Quote from: CoinHoarder on December 02, 2017, 05:27:34 PM

Quote from: CornCube on December 02, 2017, 09:19:26 AM

I was there debating @nullc (Gregory Maxwell) at Reddit.

I still have a hard time believing that 100s of competent developers, researchers, and interested parties can't at least admit that your doomsday Segwit booty theory is a possible (no matter how slightly possible) attack vector. You are not going to convince me that your theory is possible without convincing at least SOME people that have a high amount of knowledge as to the inner workings of Bitcoin and Segwit. We might as well stop arguing about it.

Many of them know its technologically possible, but they dont want to publicly admit it because it would make them look irresponsible, they think its implausible (because they presumably believe in the same democracy and miners/whales wont dare do it BS you do), and because of the peer/group-think phenomenon:

It is difficult to get a man to ~~understand~~[admit] something, when his salary depends on his not ~~understanding~~[admitting] it. ― Upton Sinclair

That is precisely an example of fragility in the aforementioned Talebs antifragility math sense of overcommitting to top-down error.

Im not predicting the SegWit pay to anyone loot mega-theft (chain rollback) will happen. However, Im wary of hodling BTC that have any SegWit/LN lineage as the SegWit booty grows in value.

Quote from: CoinHoarder on December 02, 2017, 05:27:34 PM

Quote from: CornCube on December 02, 2017, 09:19:26 AM

Youre the one who started the name calling by declaring BCH sleazy.

Yes, BCH is sleazy because:

1. It's riding off of Bitcoin's coattails. If an alternative cryptocurrency can't stand on its own two feet without using the Bitcoin brand in its name, then it is likely not as great of an idea that it's proponents think.

Disagree. Bitcoin Cash is not anointing itself to be the official Bitcoin. It forked from Satoshis protocol. Whereas, Core forked Satoshis protocol and attempted to anoint their fork as the official Bitcoin.

The truth is that both BitcoinSegWit and Bitcoin Cash are not Bitcoin. They are both forks of the real Bitcoin.

Bitcoin Cash is for big blockers who have a valid argument that to gain more near-term transaction volume scaling and keep transaction fees low, then a block size increase is more sensible because:

Proof-of-work will end up as a centralized oligarchy any way, no matter what we do we cant prevent that outcome!
LN is an insecure Rube Goldberg machine in many ways which will end up crashing Bitcoin and causing a great amount of losses. Its not just the SegWit loot, but its also the garbage collection spike attacks on the block chain that the Mt. Box enables. None of the LN variants can avoid this outcome. None. Its fundamentally baked into the fractional reserve banking economic centralization of the paradigm of off-chain time locked contracts.

Also the miners/whales are just creating a circus on purpose so they can teach of all you a lesson about being a greater fool.

They will of course teach you in the end that Satoshis protocol is immutable (thus BitcoinSegWit is also a fork) and that they control it and theres not a damn thing you can do about it. Welcome to the NWO. But of course, they will wait for the right timing. Have to maximize the effect first.

Im looney in the eyes of greater fools. And of course theyre witless and will fall into woodchipper from my perspective. The experts win and the idiots lose. Thats the way life works.

Your Core experts are actually often witless (and/or in groupthink mode) when it comes to the big picture. Theyre experts in narrow technological fields but otherwise mostly naive in terms of real-world understanding. For example, an analogous example that reminds me of Adam Back or Gregory Maxwell, there is the child prodigy genius Lubo Motl who is knowledgeable about the field of theoretical physics, but doesnt seem to comprehend (archived in case he deletes it) that the debasement paid to miners in proof-of-work is not equal to the market cap. Ive caught Gregory Maxwell making obvious errors like that (Ive linked to it numerous times, so no need for me to link it again). That doesnt mean Im perfect (and I do often make mistakes but Im always willing to accept corrections). It means exactly what I wrote, that Core is in a delusional trap bolstered by their non-antifragile estimate of their own power. The bankster/Zionists put them into this position by funding them (go look who funded Blockstream!) and helping to anoint them, but Im seeing that as usual bankster/Zionists are constructing a future false flag effect and employing the concept of compartmentalization¹ (i.e. theyre maintaining leverage for the future).

¹	_{https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compartmentalization_(information_security) https://www.truthcontrol.com/articles/compartmentalization-lie-different-every-level}

Quote from: CoinHoarder on December 02, 2017, 05:27:34 PM

Quote from: CornCube on December 02, 2017, 09:19:26 AM

Quote from: CoinHoarder on December 02, 2017, 08:57:48 AM

I think you misunderstand who the miners are. They are likely banksters themselves...

And that you do not even understand that is also what I wrote in the post you were replying to, speaks volumes

I will tell you again that TPTB (i.e. the Zionists) pulling the strings are in control of (or funded) both Core and Bitmain (i.e. both BTC and BCH). The entire Hegelian dialectic crisis is a dog & pony show to make us fools believe we have something new and innovative. We dont.

What do you mean I don't understand it? I explicitly stated so in my reply. Just replace Zionists in your post with Bankers in mine, and we effectively came to the same conclusion. The only difference is that I reject the conspiracy theory that the Zionists control everything in the world, and that they are the one's that created Bitcoin.

They dont control everything, such as the climate or what you ate for breakfast.

The Zionists control all major monetary systems of the world. All. No exceptions.

Unless you think Bitcoin is some silly shit that will have no significant impact, then the Zionists control it. Period.

If they didnt control, they would take control of it, which they can do given they control every national security agency (NSA, CIA, GCHQ, etc) in the world.

Who the heck has the power to keep Satoshi Nakamoto anonymous from the NSA, CIA, GCHQ, etc? Duh.

Quote from: CoinHoarder on December 02, 2017, 05:27:34 PM

2. Piggybacking off of #1, it is confusing to noobs. With every "hype wave" (a new term for bubble, because the word bubble infers to something that pops and never rises again), noobs enter the space at orders of magnitude more than the last. Having 20 cryptocurrencies with Bitcoin in their name is confusing, and economic losses due to errors will be had as a direct result of having Bitcoin in the name.

Thats the plan. The miners/whales take all the money from the greater fools. I already told you that is the way all passive speculation markets work.

Your idealistic youth is clouding your objectivity. Youll get more jaded with age, or youll swallow the blue pill like most of the masses.

Quote from: CoinHoarder on December 02, 2017, 05:27:34 PM

These people are Bitcoin's army. These are the people that will ensure Bitcoin will never die. Bitcoin's Network Effect will never ever be trumped by the much lesser network effect of BCH (or BTCSatoshi for that matter).

The network effect is all those greater fools piling in to be fleeced by sheep. Bitcoin is a giant Tulip bubble.

But at the end, perhaps it will actually be used for some real use cases, analogous to the aftermath of the Dot.com bubble. Decades hence we actually have profitable Pets.com type website.

All of you sheep are far too idealistic. Bitcoin is destined to have $10,000+ per transaction fee and be used as a reserve currency of the elite. The rest of us will be pushed off on to fiat electronic currencies, which is what LN is all about.

Bitcoin was created to help bring about the NWO.

Quote from: CoinHoarder on December 02, 2017, 05:27:34 PM

4. There are many ALT coins that have existed long before BCH that could perform the same functionality as BCH, and there was no need to create the BCH alternative cryptocurrency fork.

No big blocker fork of Bitcoin was supported by the major Bitcoin miners before. And again, youre missing the point that entire circus is a manipulation of the idealism of the greater fools. Split you two into camps and fleece you both in different ways.

Both Bitcoin Cash and BitcoinSegWit will perish in the end game (I do not know how many months or years away that is) and give way to Satoshis Bitcoin which is what the whales will use.

Quote from: CoinHoarder on December 02, 2017, 05:27:34 PM

5. It's not even the best design for the peer-to-peer electronic cash that they champion it to be. For example, I think something like Monero is a much better design. It's more fungible, more private, tail emission reduces longterm hoarding incentives, tail emission increases longterm security by further incentivizing it, and there are no arbitrary block size limits that have to be changed via a hard fork... only bandwidth/latency/propagation issues inherent with a distributed network.

Monero has even worse transaction scaling due to the huge transactions. And its tail reward and algorithmic block size scaling doesnt ameliorate the fundamental irreparable problems of proof-of-work. And its probably a honeypot of the Zionists as I explained and defended successfully in great detail in my Steemit blogs and in the blog comments discussion therein (and there was a thread in Altcoin Discussion that covered many of those arguments).

Note Im not trying to say Monero is worthless. I dont trust its anonymity against the NSA, but thats not the only use of privacy.

Quote from: CoinHoarder on December 02, 2017, 05:27:34 PM

6. It is backed by a shady (all for different reasons) cast of characters. Fake Satoshi Wannabe (Craig Wright), ASICBoost Owner (Jihan Wu), Grey/Black Market Online Gambling Tycoon (Calvin Ayre), and Bitcoin Brand Theif (Roger Ver).

I explained (and successfully defended) some where in my archives that Satoshi intentionally designed ASICBoost into Bitcoin.

The origins of Bitcoin are sleazy, so dont be surprised that even the banksters are the financiers of Blockstream.

Quote from: CoinHoarder on December 02, 2017, 05:27:34 PM

7. Their proposed way of scaling by infinitely raising the block size in perpetuity is a centralized dead end due to network propagation, network latency, and bandwidth issues, but they champion it to be a form of decentralized peer-to-peer electronic cash. Decietful...

Ditto LN as a scaling method. It also requires continuous ongoing block size increases.

Why do you think I work still on my Bitcoin Killer altcoin project (meaning Im still not too late).

Quote from: CoinHoarder on December 02, 2017, 05:27:34 PM

Quote from: CornCube on December 02, 2017, 09:19:26 AM

Your foolish idealism about the lie of democracy and user supported soft/hard forks is being utilized against you.

Quote from: CornCube on November 28, 2017, 02:06:19 PM

Its true that I see even flaws in my own design which could potentially cause it to become centralized, but Im working on the notion that people will be able to form groups of like-mindedness about protecting the invariants of the protocol. The key is for the community to be able to objectively distinguish malfeasance and for each individual to be able to independently and effectively route around it, i.e. castrating the powe of political influence.

The devil is in the details.

You contradict yourself regarding forming a democratic utopia when it is convenient to do so to support your arguments. In the above quote in a separate thread, you compose an argument for what I have been arguing all along ITT... leveraging Social Consensus to keep a protocol static. If you believe such Social Consensus can be obtained to keep a protocol the same (IE. BCH), then surely the same Social Consensus can be reached to change a protocol for the betterment of the protocol (IE. Bitcoin). You can not castrate political influence altogether

Im delighted you went scouring in another thread and brought this up. Because youre advertising for me. Thanks.

You correctly rebutted yourself. The key distinction is using social consensus to keep a protocol immutable, not for changing it. And to do that requires that each individual can act independently to defect from mutations. Also of course it requires that the protocol meet the needs of most users and not need changes.

Quote from: CoinHoarder on December 02, 2017, 05:27:34 PM

1. You can't prove who did or didn't create Bitcoin, and therefore any argument you form off of any assumptions as to who created Bitcoin are purely speculatory hubris-fueled diatribes.

I cant prove who did 9/11, yet Id have to be a complete idiot to believe the Zionists didnt do it after reviewing all the evidence. Most people just dont have the time to catch up with all the presentations by PhDs in the past several years.

Ditto about who created or controls Bitcoin.

Quote from: CoinHoarder on December 02, 2017, 05:27:34 PM

2. Bitcoin will not be attacked by your purported Segwit Booty doomsday theory.

Are you willing bet your entire crypto networth on that? I dare you to hold all only BTC with SegWit lineage. Put your money where your mouth is.

Quote from: CoinHoarder on December 02, 2017, 05:27:34 PM

It is a very easy to understand and sensible plan, and a very well orchestrated pump and dump.

The entire crypto ecosystem is for fleecing humanity, including BitcoinSegWit and Core.

Quote from: CoinHoarder on December 02, 2017, 05:27:34 PM

The masses will never trust or use cryptocurrencies if the elites go through with your purported doomsday theory. Practically 80% of the poll's respondents agree with me on that. They can profit off of the pumping and dumping of Bitcoin Cash greatly, and they will still be able to keep their Bitcoin stashes very valuable while doing so as a bonus.

The masses are not supposed to end up using Bitcoin. My stance is your foundational assumption is incorrect. I dont have this idealistic view of Bitcoin. Yet I also see Bitcoin as helpful in other ways and part of a process. My perspective is more nuanced.

The masses are supposed to be fleeced in a massive Tulip bubble.

Quote from: CoinHoarder on December 02, 2017, 05:27:34 PM

Quote from: CornCube on December 02, 2017, 09:19:26 AM

Satoshi (i.e. the Zionists) entirely predicted LN. In fact, he was the first one who explained conceptually about hashed time-locked contracts for Bitcoin. They (the Zionists writing under the pseudonym Satoshi Nakamoto) knew damn well why he had set the block size at 1MB and various other aspects in the game theory and design of Bitcoin.

Who do you really think controls the national security agencies apparatus throughout the world?

More hubris-filled speculation based primarily on conspiracy theories...

I had sent you in the past the links to my explanation and successful defense of the evidence that Satoshi intentionally designed Bitcoin to enable ASICBoost.

Do I also need to send you the link to where Satoshi explained to the world the idea about time-locked contracts?