for the decentralized ledger algorithm. Besides I can not discuss it publicly until I have already first mover advantage. I will just note that my design goal was to eliminate the power of control over the money supply to dictate objectivity. Yet if the whales also control most of the transactions in my design, they could still subvert the objectivity. This is why transaction fees are burned. And to solve the problem about losing consensus when block reward diminishes (my design doesnt have blocks).

I have my doubts about whether stored monetary capital is going to be as useful in the coming Knowledge Age. We seem to be at any epochal shift in human evolution. Thus I am thinking the Zionists are destroying themselves and monetary capital and finance. I think perhaps we are moving towards an Inverse Commons future. I am attempting to reduce the utility of monetary capital and thereby reduce the malfeasance of the the power-law distribution of monetary wealth. Thus empowering bottom-up knowledge creation and collectivized objectivity to hopefully counter-balance the power of finance.

Btw, my design has a perpetually shrinking money supply.

Quote from: Last of the V8s on October 16, 2017, 11:47:06 AM

say your coin is actually better. bitcoin's prime mover advantage is vastly underrated, not least backed by massive independent research. and look at all the big teams behind the other coins especially the few that aren't scammy, they can't get anywhere. yours will not be perceived any differently even if that is unfair.

Agreed. I am not even trying to challenge Bitcoin. I am going for a different market. The one spoken about in the Bible for those who survive the Tribulations.

The sui generis aspect should be quite clear at the launch due to the fact it will be illegal to sell the token.

We have to paradigm shift. Monetary capital is never going to be decentralized, because its generative essence is top-down Theory of the Firm power vacuum enabled control. True decentralization would require destroying monetary capital and elevating knowledge capital. Its about elevating the creativity and knowledge generation capabilities of humans, not dumbing them down into fungible slaves.

Im thinking decentralization will be an ongoing profitable forkathon:

Quote from: Hyperme.sh on October 20, 2017, 12:56:56 AM

Republics are what we are trying to kill with decentralization, but so far nobody has been able to design a ledger that is truly decentralized. So thus far, the axioms stated hold. I will propose a new decentralized ledger technology (which scales even better than DPoS) which I posit can remain decentralized if the majority of the participants are not politically motivated to defect or who cant be manipulated. So what I expect is the the intelligent minority will fork off and run their own decentralized ledger on this technology. If the majority attacks it and necessarily raising its value, the intelligent majority will take the gains and fork off again. By eliminating the mining, I make this plausible. More on this is coming soon