Quote from: CoinHoarder on October 17, 2017, 02:35:11 PM

Quote from: Hyperme.sh on October 17, 2017, 08:02:30 AM

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

No, it is not. This is a reocurring issue when I've entered into debates with you over the years. You combine speculation with conspiracy theories with technobabble with facts, then pass it off as fact using logical fallacies. Mainly, the argument from ignorance fallacy: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

Your (what I presume to be) failure to assimilate all the facts conveniently makes my exposition a conspiracy and argument from ignorance only in your lazy mind. Or should I write more respectfully: your preferences for priorities in the use of your available time.

I ask you to go watch the videos from PhDs and scholars (proving that Mossad slaughtered 2700+ sheep at 9/11) that was linked several times and I get in return as a rebuttal is the usual Baaaa moan from the witless sheep about how they do not have time to watch the evidence because they preordained that everything they do not want to believe must be a conspiracy. Because it doesnt match their fantasy about the way their grazing corral should be.
I linked (in the OP) to where I had explained in technical detail citing peer reviewed research from PhDs that Satoshi designed proof-of-work such that it forces centralization into an oligarchy as the revenue from transaction fees rises and the protocol block reward diminishes (a separate technical issue from the fact that proof-of-work is dominated by ASIC mining). Yet somehow you think this is a conspiracy. Do you also see the ghosts and moire patterns aliasing error in your hallucinations that sampling below the Nyquist limit causes?
I linked within those discussions to where I had explained in debates with @dinofelis that Satoshi designed ASICBOOST (which provides ~30% performance/efficiency boost) intentionally into proof-of-work. Implicitly gifting it to Bitmain who would have the advantage of not paying any patent royalties to employ it. And I reminded everyone that there is no way to detect when it is being employed.
I linked to a long list of objectives the Zionists could achieve by having been the ones to create Bitcoin. Can you even cite for me the post I am referring to? If not, then how can you claim anything about my argument when you refuse to even know what my argument is in detail.
I pointed out the economics and math that the only logical reason for major capitalists to be into mining (unless we presume theyre incompetent), is world domination.

Even if the assimilation of the various facts into a holistic theory about Bitcoin is speculation, that does not make the logic not straightforward. If you want to disagree with the speculation, it still does not make the logic difficult to understand. The point of my statement which you quoted, is a challenge to those who want to make a rebuttal, then please actually address the logic and make your rebuttal germane to my argument. Which you utterly failed to do yet again. Instead you entirely side-stepped the points of my argument and wrote about my personality or reiterated your argument about social consensus (and so I repeat my rebuttal below).

Do you really think that Zionists who have shown they are capable of massive deception would not have intentionally made Satoshis work appear to be amateurish while the main salient design goals where never changed from what Satoshi delivered at the inception.

I do not have sufficient time (nor energy) to repeat myself to those who are determined to promote herding behavior (e.g. labeling something a conspiracy or diatribe to avoid having to delve into it) instead of having a debate on the issues. They should continue to follow the ass of the sheep in front of them. Carry on.

I'm not claiming others should not present their arguments. My point is that I've provided rebuttals point-by-point to their/your arguments, yet you/they just dismiss my points as conspiracy or diatribe.

Quote from: CoinHoarder on October 17, 2017, 02:35:11 PM

but it becomes a problem when you refuse to admit that your speculation is just that... speculation. Most people can admit they are speculating, and not preaching purely factual information.

Whoa. Where did I state there was no element of speculation in my thread? In fact, I have indicated several times that I am open to the possibility of being shown that my thought process is incorrect. Even stating I would be grateful to anyone who can show me why I am incorrect.

But labeling everything I have presented to be a conspiracy, is a convenient buzzword signalling device to the other sheep who are looking only at your ass, to continue to do so.

In fact, there are no such thing as absolute facts, but the irony of our inability to conclude absolutely that there are not absolute facts on our pitiful existence. We only have partial orders in this perceivable universe. And thus every fact is open to being disproved.

Our life is a speculation.

Quote from: CoinHoarder on October 17, 2017, 02:35:11 PM

I still feel like you are overlooking the very basic macroeconomic principle from which cryptocurrencies garner their value... supply and demand. The bag holder's (including whales' tokens and miners' hardware investments) bags which are worth nothing if no one wants to buy them. The purported scheme you are claiming is happening blatantly under everyone's nose will shatter confidence in all forks of Bitcoin, and thus kill the demand also. If the people you speak of are indeed behind Bitcoin, then surely they are smart enough to realize this.

Destroying SegWit on Bitcoin would not necessarily shatter confidence in Bitcoin Cash nor in Litecoin. Instead I believe it would boost both of those. And also provide renewed confidence that Satoshis Bitcoin will remain immutable.

It will shatter confidence in sheep, UAHF, Core, and other nonsense that should never have had confidence in the first place. But sheep will be sheep.

It will pop the current bubble and reset for the steady rise of BTC at about ~50% per annum (or probably slowing down slightly because larger things grow slower than smaller things do).

Bitmain and its clients will continue to mine the same number of BTC that they did before (or even more), and their Bitmain and Litecoin chains will continue to grow in stature as the mutable (and more experimental) scaling solutions.

Sorry your presumption that Bitcoin will suffer everlasting doom just because we cast off the idiots, does not seem cogent to me.

However I can not predict when it will happen or even if it will surely happen. The future may end up being more complicated than my simplistic analysis.

I was hoping that we could crowd source some thoughts about various scenarios:

Quote from: MarketMagic on October 17, 2017, 01:57:01 PM

erm TRB as pimped by MP is not for scaling but for 500k+ transaction fees for unpopular doods and zero by kickback to miner for cool doods etc but is it true Dr Satoshi has now tested 10TPS on BCH/BCC.If that is the case then it would be BCH who should go to moon zone.

Quote

The IXcoin whitepaper has one such solution

..IXcoin uses different genesis block to bitcoin and has a different reward scheme. So Bitcoins will not be valid in the Ixcoin blockchain and vice-versa.I think TRB is rumoured to be earlier bitcoin version.

As it stands: