Search content
Sort by
Showing 18 of 18 results by Shelby_Moore_III_
where is iamnotback? he quit:
https://steemit.com/cryptocurrency/@anonymint/re-anonymint-re-anonymint-re-anonymint-re-anonymint-scaling-decentralization-security-of-distributed-ledgers-20190303t130445403z
https://steemit.com/cryptocurrency/@anonymint/re-anonymint-re-anonymint-re-anonymint-re-anonymint-scaling-decentralization-security-of-distributed-ledgers-20190303t130445403z
Confirmed. Thanks @vapourminer. Buh bye.
⭐ Merited by vapourminer (1)
searched for 'channel factories' and 'sighash_noinput' in your steemit piece
could not find
afaiu they - with schnorr - are the pieces of the puzzle that that lot of devs think might address all your concerns about blocksize and huge hubs/banks
could not find
afaiu they - with schnorr - are the pieces of the puzzle that that lot of devs think might address all your concerns about blocksize and huge hubs/banks
Please search my blog post for Edit: wherein I have noted your peer review. Note that before these edits, my linked blog had already mentioned the channel factories but not by that name and had already linked to the relevant paper by C.Decker et al. AFAICT, that Layer 3 technology doesnt solve the fundamental flaw I have alleged and explained in my blog.
AFAICT, sighash_noinput doesnt address the fundamental flaw I raised and if it were extended to the point of making on-chain transaction capacity unbounded (which is not its intended purpose) then it would destroy miner revenue. I have pointed this out in my edits.
P.S. This continuing discussion may be heading off-topic from the issues I was addressing about my perma-ban and its evolving into technological discussion (which would not fall under the umbrella of linking the blog to refute @Gmaxwells post about my perma-ban). So to avoid others accusing me of circumventing the perma-ban and discussing technology in Meta, I respectfully request that any future technological discussion be in a private message or another forum. I am available on protonmail as well. I also have a GPG key.
Aren't you making a substantive post by providing links to your various topics (likely crap, but whatever).
Who gives a ratt's ass that you making this particular post in meta, since you are not keeping the topic of your post related to the subject of attempting to get your account(s) back or attempting to resolve your perma-ban issues (to the extent there are any outstanding possible issues?), so I don't really understand how that kind of posting conduct, including this particular post, could be "respecting the perma-ban."
Maybe someone can educate me? I don't proclaim to be an expert in "respecting the perma-ban", so maybe I am missing something?
Who gives a ratt's ass that you making this particular post in meta, since you are not keeping the topic of your post related to the subject of attempting to get your account(s) back or attempting to resolve your perma-ban issues (to the extent there are any outstanding possible issues?), so I don't really understand how that kind of posting conduct, including this particular post, could be "respecting the perma-ban."
Maybe someone can educate me? I don't proclaim to be an expert in "respecting the perma-ban", so maybe I am missing something?
[ ]
My post was both pointing out that I havent been evading the ban for some 9 months. For example, as a point about good behavior in case for example @Theymos decided that I dont have to kiss his feet and he can respect my independence and dignity while still doing the correct action and removing the perma-ban in the middle of a crypto winter so he won't have egg all over his face when the altcoin I am working on likely ends up being in the Top 10 on the next bull market circa 2021. The subtle allusions to the fact that I am making a lot of progress on my work, was intended to be a subtle hint to that effect for the astute.
My post was also providing a holistic compilation of the posts which were deleted by @mprep. I do believe @mprep allowed such links to archives to be posted here, because many other users complained about losing the context of discussions they had been involved in [ ]
On further reflection and until further notice, I kindly withdraw any perceived request to be unbanned, because it would actually reduce my productivity because I would end up consuming much of my time on never ending technical and political-economic debates (and especially the sort of ad hominem vacuous content attacks that unfortunately seem so prevalent on bitcointalk.org), such as this recent itch I had to scratch to correct some very important errors in @dinofelis overconfident technical arguments. And when I am overworked and exhausted (being age 54 and still suffering from some gut dysbiosis causing delirium weary fatigue), I tend to get sloppy with my writing and thought process. Much better for me to post my rebuttals elsewhere where the counter parties arent likely to bother to signup to go debate me there, so that I dont end up wasting precious time that needs to be focused on coding and development work.
I do hope that Theymos and the mods will not ban those (who are not my sockpuppets!) who decide to post links to my comments in the relevant threads of BCT?
Also I received a respectful and courteous reply from @Theymos in a PM about my critique of Grin, so that is a positive step for building some mutual respect. Id like to leave it rest with that for the time being.
Your above post doesn't make much sense to me.
Heres some explanations of why nothing correct makes much sense to you (these links were provided in the blog I linked for you in my prior post but obviously you didnt even digest it because youre a disingenuous Core sycophant lacking your own independent brain stem):
Pretty much you were able to reiterate enough information to show that I was correct in my initial speculation that whatever you had provided in the first post did not make much if any sense because it was not really meant to make sense, and the reason for such lack of sense was because it was mostly gobble-dee-gook.
I've seen this kind of similar convoluted mumbo-jumbo baloney from you before, when you were typing under the name anunymint.
This is indicative of either laziness/disinterest on your part or the only other possible explanation is that it is well known that for a reader with two standard deviations (SD) lower IQ than the author will perceive the author as unintelligible. And in the case of the Dunning-Kruger phenomenon, the retard will perceive the genius as being the retard.
I suggest you exert more diligent effort in your reading, because otherwise this is indicating that your IQ is below 1 SD. I was informed by Omar Bessa (confirmed 170+ IQ, i.e. 5 SD) that in his judgement the ~0.5 million BTC trilema.com author (who was the DAO attacker) has roughly a 3 SD IQ (so 145 IQ).
P.S. Ive been told that trilema.com (actually the The Most Serene Republic, aka TMSR) represents the philosophy (and support of Satoshis original protocol without SegWit) of those who hodl millions (plural) of BTC.
AnonyMint's posts are almost exclusively jargon-laden techno-babble. His posts are angry and abusive while at the same time they often fail to even make syntactic sense when it comes to the technical content-- at least to anyone who knows what the words mean. He relentlessly floods threads with his trademark nonsense and switches to slanderous personal attacks whenever someone disagrees with him
[ ]
AnonyMint is not the only example of this sort of abusive ignorance that shows up on the forum, -- it's not uncommon for newbies who are used to being the smartest guy in whatever little pond they came from to show up and say they're going to "fix bitcoin" while calling everyone else an idiot for the couple months it takes for them to realize how little they actually know...
[ ]
AnonyMint is not the only example of this sort of abusive ignorance that shows up on the forum, -- it's not uncommon for newbies who are used to being the smartest guy in whatever little pond they came from to show up and say they're going to "fix bitcoin" while calling everyone else an idiot for the couple months it takes for them to realize how little they actually know...
Another rebuttal has been posted (in the other thread about my perma-pan) to @Gmaxwells slanderous allegation that my technical points are incorrect babble:
Its been 9+ months so I wanted to add an update on my perma-ban.
For those who might be curious about if I disappeared from crypto, absolutely not. I wrote a very important new blog slamdunk refuting all those Core supporters who wanted me perma-banned:
Lightning Networks must FAIL, if it succeeds
(an alternative link for the above which has different fonts)
And over the past several days was my prescient prediction of todays BTC price breakout which occurred on the exact day I predicted days in advance.
The above linked blog ties in links to all archived past discussion (other than the posts which werent archived) which was deleted by @mprep. And it flattens my analysis of Lightning Networks and the impossibility of Bitcoin transaction scaling.
Bitcoin Core is an altcoin. This will become evident eventually over the next several years, decade, or so. This is an example of a very unpopular analysis which caused so many to want me perma-banned.
Here is a link to an update about my ongoing gut health battle (after apparently curing the Tuberculosis in 2017 with 6 months of liver toxic antibiotics), as well as the latest naming ideas for the altcoin project Im still involved.
P.S. I have respected the perma-ban and have not attempted to post outside of Meta for the past 9+ months. Also I have not even relayed posts outside of Meta via my friends (who are indeed not my sockpuppet accounts) such as @Traxo.
For those who might be curious about if I disappeared from crypto, absolutely not. I wrote a very important new blog slamdunk refuting all those Core supporters who wanted me perma-banned:
Lightning Networks must FAIL, if it succeeds
(an alternative link for the above which has different fonts)
And over the past several days was my prescient prediction of todays BTC price breakout which occurred on the exact day I predicted days in advance.
The above linked blog ties in links to all archived past discussion (other than the posts which werent archived) which was deleted by @mprep. And it flattens my analysis of Lightning Networks and the impossibility of Bitcoin transaction scaling.
Bitco
Here is a link to an update about my ongoing gut health battle (after apparently curing the Tuberculosis in 2017 with 6 months of liver toxic antibiotics), as well as the latest naming ideas for the altcoin project Im still involved.
P.S. I have respected the perma-ban and have not attempted to post outside of Meta for the past 9+ months. Also I have not even relayed posts outside of Meta via my friends (who are indeed not my sockpuppet accounts) such as @Traxo.
⭐ Merited by Quickseller (1)
Your above post doesn't make much sense to me.
Heres some explanations of why nothing correct makes much sense to you (these links were provided in the blog I linked for you in my prior post but obviously you didnt even digest it because youre a disingenuous Core sycophant lacking your own independent brain stem):
http://trilema.com/2018/how-to-piss-me-the-fuck-off-a-guide/
http://trilema.com/2016/thats-right-time-to-move-on-please-do-bitcoin-is-really-not-for-you/
http://trilema.com/2015/if-you-go-on-a-bitcoin-fork-irrespective-which-scammer-proposes-it-you-will-lose-your-bitcoins/
http://trilema.com/2016/the-end-of-democracy/
http://trilema.com/2018/the-common-psychosis/
http://trilema.com/2013/because-most-people-are-idiots-in-spite-of-never-manning-up-and-admitting-to-it/
http://trilema.com/2014/why-dogecoin-is-a-scam-why-the-people-pushing-it-are-assholes-why-business-insider-is-a-contemptible-piece-of-shit-why-anyone-who-ever-worked-for-it-will-be-dancing-in-the-street-for-nickels-and-wh/
http://trilema.com/2016/to-the-dao-and-the-ethereum-community-fuck-you/
Aren't you making a substantive post by providing links to your various topics (likely crap, but whatever).
Who gives a ratt's ass that you making this particular post in meta, since you are not keeping the topic of your post related to the subject of attempting to get your account(s) back or attempting to resolve your perma-ban issues (to the extent there are any outstanding possible issues?), so I don't really understand how that kind of posting conduct, including this particular post, could be "respecting the perma-ban."
Maybe someone can educate me? I don't proclaim to be an expert in "respecting the perma-ban", so maybe I am missing something?
Who gives a ratt's ass that you making this particular post in meta, since you are not keeping the topic of your post related to the subject of attempting to get your account(s) back or attempting to resolve your perma-ban issues (to the extent there are any outstanding possible issues?), so I don't really understand how that kind of posting conduct, including this particular post, could be "respecting the perma-ban."
Maybe someone can educate me? I don't proclaim to be an expert in "respecting the perma-ban", so maybe I am missing something?
Lol, youre so butt hurt by my success.
You Core sycophants think you own this forum. Anyone who is intelligent and capable of exposing your lies is perma-banned.
My post was both pointing out that I havent been evading the ban for some 9 months. For example, as a point about good behavior in case for example @Theymos decided that I dont have to kiss his feet and he can respect my independence and dignity while still doing the correct action and removing the perma-ban in the middle of a crypto winter so he won't have egg all over his face when the altcoin I am working on likely ends up being in the Top 10 on the next bull market circa 2021. The subtle allusions to the fact that I am making a lot of progress on my work, was intended to be a subtle hint to that effect for the astute.
My post was also providing a holistic compilation of the posts which were deleted by @mprep. I do believe @mprep allowed such links to archives to be posted here, because many other users complained about losing the context of discussions they had been involved in. The prior posts of links to the deleted posts were spread all over the place and not holistically compiled in one place. That post after 9 months was tying it all together in one place so the afflicted innocent parties can more easily recover from the transgression that was made against them.
And in general my post was to further the evidence I am presenting of a Core conspiracy to ban me, by further establishing that Core is an attack on Bitcoin.
And my recent blog I linked is another belated technical response to the post @Gmaxwell made in the other thread about my perma-ban.
⭐ Merited by infofront (1)
Its been 9+ months so I wanted to add an update on my perma-ban.
For those who might be curious about if I disappeared from crypto, absolutely not. I wrote a very important new blog slamdunk refuting all those Core supporters who wanted me perma-banned:
Lightning Networks must FAIL, if it succeeds
(an alternative link for the above which has different fonts)
And over the past several days was my prescient prediction of todays BTC price breakout which occurred on the exact day I predicted days in advance.
The above linked blog ties in links to all archived past discussion (other than the posts which werent archived) which was deleted by @mprep. And it flattens my analysis of Lightning Networks and the impossibility of Bitcoin transaction scaling.
Bitcoin Core is an altcoin. This will become evident eventually over the next several years, decade, or so. This is an example of a very unpopular analysis which caused so many to want me perma-banned.
Here is a link to an update about my ongoing gut health battle (after apparently curing the Tuberculosis in 2017 with 6 months of liver toxic antibiotics), as well as the latest naming ideas for the altcoin project Im still involved.
P.S. I have respected the perma-ban and have not attempted to post outside of Meta for the past 9+ months. Also I have not even relayed posts outside of Meta via my friends (who are indeed not my sockpuppet accounts) such as @Traxo.
For those who might be curious about if I disappeared from crypto, absolutely not. I wrote a very important new blog slamdunk refuting all those Core supporters who wanted me perma-banned:
Lightning Networks must FAIL, if it succeeds
(an alternative link for the above which has different fonts)
And over the past several days was my prescient prediction of todays BTC price breakout which occurred on the exact day I predicted days in advance.
The above linked blog ties in links to all archived past discussion (other than the posts which werent archived) which was deleted by @mprep. And it flattens my analysis of Lightning Networks and the impossibility of Bitcoin transaction scaling.
Bitco
Here is a link to an update about my ongoing gut health battle (after apparently curing the Tuberculosis in 2017 with 6 months of liver toxic antibiotics), as well as the latest naming ideas for the altcoin project Im still involved.
P.S. I have respected the perma-ban and have not attempted to post outside of Meta for the past 9+ months. Also I have not even relayed posts outside of Meta via my friends (who are indeed not my sockpuppet accounts) such as @Traxo.
Let me know the address of your decentralized website and let's continue there.
Apparently youre incapable of simultaneously executing your moronic Millennial grandstanding and strawmen, while also opening your fucking eyes. The link was provided on the prior page of this thread.
https://steemit.com/blockchain/@anonymint/jesus-bitcoin-is-somewhat-sovereign-democracy-not
but failed to show any proof
You are incapable of discerning lipstick and a pig, so how would you know? You also stated that you didnt read my posts.
Is this what you do for a career? Do you feel accomplishment today?
Suggestion: go hump a cow, smoke some weed, or take Xanax so you can feel better about your low self-esteem.
And I should probably stop helping you to evade your ban by using this thread as your soapbox.
Are you so deluded as to think:
- Youre helping me do something that I have proven I am perfectly capable of doing without you anytime I want to.
- That posting in Meta in the thread about my perma-ban is evading a ban, when it is specifically allowed and thus not evading the ban.
Habitually lying to yourself to give yourself dopamine hits of false accomplishment is a pathology of crab-bucket insanity.
EDIT: My grandparents generation had great respect for institutions including the government. I think the boomers also still have that to a significant degree. My X generation is quite skeptical and pragmatic because we were the first kids of the boomers who were too busy getting divorced to actually raise us in a system that we could respect. The Millennials are the late batch of kids from boomers and my generations kids. There is an excellent Quora Q&A that characterizes that generation well in my opinion. Of course on an individual level people are unique and stereotypes don't entirely hold.
Some answers I have selected:
https://www.quora.com/Are-millennials-more-narcissistic-than-older-generations/answer/Angie-Neik
(that answer above explains what I was saying about my generation)
https://www.quora.com/Do-millennials-feel-more-entitled-than-previous-generations/answer/Matthew-Laine-1
(Matthew Laine has a 180 IQ)
https://www.quora.com/Do-millennials-feel-more-entitled-than-previous-generations/answer/Gustin-Fox-Smith
https://www.quora.com/Do-millennials-feel-more-entitled-than-previous-generations/answer/David-Haldorsen
https://www.quora.com/Do-millennials-feel-more-entitled-than-previous-generations/answer/Faith-Paul-2
https://www.quora.com/Do-millennials-feel-more-entitled-than-previous-generations/answer/Chris-Everett
https://www.quora.com/Do-millennials-feel-more-entitled-than-previous-generations/answer/Grant-Schmutte
https://www.quora.com/Do-millennials-feel-more-entitled-than-previous-generations/answer/Ej-Gravis
https://www.quora.com/Do-millennials-feel-more-entitled-than-previous-generations/answer/Torie-J-Patterson
https://www.quora.com/Do-millennials-feel-more-entitled-than-previous-generations/answer/Lance-LaSalle
https://www.quora.com/Do-millennials-feel-more-entitled-than-previous-generations/answer/Nikolite
https://www.quora.com/Do-millennials-feel-more-entitled-than-previous-generations/answer/Michael-Brescia-2
https://www.quora.com/Do-millennials-feel-more-entitled-than-previous-generations/answer/Henriikka-Keskinen
https://www.quora.com/Do-millennials-feel-more-entitled-than-previous-generations/answer/Charles-Stone-6
https://www.quora.com/Do-millennials-feel-more-entitled-than-previous-generations/answer/William-Beteet-1
And reading those answers further strengthens my resolve to provide decentralization technology to help these Millennials economically. Compare the negativity of the answers to the positivism of the answers from Asians:
https://www.quora.com/Do-millennials-feel-more-entitled-than-previous-generations/answer/Xiaobei-Jia
That IMO reflects the decadence of the West.
Only if you promise to reply with huge walls of text from conspiracy sites of home-schooled "lawyers"
Appeal to authority is not an argument. Its a trolling tactic that attempts to obfuscate that you really dont want to respond to the logic presented.
You got your moronic ass whipped and ran away from the arguments.
huge walls of text from conspiracy sites
So Techdirt.com is a conspiracy site when they are citing Stanford's Center for Internet and Society?
Dimwit, here is one example of the specific way that GDPR forces tech companies to ban hate speech because the law can put them into a liability quandry:[/size]
And that's not all that's dangerous about the current rules. They also deal a huge blow to anonymous speech and privacy:
Yes, that's right. In an effort to protect privacy, the drafters are so focused on a single scenario, that they don't consider how the process will be abused to weaken the privacy rights of others. Want to know who said something anonymously that you don't like? File a privacy complaint and the service provider is just supposed to cough up their name. Again, given how often we've seen bogus defamation claims made solely for the purpose of trying to identify those who speak anonymously, this is a major concern.
Quote
A second glaring problem with the GDPR process is its requirement that companies disclose the identity of the person who posted the content, without any specified legal process or protection. This is completely out of line with existing intermediary liability laws. Some have provisions for disclosing user identity, but not without a prescribed legal process, and not as a tool available to anyone who merely alleges that an online speaker has violated the law. Its also out of line with the general pro-privacy goals of the GDPR, and its specific articles governing disclosure of anyones personal information -- including that of people who put content on the Internet.
Yes, that's right. In an effort to protect privacy, the drafters are so focused on a single scenario, that they don't consider how the process will be abused to weaken the privacy rights of others. Want to know who said something anonymously that you don't like? File a privacy complaint and the service provider is just supposed to cough up their name. Again, given how often we've seen bogus defamation claims made solely for the purpose of trying to identify those who speak anonymously, this is a major concern.
Are you not capable of comprehending how the above requirement of the GDPR law could cause a large company to decide its easier to just ban hate speech from their websites rather risk some loose canons dragging them into complex domino effect liability outcomes of the requirements of the law.
The large companies legal departments see the writing on the wall and have decided to favor caution over free speech.
He can still publish on his own website.
suchmo[r]on, not if the EU decides to fine him on some technicality of the GDPR. The law can basically force censorship. I guess you didnt bother to read my quotes that exemplify the law is chock full of ambiguities and forced liabilities.
Those additional liabilities along with other developments in the same genre of totalitarianism that is sweeping over the West is what is causing the censorship to accelerate. Its all connected. You can try to pick your ass about some differentiation between the crap laws, but its all the same shit.
Alex Jones Im Ready to Die - Exclusive Interview After Being Banned
https://www.theverge.com/2018/9/12/17849868/eu-internet-copyright-reform-article-11-13-approved
https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/world-news/corruption/eu-considering-requiring-a-broadcaster-license-to-have-youtube-channel/
https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/international-news/europes-current-economy/gdpr-creates-an-overwhelming-bureaucratic-nightmare-in-europe/
https://www.sbs.com.au/news/trump-maintains-google-is-rigged-warns-other-internet-giants-to-be-careful
http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=8120#comment-2031856
Still kinda important to know what's in it. Ask your dad.
And you didnt know what it is in it, as explained above.
Are you going to come back for more sloppy retard replies suchmo[r]on?
As I predicted, you can only refute a soundbite and not dig into the links to actually correct your ignorance.
There is no reason to dig into your conspiracy theories. You were not be able to quote the part of GDPR that addresses hate speech and/or caused the ban of Alex Jones / Infowars. If you're having a problem with some other law or regulation you need to articulate yourself better lest you sound like a witless oaf.
Lol. What an idiot. You lack basic reasoning skills as explained in the prior post.
You understand nothing about law if you think law is only what is written in the law. My father is former West Coast Division Head Attorney for Exxon who graduated top of his class in one of the top law universities in the USA.
Armstrong is also an autodidact legal scholar.
Dimwit, here is one example of the specific way that GDPR forces tech companies to ban hate speech because the law can put them into a liability quandry:
And that's not all that's dangerous about the current rules. They also deal a huge blow to anonymous speech and privacy:
Yes, that's right. In an effort to protect privacy, the drafters are so focused on a single scenario, that they don't consider how the process will be abused to weaken the privacy rights of others. Want to know who said something anonymously that you don't like? File a privacy complaint and the service provider is just supposed to cough up their name. Again, given how often we've seen bogus defamation claims made solely for the purpose of trying to identify those who speak anonymously, this is a major concern.
Quote
A second glaring problem with the GDPR process is its requirement that companies disclose the identity of the person who posted the content, without any specified legal process or protection. This is completely out of line with existing intermediary liability laws. Some have provisions for disclosing user identity, but not without a prescribed legal process, and not as a tool available to anyone who merely alleges that an online speaker has violated the law. Its also out of line with the general pro-privacy goals of the GDPR, and its specific articles governing disclosure of anyones personal information -- including that of people who put content on the Internet.
Yes, that's right. In an effort to protect privacy, the drafters are so focused on a single scenario, that they don't consider how the process will be abused to weaken the privacy rights of others. Want to know who said something anonymously that you don't like? File a privacy complaint and the service provider is just supposed to cough up their name. Again, given how often we've seen bogus defamation claims made solely for the purpose of trying to identify those who speak anonymously, this is a major concern.
Just go finger yourself. Thats about all youre capable of.
Dear Europe: Please Don't Kill Free Speech In The Name Of 'Privacy Protection'
About a year and a half ago, we wrote about how the new European "General Data Protection Regulation" (GDPR) was potentially very problematic for free speech. That is, well-meaning "data protection" folks wrote up the GDPR, but it appears they did so with little thought towards what the impact might be on free speech. So, specifcally, when they include something like a right to "erasure" for certain information, you can understand, from a privacy standpoint why people may want certain data and information to be deleted from certain databases. But bring that over to the open web, rather than private databases, and you're talking about a censorship tool around a "right to be forgotten" system.
About a year and a half ago, we wrote about how the new European "General Data Protection Regulation" (GDPR) was potentially very problematic for free speech. That is, well-meaning "data protection" folks wrote up the GDPR, but it appears they did so with little thought towards what the impact might be on free speech. So, specifcally, when they include something like a right to "erasure" for certain information, you can understand, from a privacy standpoint why people may want certain data and information to be deleted from certain databases. But bring that over to the open web, rather than private databases, and you're talking about a censorship tool around a "right to be forgotten" system.
FIGHTING FOR THE INTERNET: SOCIAL MEDIA, GOVERNMENTS AND TECH COMPANIES
Free speech or illegal content?
Whether hate speech, propaganda or activism, governments across the globe have upped efforts to curb content deemed illegal from circulating on social networks. From drawn-out court cases to blanket bans, DW examines how some countries try to stop the circulation of illicit content while others attempt to regulate social media.
Social media law
After a public debate in Germany, a new law on social media came into effect in October. The legislation imposes heavy fines on social media companies, such as Facebook, for failing to take down posts containing hate speech. Facebook and other social media companies have complained about the law, saying that harsh rules might lead to unnecessary censorship.
Regulation
In China, the use of social media is highly regulated by the government. Beijing has effectively blocked access to thousands of websites and platforms, including Facebook, Twitter, Instagram and Pinterest. Instead, China offers its citizens access to local social media platforms, such as Weibo and WeChat, which boast hundreds of millions of monthly users.
Twitter bans Russia-linked accounts
Many politicians and media outlets blame Russia's influence for Donald Trump's election victory in 2016. Moscow reportedly used Facebook, Twitter, Google, and Instagram to shape public opinion on key issues. In October 2017, Twitter suspended over 2,750 accounts due to alleged Russian propaganda. The platform also banned ads from RT (formerly Russia Today) and the Sputnik news agency.
Facebook announces propaganda-linked tool
With social media under pressure for allowing alleged Russian meddling, Facebook announced a new project to combat such efforts in November 2017. The upcoming page will give users a chance to check if they "liked" or followed an alleged propaganda account on Facebook or Instagram. Meanwhile, Facebook has come under fire for not protecting user data in the wake of the Cambridge Analytica scandal.
Free speech or illegal content?
Whether hate speech, propaganda or activism, governments across the globe have upped efforts to curb content deemed illegal from circulating on social networks. From drawn-out court cases to blanket bans, DW examines how some countries try to stop the circulation of illicit content while others attempt to regulate social media.
Social media law
After a public debate in Germany, a new law on social media came into effect in October. The legislation imposes heavy fines on social media companies, such as Facebook, for failing to take down posts containing hate speech. Facebook and other social media companies have complained about the law, saying that harsh rules might lead to unnecessary censorship.
Regulation
In China, the use of social media is highly regulated by the government. Beijing has effectively blocked access to thousands of websites and platforms, including Facebook, Twitter, Instagram and Pinterest. Instead, China offers its citizens access to local social media platforms, such as Weibo and WeChat, which boast hundreds of millions of monthly users.
Twitter bans Russia-linked accounts
Many politicians and media outlets blame Russia's influence for Donald Trump's election victory in 2016. Moscow reportedly used Facebook, Twitter, Google, and Instagram to shape public opinion on key issues. In October 2017, Twitter suspended over 2,750 accounts due to alleged Russian propaganda. The platform also banned ads from RT (formerly Russia Today) and the Sputnik news agency.
Facebook announces propaganda-linked tool
With social media under pressure for allowing alleged Russian meddling, Facebook announced a new project to combat such efforts in November 2017. The upcoming page will give users a chance to check if they "liked" or followed an alleged propaganda account on Facebook or Instagram. Meanwhile, Facebook has come under fire for not protecting user data in the wake of the Cambridge Analytica scandal.
Have you been sleeping under a rock lately.
Establishing that governments have the power to regulate the Internet is the camels nose under the tent of the end of freedom on the Internet. But of course they sell it to the public as protecting their human rights. Lol. And the dumb ass sheep like yourself fall for it.
Quote from: https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/4/5/17199754/what-is-gdpr-europe-data-privacy-facebook
The US has been reluctant to step in on tech regulations. Europe has moved ahead.
That Europe would be quicker to act on regulating Facebook and other tech companies hardly comes as a surprise. It has emerged as a leader in the arena in recent years, while the United States has taken a back seat.
[ ]
Germany at the start of the year began enforcing a new hate speech law that gives social networks just 24 hours to act on hate speech, fake news, and illegal material.
That Europe would be quicker to act on regulating Facebook and other tech companies hardly comes as a surprise. It has emerged as a leader in the arena in recent years, while the United States has taken a back seat.
[ ]
Germany at the start of the year began enforcing a new hate speech law that gives social networks just 24 hours to act on hate speech, fake news, and illegal material.
I read that in some countries is Europe men cant urinate in a standing position because it might make noise or make transgenders feel uncomfortable.
My Swedish friend tells me that Swedes are not allowed to rent a house or apartment if their tax reported income is not above a certain level every year.
With the way Europe approaches technology, sometimes I get the feeling that over time it will look rather Amish -- but without barn raising, since that would probably be illegal too.
When companies are effectively forced by economics to turn off their websites for the EU, that is censorship by the EU for their enslaved sheep citizenry:
But for businesses, the GDPR is a little vague and more than a little scary. It gives EU citizens the right to be forgotten which means when they ask, the business has to delete everything about that customer. Plenty of gotchas apply like you have to keep enough to still pass a tax audit but as an example of a really curious gotcha, what about your backups? For example, do you have to delete the customers data inside your past backups?
The max penalties are terribad.
Up to 20M or 4% of your companys annual worldwide revenue, whichever is higher.
See, under the GDPR, if someone asks us to delete their data, we not only have to delete it, but we have to audit that we deleted it, and maintain those records for EU authorities. And then respond to EU requests for that documentation.
The max penalties are terribad.
Up to 20M or 4% of your companys annual worldwide revenue, whichever is higher.
See, under the GDPR, if someone asks us to delete their data, we not only have to delete it, but we have to audit that we deleted it, and maintain those records for EU authorities. And then respond to EU requests for that documentation.
You dont seem to understand that those sites suddenly started doing that because they have to protect themselves due requirements in the recent EU GDPR legislation requiring centrally controlled Internet websites to protect users from hate speech.
GDPR is about privacy and data protection (literally "General Data Protection Regulation"). It does not address hate speech.
Do you have a link to your decentralized blockchain-based website?
As I predicted, you can only refute a soundbite and not dig into the links to actually correct your ignorance.
You cant see beyond the the tip of your nose:
The new European regulations are actually having an impact globally. Alex Jones InfoWars has been banned by Apples decision to remove five podcasts by Jones and his Infowars website. Other companies have rushed to join including Facebook, YouTube, and Spotify. The general reason is Joness podcasts are viewed as hate content which can subject them to heavy fines in Europe.
Youre so naive. The data protection issue is a ruse or Trojan horse that can be use to fine companies on technicalities when they dont prevent the free speech that the politicians and Deep State dont like:
Senate Democrats are circulating a proposal based upon their claim of Russian hacking that will completely takeover the internet and social media which has been leaked. They are adopting the EU approach to silence political criticism. They claim it is necessary, just as the EU argued, that they must act to prevent Russian hackers and restore the peoples trust in our institutions, democracy, and the free press. They are proposing comprehensive GDPR-like data protection legislation following the EU. They are calling it a proposal for Regulation of Social Media and Technology Firms, and the draft was created by Sen. Mark Warner.
The entire regulation is based upon Russians and it claims they are deliberately spreading disinformation. To justify this act, they also point back to the old Soviet Union stating they attempted to spread fake news denigrating Martin Luther King. Despite the Democrats and their campaign to start World War III over Hillarys emails, of which nobody denied were fake just hacked, their proposal is effectively to shut down anything they can call hate speech targeted at them, not Trump of course.
Warners paper suggests outlawing companies who fail to label bots and impose Draconian criminal penalties and huge fines. Effectively, they want people to pay for everything. The Democrats want full disclosure regarding ANY online political speech. They even want the Federal Trade Commission to have unbelievable power and require all companies algorithms to be audited by the feds as if they even have qualified staff to conduct such audits. On top of that, they have proposed tech platforms above a certain size MUST turn over internal data and processes to independent public interest researchers so they can identify potential public health/addiction effects, anticompetitive behavior, radicalization, scams, user propagated misinformation, and harassmentdata that could be used to inform actions by regulators or Congress. This is a complete violation of both the First and Fourth Amendment. They want the same mechanisms in Europe where anyone can complain and demand the content be taken down or subject to fines that can confiscate all assets. Sounds to me like retirement is on the horizon.
This bill would effectively end all our freedoms.
The entire regulation is based upon Russians and it claims they are deliberately spreading disinformation. To justify this act, they also point back to the old Soviet Union stating they attempted to spread fake news denigrating Martin Luther King. Despite the Democrats and their campaign to start World War III over Hillarys emails, of which nobody denied were fake just hacked, their proposal is effectively to shut down anything they can call hate speech targeted at them, not Trump of course.
Warners paper suggests outlawing companies who fail to label bots and impose Draconian criminal penalties and huge fines. Effectively, they want people to pay for everything. The Democrats want full disclosure regarding ANY online political speech. They even want the Federal Trade Commission to have unbelievable power and require all companies algorithms to be audited by the feds as if they even have qualified staff to conduct such audits. On top of that, they have proposed tech platforms above a certain size MUST turn over internal data and processes to independent public interest researchers so they can identify potential public health/addiction effects, anticompetitive behavior, radicalization, scams, user propagated misinformation, and harassmentdata that could be used to inform actions by regulators or Congress. This is a complete violation of both the First and Fourth Amendment. They want the same mechanisms in Europe where anyone can complain and demand the content be taken down or subject to fines that can confiscate all assets. Sounds to me like retirement is on the horizon.
This bill would effectively end all our freedoms.
Theyre using this ruse to pressure the Internet behemoths into censoring the sort of truth that they dont want the people to know as the Western Civilization collapses and they try to redirect blame on for example Putin so they can start a war to misdirect the negative feelings about the coming economic devastation towards a fake hostility that they construct (this is the Hegelian dialectic principle of governing the sheep like you):
After the first week, the new General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) in Europe has done far more damage than Brussels ever anticipated. This regulation, which was intended to really prevent political marketing against the government, is actually destroying the German Internet. Operators have chosen to simply shut down their websites for fear of lawsuits. Many online services have chosen to delete their users accounts. In case of violations of the regulation, companies face fines of four percent of their turnover.
At the same time, law firms are licking their lips and see a whole new fortune to be made while rubbing their hands. Lawyers have sprung into action and have set up consumer protection associations armed with this new regulation which explicitly states that consumers are entitled to take action for damages. Activists have targeted companies on a large scale all looking to make huge profits.
The US Supreme Court Chief Justice Warren E. Burger once said: We may well be on our way to a society overrun by hordes of lawyers, hungry as locusts, and brigades of judges in numbers never before contemplated.
At the same time, law firms are licking their lips and see a whole new fortune to be made while rubbing their hands. Lawyers have sprung into action and have set up consumer protection associations armed with this new regulation which explicitly states that consumers are entitled to take action for damages. Activists have targeted companies on a large scale all looking to make huge profits.
The US Supreme Court Chief Justice Warren E. Burger once said: We may well be on our way to a society overrun by hordes of lawyers, hungry as locusts, and brigades of judges in numbers never before contemplated.
It took only one day for complaints to be filed against Google and Facebook under the new General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). When Mark Zuckerberg testified in front of members of the European Parliament, he insisted that Facebook was ready for Friday the 25th when the GDPR, which is the European Unions new strict data privacy going into effect. The very first day, complaints against Facebook and Google with others alleging that the tech companies are in violation of the law.
The GDPR was passed in April 2016 and instituted stringent new rules on any company that held consumer data. The real purpose of this is to prevent mass mailing and targeting people for political purposes. You have people like Clapper now claiming he personally believes Russia tipped the election because millions of people saw its propaganda. Of course, Clapper did that to other elections outside the USA besides tapping phones of world leaders including Merkel. The old problem is those in government have always assumed the people are stupid sheep because they have lied to them for decades and gotten away with it. The GDPR is all about trying to prevent real freedom of speech in fear that the people might listen and rise up.
The complaints target the user agreements of Google and Facebook which are notorious for being long and complicated to ensure people do not read everything before they click agree. Companies like Facebook and Google are supposed to let you know precisely what kind of data theyre collecting and/or selling about you.
The GDPR was passed in April 2016 and instituted stringent new rules on any company that held consumer data. The real purpose of this is to prevent mass mailing and targeting people for political purposes. You have people like Clapper now claiming he personally believes Russia tipped the election because millions of people saw its propaganda. Of course, Clapper did that to other elections outside the USA besides tapping phones of world leaders including Merkel. The old problem is those in government have always assumed the people are stupid sheep because they have lied to them for decades and gotten away with it. The GDPR is all about trying to prevent real freedom of speech in fear that the people might listen and rise up.
The complaints target the user agreements of Google and Facebook which are notorious for being long and complicated to ensure people do not read everything before they click agree. Companies like Facebook and Google are supposed to let you know precisely what kind of data theyre collecting and/or selling about you.
Fuck, I cant hardly tolerate wasting my time anymore on these know-it-all Millennial bunny rabbits. Just let them crash and burn:
http://trilema.com/2013/the-story-of-pointless-and-witless/
https://steemit.com/psychology/@anonymint/social-courtesies-the-witless-and-pointless-example
It does not address hate speech.
As if by analogy of the weakness of your reasoning, U.S. passports dont address child support payments and tax collection? Maybe you better get an education:
https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/world-news/taxes/the-irs-can-deny-you-a-passport/
https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/armstrongeconomics101/economics/divorce-collapse-of-socialism/
https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/passports/legal-matters/child-support.html
https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/international-news/eastern_europe/russia-you-cannot-leave-if-you-owe-money/
https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/uncategorized/australians-looking-at-restriction-on-travel/
Some unrelated lulz:
https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/international-news/north_america/americas-current-economy/canada-to-fingerprint-anyone-who-owes-them-money/
https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/world-news/taxes/police-given-dui-tickets-when-on-a-raft-in-australia/
https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/world-news/taxes/australia-is-hunting-for-people-who-use-business-cars-to-go-to-sports-games/
https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/world-news/taxes/australia-creates-domestic-violence-tax/
https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/international-news/australia-oceania/australia-tracking-parents-accounts-by-following-children/
https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/world-news/taxes/is-australian-government-crossing-the-line-into-a-totalitarian-state/
https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/international-news/australia-oceania/australias-new-pm-ex-ceo-of-goldman-sachs/
He can still publish on his own website. I don't see how this impedes his ability to reach his followers. It might impede his ability to gain new followers so basically Twitbook and Facetube decided to not promote him anymore. Although I'm guessing that individual users of those sites can still post his links/videos.
You dont seem to understand that those sites suddenly started doing that because they have to protect themselves due requirements in the recent EU GDPR legislation requiring centrally controlled Internet websites to protect users from hate speech. And that sort of totalitarian legislation might also be coming to the USA when the Democrats get back in power. That is why we absolutely must decentralize all databases and websites via the blockchain.
Please pay attention to the Youtube from George Gilder that I linked in my prior post. He explains how the fiefdoms arent sustainable. What we see underway is the coming collapse of Western Civilization before 2033 as the Millennials favor ideology and thus drive the tech sector to leave for greener pastures in Asia:
https://steemit.com/politics/@anonymint/why-social-media-software-sucks
(above blog links to details on all my above assertions)
All of you should read everything I ever wrote on Steemit on my blog and comment timelines. There is a wealth of information in there that you wont be getting on bitcointalk.org.
https://steemit.com/@anonymint
https://steemit.com/@anonymint/comments
Especially this!
https://steemit.com/trading/@anonymint/most-important-bitcoin-chart-ever
If you expect everything to be a soundbite, then you will always be ignorant. You must actually read in detail and click every link I provide in order to understand my communications. Millennials have the attention span of a gnat. Which is another reason Western Civilization will collapse within a decade.
I do not subscribe to the conspiracy theories pushed by Alex Jones, and strongly condemn him both personally and his extremist views. However many people actively choose to listen to what he has to say, and he should have the ability to speak and publish his message.
I was going to merit this above but it looks like I have none to give
Well I agree about the problems of censorship and even the famously accurate technological prognosticator George Gilder in his talk about his book Life After Google explains that that centralization of the Internet backfires on the behemoth fiefdoms and thus isnt sustainable.
But unfortunately you guys really need to understand that false-flags are staged. I have studied the evidence in great detail (I mean weeks of effort over a period of years). You should really look at the facts more intensely and read my analyses:
Plane Flyover; Explosives Planted Inside The Pentagon
https://steemit.com/politics/@anonymint/succinct-absolute-truth-about-9-11-and-las-vegas-massacre
https://steemit.com/politics/@anonymint/re-anonymint-re-anonymint-israel-s-mossad-did-9-11-20180806t173225425z
https://steemit.com/psychology/@anonymint/you-can-t-handle-the-truth
https://steemit.com/freedom/@anonymint/in-t-h-e-f-t-a-n-d-m-a-s-s-a-c-r-e-s-we-trust
For example review my detailed analyses that proves that the airplane flew over the Pentagon. No missle. It was a bomb that was planted. The evidence is overwhelming when you analyse it in detail as I did.
I agree Alex Jones is obnoxious.
P.S. Traxo apparently continues to link in his posts on bitcointalk.org to some of my Steemit posts. Its impossible to ban information. Defies the laws of thermodynamics (c.f. the bottom of this recent post for more on that point).
EDIT: Tangentially I studied the 9-11 incident in great exhaustive detail. Compare that to for example the EUs GDPR which I have never read nor thought about for more than about 15 minutes. I have for example written a blog analysing in great detail the facts of the Pentagon venue on that day. And facts that most people are not aware of and are drowned out by the noise of nonsense such a missile attack, etc.. It is quite easy to show that the plane flew over the building and that all other possible explanations are impossible. There was construction ongoing in that section of the Pentagon. It is very simple. A bomb was planted. And I guarantee you that if you review my detailed explanation of the evidence you come to realize that you cannot respect institutions. There is a DEEP STATE of corruption within our institutions. I know this sounds crazy but facts and evidence do not lie. You will be surprised the evidence that is actually available that most people never hear about.
I was also banned from the Go Github. My antagonists here will probably idiotically mistake that as some validation of their stance. Click the link for some explanation.
Btw, Medium is also presumably nuking very important information about potential false flags corruption.
What do you think of this idea of "ideal money may not be an absolute truth"?
edit: I just saw he has abandoned the forum.
I came back over to add some additional information to Corruption portion of my up-thread post. I noticed your post and its an interesting and very important question which deserves my response, because it drives right into whether I should continue to work on yet another shitcoin. Which perhaps relates to whether I should seek an appeal of my perma-ban (although I think others can act liaisons on this forum for any decentralized ledger project I might be involved with).
Note in a prior blog of his, he pointed out why the real Bitcoin is more valuable in the long-run than the extra features of the Core altcoin:
So Im in agreement with all the points he made in the above blog, so lets consider the second blog he wrote:
He is actually arguing above against utility tokens because he makes it clear they have insufficient network effects and allegiance. I also had written before against the viability of utility tokens both from the standpoint of having no network effects and because utility tokens arent a cogent exemption from securities regulation.
But hes not arguing in the second quoted blog above against altcoins which have sufficient network effects. He instead made that argument for Bitcoin maximalism (and thus implicitly against altcoins) in the first quoted blog above. But then in the third blog which you have cited, he has backed off a bit on his claim that its impossible for an altcoin to establish a network effect.
Here are my thoughts on his third blog:
Ive been making this argument for the past few years. Bitcoin as onchain transacted Ideal Money is ultimately for the community of $billionaires and $trillionaires as an international reserve currency which all other nation-state and highly fungible currencies float against. We will all be kicked off of the real Bitcoin eventually because the transaction fees will rise to $50,000 eventually (of course Bitcoin will be worth north of $250,000 then also though so it depends how many BTC youre hodling). Security, proven reliability, and immutability are the most important features of the real Bitcoin which becomes the new world reserve currency. It will be the most fungible and liquid asset on the planet by 2032.
But the real Bitcoin will not be a transaction token for the masses. For transactions, we have many competing technologies in play. For example, the Lightning Networks on the Core altcoin is one of the possible altcoins being developed to meet such need.
Lightning Networks will have certain unique attributes:
So there will be other altcoins that attempt to compete with Lightning Networks that improve on some of those unique weakness but they will not be denominated in BTC.
Lightning Networks cant really remake the Web 3.0. Its more targeted only on spending without onchain integration required for decentralizing all the centralized databases on the Internet. So I do think some altcoin is going to end up being a major player and eventually in the long-term be more important than Bitcoin as the fungible monetary system fades and the knowledge age Internet system rises. LN is roughly Banking 2.0. Another altcoin could potentially be Internet 2.0.
But most of you will be incapable of analyzing which altcoin that is. You will invariably fall prey to hyped scammy ICOs along the way. And Im not going to be around here trying to help analyze for the members here. Ive been shown the door.
As usual, I have some surprises up my sleeve
Its not necessary to extract rent from apps, although I think this will also be possible. Rather its only necessary to establish a token which has network efforts because of the unique decentralized ledger technology and market features. Others wont be able to successfully copy that technology because they wont have the first-mover advantage networks effects that are already established (as is the case for Bitcoin). Steem was open source from the start, yet it established network effects inertia that is hard to overcome. The problem for Steem is they screwed up the technology and the model, which leaves the door wide open still for a competitor.
---------------------------- Original Message ----------------------------
Subject: You forgot Bitcoin, as it also broke up above downtrend after July 12
From: "Shelby Moore"
Date: Wed, August 8, 2018 9:42 am
To: Martin Armstrong <armstrongeconomics@gmail.com>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/future-forecasts/ecm/ecm-the-cycle-inversion/
You forgot Bitcoin. Bitcoin has also broken above the downtrend line same
as for the US dollar and Canadian dollar.
This is yet another confirmation for you that Bitcoin is becoming a world
reserve currency.
Continue to ignore this Martin at your peril.
Btw, Medium is also presumably nuking very important information about potential false flags corruption.
Even in a long-term equilibrium state different communities may end up converging on different definitions of the ideal money: some favoring immutability while others prefer reversible transactions for example or preferring different trade-offs across security, transaction fees and inflation rate. Where there is consistent demand for a particular definition of money, communities can form Schelling Points and give that kind of money value.
This is especially likely given that humans often do not behave like purely rational economic agents. They despise shipping fees and a-la-carte pricing and they are (relatively) insensitive to inflation and risk. They covet both stability and growth, both security and flexibility. Community loyalty could cause users to value a niche currency even if they understand it to be inefficient, as arguably Dogecoin demonstrates already. Ultimately money is the servant of actual human demand and not economic theory, and so we may see a panoply of currencies thrive even if they dont necessarily make sense the economic equivalent of Wile E. Coyote never looking down.
This is especially likely given that humans often do not behave like purely rational economic agents. They despise shipping fees and a-la-carte pricing and they are (relatively) insensitive to inflation and risk. They covet both stability and growth, both security and flexibility. Community loyalty could cause users to value a niche currency even if they understand it to be inefficient, as arguably Dogecoin demonstrates already. Ultimately money is the servant of actual human demand and not economic theory, and so we may see a panoply of currencies thrive even if they dont necessarily make sense the economic equivalent of Wile E. Coyote never looking down.
What do you think of this idea of "ideal money may not be an absolute truth"?
edit: I just saw he has abandoned the forum.
I came back over to add some additional information to Corruption portion of my up-thread post. I noticed your post and its an interesting and very important question which deserves my response, because it drives right into whether I should continue to work on yet another shitcoin. Which perhaps relates to whether I should seek an appeal of my perma-ban (although I think others can act liaisons on this forum for any decentralized ledger project I might be involved with).
Note in a prior blog of his, he pointed out why the real Bitcoin is more valuable in the long-run than the extra features of the Core altcoin:
Quote from: https://theoryofself.com/why-i-am-still-a-bitcoin-maximalist-2fb98d33ed21?gi=a312898e9194
The existence of Hypecoin implies the existence of Hypecoin-but-with-Bitcoins-network, which means Hypecoin and Bitcoin dont compete by featureset (because features can be freely co-opted) but instead compete strictly on network.[/size]
[ ]
The reason the Bitcoin network is so valuable is that Bitcoin has the most wealth, the broadest userbase and the longest history of successful operation. Since money is a network effect good, these advantages are self-reinforcing: a larger network means more liquidity, which attracts more use cases, which strengthens the network.
[ ]
The fastest way is slowly
Trust in new financial instruments is slow to build. For those of us considering adopting crypto already it can be hard to understand how slowly this trust will build for most of the world.
[ ]
The only way to learn the risks and failure cases of a crypto-economic system is put wealth into it and observe whether anything goes wrong. One of the central reasons that Bitcoins featureset is compelling even though it is very limited is because it is battle tested and reliable. Bitcoin has been operating for almost a decade with billions of dollars of value flowing through it and the system continues to operate as intended. The simplicity of Bitcoin and its reliability are different aspects of the same quality.
Conversely, the flexibility and featureset of the some of the newer cryptocurrencies is inseperable with their more complex security exposure. You can see this in practice with the Ethereum DOA hack or Parity bug, both of which involved losses in the hundreds of millions of USD and founding members of the Ethereum team. The very qualities that make it easier for Ethereum to do more interesting things also make it harder to be certain exactly what things any given smart contract will do. Trust for every smart contract will need to be bootstrapped individually. Even if the killer app were invented tomorrow it would take a long time to gain any confidence that it was working as intended.
Some argue that the sturm und drang over trying to launch SegWit signal a failure of Bitcoin governance and a counterargument to the reasoning above that Bitcoin could in practice actually adopt the features of a competitor. Personally I see the fact that Bitcoin is challenging to change as a feature, not a bug. Decentralization is the reason for the blockchains very existence and a decentralized monetary system should reflect the conservative preferences of the market about adopting new technologies.
Its not as easy as it looks
The challenges of building a crypto-economy are non-linear. There is considerably more incentive to spam, attack and exploit the market leader than the competitors. Weaknesses in other systems are left unexploited not because they dont exist but because the targets they protect are not sufficiently valuable to justify the effort. Congestion is lower not because of advantages in scaling but because there is less competition for limited network resources.
Many of the sharpest criticisms against Bitcoin (high fees, for example) are inevitable consequences of a thriving network. Many of the strongest claims of altcoins (strong privacy guarantees, for example) remain essentially untested until they accrue enough significance to be worth trying to defeat. To properly assess the value of a cryptocurrency we must account for the advantages and disadvantages of being / being sheltered by the market leader.
[ ]
The reason the Bitcoin network is so valuable is that Bitcoin has the most wealth, the broadest userbase and the longest history of successful operation. Since money is a network effect good, these advantages are self-reinforcing: a larger network means more liquidity, which attracts more use cases, which strengthens the network.
[ ]
The fastest way is slowly
Trust in new financial instruments is slow to build. For those of us considering adopting crypto already it can be hard to understand how slowly this trust will build for most of the world.
[ ]
The only way to learn the risks and failure cases of a crypto-economic system is put wealth into it and observe whether anything goes wrong. One of the central reasons that Bitcoins featureset is compelling even though it is very limited is because it is battle tested and reliable. Bitcoin has been operating for almost a decade with billions of dollars of value flowing through it and the system continues to operate as intended. The simplicity of Bitcoin and its reliability are different aspects of the same quality.
Conversely, the flexibility and featureset of the some of the newer cryptocurrencies is inseperable with their more complex security exposure. You can see this in practice with the Ethereum DOA hack or Parity bug, both of which involved losses in the hundreds of millions of USD and founding members of the Ethereum team. The very qualities that make it easier for Ethereum to do more interesting things also make it harder to be certain exactly what things any given smart contract will do. Trust for every smart contract will need to be bootstrapped individually. Even if the killer app were invented tomorrow it would take a long time to gain any confidence that it was working as intended.
Some argue that the sturm und drang over trying to launch SegWit signal a failure of Bitcoin governance and a counterargument to the reasoning above that Bitcoin could in practice actually adopt the features of a competitor. Personally I see the fact that Bitcoin is challenging to change as a feature, not a bug. Decentralization is the reason for the blockchains very existence and a decentralized monetary system should reflect the conservative preferences of the market about adopting new technologies.
Its not as easy as it looks
The challenges of building a crypto-economy are non-linear. There is considerably more incentive to spam, attack and exploit the market leader than the competitors. Weaknesses in other systems are left unexploited not because they dont exist but because the targets they protect are not sufficiently valuable to justify the effort. Congestion is lower not because of advantages in scaling but because there is less competition for limited network resources.
Many of the sharpest criticisms against Bitcoin (high fees, for example) are inevitable consequences of a thriving network. Many of the strongest claims of altcoins (strong privacy guarantees, for example) remain essentially untested until they accrue enough significance to be worth trying to defeat. To properly assess the value of a cryptocurrency we must account for the advantages and disadvantages of being / being sheltered by the market leader.
So Im in agreement with all the points he made in the above blog, so lets consider the second blog he wrote:
Today Id like to continue my contrarian impulses by talking about why I dont think it makes sense to invest in an ICO or startup based on a decentralized application. Decentralized applications (dApps) may very well change the world but they are very unlikely to make their creators rich. To understand why, its helpful to take a step back and understand the basic mechanism that allows entrepreneurs to accrue wealth in the first place: the firm.
Where does shareholder value come from?
Profit is not an automatic side-effect of building a compelling product or having a large customer base. The cotton gin, for example, revolutionized the economy of 19th century America but it never made Eli Whitney rich. It is entirely possible to build a widely used and valuable technology without ever accumulating wealth. Thats because a firms profit isnt based on how useful the technology it builds is, but is instead based on how easy or hard it is for competing firms to enter the marketplace. The easier it is for a new entrant to solve the same problems you are solving, the harder it will be to charge a premium for your products or services.
[ ]
As demand for the services provided by the dApp increases, so does demand for token theoretically providing outsized returns to investors and early adopters who hold token. A nice situation if you can arrange it! But just as with the monopoly firm above, its vulnerable to competition. If there are interesting profits for the original holders of token to capture, those profits will attract competition.
In fact its even worse for dApps because in order to be decentralized they have to be open source essentially giving away their core IP for free. That means its incredibly easy for a potential competitor to download the dApp codebase, fork it into a new dApp′ with a new token′. Just as above the new dApp′ can underprice the original system, reducing the profit margin and stealing the consumer and supplier bases, since they have no loyalty to the original system beyond the service it provided.
[ ]
If your value generation takes place on-chain, it is decentralized. If it is decentralized, you will not be able to use it to extract economic rent.
Where does shareholder value come from?
Profit is not an automatic side-effect of building a compelling product or having a large customer base. The cotton gin, for example, revolutionized the economy of 19th century America but it never made Eli Whitney rich. It is entirely possible to build a widely used and valuable technology without ever accumulating wealth. Thats because a firms profit isnt based on how useful the technology it builds is, but is instead based on how easy or hard it is for competing firms to enter the marketplace. The easier it is for a new entrant to solve the same problems you are solving, the harder it will be to charge a premium for your products or services.
[ ]
As demand for the services provided by the dApp increases, so does demand for token theoretically providing outsized returns to investors and early adopters who hold token. A nice situation if you can arrange it! But just as with the monopoly firm above, its vulnerable to competition. If there are interesting profits for the original holders of token to capture, those profits will attract competition.
In fact its even worse for dApps because in order to be decentralized they have to be open source essentially giving away their core IP for free. That means its incredibly easy for a potential competitor to download the dApp codebase, fork it into a new dApp′ with a new token′. Just as above the new dApp′ can underprice the original system, reducing the profit margin and stealing the consumer and supplier bases, since they have no loyalty to the original system beyond the service it provided.
[ ]
If your value generation takes place on-chain, it is decentralized. If it is decentralized, you will not be able to use it to extract economic rent.
He is actually arguing above against utility tokens because he makes it clear they have insufficient network effects and allegiance. I also had written before against the viability of utility tokens both from the standpoint of having no network effects and because utility tokens arent a cogent exemption from securities regulation.
But hes not arguing in the second quoted blog above against altcoins which have sufficient network effects. He instead made that argument for Bitcoin maximalism (and thus implicitly against altcoins) in the first quoted blog above. But then in the third blog which you have cited, he has backed off a bit on his claim that its impossible for an altcoin to establish a network effect.
Here are my thoughts on his third blog:
Ideal money may not be an objective truth
Money is at its most basic a coordination tool that enables communities to cooperate economically, so its value is entirely dependent on the community of users that it serves.
Money is at its most basic a coordination tool that enables communities to cooperate economically, so its value is entirely dependent on the community of users that it serves.
Ive been making this argument for the past few years. Bitcoin as onchain transacted Ideal Money is ultimately for the community of $billionaires and $trillionaires as an international reserve currency which all other nation-state and highly fungible currencies float against. We will all be kicked off of the real Bitcoin eventually because the transaction fees will rise to $50,000 eventually (of course Bitcoin will be worth north of $250,000 then also though so it depends how many BTC youre hodling). Security, proven reliability, and immutability are the most important features of the real Bitcoin which becomes the new world reserve currency. It will be the most fungible and liquid asset on the planet by 2032.
But the real Bitcoin will not be a transaction token for the masses. For transactions, we have many competing technologies in play. For example, the Lightning Networks on the Core altcoin is one of the possible altcoins being developed to meet such need.
Lightning Networks will have certain unique attributes:
- denominated in BTC
- Mt. Box fractional reserves (users will sometimes lose everything such as was the case for Mt. Gox)
- inability to transact to every other users on the blockchain
- inability to seamlessly integrate spending with others actions (e.g. posting a blog post a la Steem) recorded on a blockchain
So there will be other altcoins that attempt to compete with Lightning Networks that improve on some of those unique weakness but they will not be denominated in BTC.
Lightning Networks cant really remake the Web 3.0. Its more targeted only on spending without onchain integration required for decentralizing all the centralized databases on the Internet. So I do think some altcoin is going to end up being a major player and eventually in the long-term be more important than Bitcoin as the fungible monetary system fades and the knowledge age Internet system rises. LN is roughly Banking 2.0. Another altcoin could potentially be Internet 2.0.
But most of you will be incapable of analyzing which altcoin that is. You will invariably fall prey to hyped scammy ICOs along the way. And Im not going to be around here trying to help analyze for the members here. Ive been shown the door.
As usual, I have some surprises up my sleeve
I remain of the opinion that such opportunities to extract rent from decentralized applications will be rare and when they exist relatively modest, but I am excited to learn of counterexamples whenever I find them!
Its not necessary to extract rent from apps, although I think this will also be possible. Rather its only necessary to establish a token which has network efforts because of the unique decentralized ledger technology and market features. Others wont be able to successfully copy that technology because they wont have the first-mover advantage networks effects that are already established (as is the case for Bitcoin). Steem was open source from the start, yet it established network effects inertia that is hard to overcome. The problem for Steem is they screwed up the technology and the model, which leaves the door wide open still for a competitor.
---------------------------- Original Message ----------------------------
Subject: You forgot Bitcoin, as it also broke up above downtrend after July 12
From: "Shelby Moore"
Date: Wed, August 8, 2018 9:42 am
To: Martin Armstrong <armstrongeconomics@gmail.com>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/future-forecasts/ecm/ecm-the-cycle-inversion/
You forgot Bitcoin. Bitcoin has also broken above the downtrend line same
as for the US dollar and Canadian dollar.
This is yet another confirmation for you that Bitcoin is becoming a world
reserve currency.
Continue to ignore this Martin at your peril.
This is a consecutive posting, but Ive waited days for someone to reply to the thread before posting again.
My contrarian thoughts on the Singularity thesis (and empathetically humanity at-large) I think ties in with my stance about my ban and my points about corruption which applies to my reasoning for not seeking reinstatement here:
https://www.quora.com/Do-advances-in-AI-mean-that-before-long-we-won-t-need-computer-programmers-as-we-ll-be-able-to-just-ask-a-computer-to-write-me-some-code-that-does-the-following/answer/Shelby-Moore-III
(archived here: http://archive.is/C5xrA)
If there are no further arguments raised in this thread, I suppose this will be my last post on bitcointalk.org. Hopefully.
EDIT: https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2018/07/the-instagram-forums-where-teens-go-to-debate-big-issues/566153/
My contrarian thoughts on the Singularity thesis (and empathetically humanity at-large) I think ties in with my stance about my ban and my points about corruption which applies to my reasoning for not seeking reinstatement here:
https://www.quora.com/Do-advances-in-AI-mean-that-before-long-we-won-t-need-computer-programmers-as-we-ll-be-able-to-just-ask-a-computer-to-write-me-some-code-that-does-the-following/answer/Shelby-Moore-III
(archived here: http://archive.is/C5xrA)
If there are no further arguments raised in this thread, I suppose this will be my last post on bitcointalk.org. Hopefully.
EDIT: https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2018/07/the-instagram-forums-where-teens-go-to-debate-big-issues/566153/
Stop evading your bans and appeal for your ban like everybody else. you are not better than anybody, you are a man like several billion men living on earth.
Sorry but not all men are created equal. Yours is the SJW egalitarianism mayonnaise which I wrote about in my post on the prior page of this thread. Westerners are stuck in that ideological shit which is going to drag them back down to a third world clusterfuck if someone doesnt press the abort switch. And Bitcoin was precisely created to destroy egalitarianism, politics, and promote meritocracy instead. I work a 100 hours a week (although not or not productively while I had been ill with Tuberculosis for 5 6 years and the recovery from treatment in 2017). I have done that for significant stretches of my 40 years as a programmer. I have specialized applicable skills, knowledge, and experience. Presumably many of you dont have those skills and/or dont work with that same level of intensity.
You seem to not have comprehended the part where I conveyed that I presumed I have been singled-out for temp-banning because you shills wanted to silence me.
And no, I am not going to beg for you or @theymos to undo what his corrupt shit should never have done in the first place. Hell no. I am going to destroy and replace your corrupt shit. Competition is more fun (and more productive) than begging. Corruption can presumably be subtle where the purveyor of corruption doesnt even think theyre doing corruption. I presume for example that Bill Gates thought all of his monopolistic business practices were the reality of free market competition. And I might even be swayed that was the case if I had time to study all the details of that case. This is a privately owned website and theyre certainly able to do whatever they want to do with their business. And were free to compete with them and try to make something we think would serve the market better.
Also Im not going to endorse a corrupt or dysfunction bureaucratic mechanism which wastes my time. Its akin to the masochism of choosing to remain as a tourist in a country that wastes our time in bureaucratic crap. Smart people leverage jurisdictional arbitrage, which is what for example the Internet and now Bitcoin facilitate.
I explained clearly up-thread starting from the first post by my prior account (which was banned for posting in Meta!) why I thought the temp-bans were corrupt from the start, which is why I never respected them (even though I have hence inhibited myself from consecutive posting and multi-posting because I didnt see any significant reason not to). I also clearly explained that the rules arent working as most of the software engineers are leaving or do not visit as often ostensibly because of the trolling and lower quality discussions. I also argued that the rules seem to exist as an arbtrary, subjective construct to enable corrupt collusion between moderators and shills who can presumably buyoff @theymos and the mods. Or maybe its is just or also involves an ego battle between those who dont like me to stick my head too high above the poppies (which btw is an Asian cultural thing now ostensibly being adopted in the West).
Clearly humans want a forum which is gamified. Theres so much political gamesmenship ongoing. So I want to give them what they want in a leveled playing field, in way that will also enable those who want serious, sober discussion to form their own circles. Life is also a game.
And what ever happened to those $100s of millions of BTC (current valuation) that @theymos raised to improve the forum and ostensibly never did.
Also your tactics are nakedly obvious to me. You want me to submit to a corrupted construct so then you can use that construct to temp-ban me when ever you do not like the information I am successfully bringing to the attention of readers. By employing corrupted temp-bans as a means of inducing me to evade the corruption and then perma-ban me because I evaded the useless, corrupted construct.
Nah man. Its an opaque, centralized, subjective, politicized clusterfuck that needs to be replaced with a decentralized, trustless, transparent, objectivized algorithmic construct.
Politics and social consensus are the antithesis of Satoshis Bitcoin. And you Core bunny rabbits are going to learn this the hard way by living out your retirement years in trailer parks instead of collecting Lambos (that is if you HODL all your wealth in SegWit addresses instead of legacy addresses).
The Magnitsky Act Behind the Scenes video has been banned by the powers-that-be from the U.S.A.. They do not want you the people to know the truth.
Here follows the details of the manipulation of Russia and Russian year 2000 elections by bribing and entraping Yeltsin with a $7 billion IMF loan (to remodel the Kremlin), then threatening to expose Yeltsin if he didnt resign and endorse a certain person for the presidency. Yeltsin was forced to turn to former KGB Putin for assistance. Tangentially the IMF was allegedly also involved in 9/11.
https://i.imgur.com/L3FSdBm.jpg
(click for image & discussion about destruction of court documents on 9/11/2001 at WTC7 demolition)
Chapeau, Mr Browder! Hats off for this incredible man. Last month, he succeeded in stopping a film screening in the European parliament and took off a few articles from American web sites. This week, he turned the only US screening of a film critical to his version of events into a ruckus. No freedom of speech for his enemies! His lawyers prowl around and issue summons to whoever digs in his sordid affairs. His hacks re-wrote his Wikipedia entry, expunging even discussions of the topic: despite hundreds of edits, nothing survived but the official version.
What makes Browder so powerful? He invests in politicians. This is probably a uniquely Jewish quality: Jews outspend everybody in contributions to political figures. The Arabs will spend more on horses and jets, the Russians prefer real estate, the Jews like politicians. The Russian NTV channel reported that Browder lavishly financed the US lawmakers. Here they present alleged evidence of money transfers: some hundred thousand dollars was given by Browders structures officially to the senators and congressmen in order to promote the Magnitsky Act.
Enter Mr Andrey Nekrasov, a Russian dissident filmmaker. He made a few films considered to be highly critical of Russian government. He alleged the FSB blew up houses in Moscow in order to justify the Chechnya war. He condemned the Russian war against Georgia in 2008, and had been given a medal by Georgian authorities. He did not doubt the official Western version of Browder-Magnitsky affair, and decided to make a film about the noble American businessman and the brave Russian lawyer fighting for human rights. The European organisations and parliamentarians provided the budget for the film. They also expected the film to denounce Putin and glorify Magnitsky, the martyr.
However, while making the film, Mr Nekrasov had his Road to Damascus moment. He realised that the whole narrative was hinging on the unsubstantiated words of Mr Browder. After painstaking research, he came to some totally different conclusions, and in his version, Browder was a cheat who run afoul of law, while Magnitsky was his sidekick in those crimes.
Nekrasov discovered an interview Magnitsky gave in his jail. In this interview, the accountant said he was afraid Browder would kill him to prevent him from denouncing Browder, and would make him his scapegoat.
What makes Browder so powerful? He invests in politicians. This is probably a uniquely Jewish quality: Jews outspend everybody in contributions to political figures. The Arabs will spend more on horses and jets, the Russians prefer real estate, the Jews like politicians. The Russian NTV channel reported that Browder lavishly financed the US lawmakers. Here they present alleged evidence of money transfers: some hundred thousand dollars was given by Browders structures officially to the senators and congressmen in order to promote the Magnitsky Act.
Enter Mr Andrey Nekrasov, a Russian dissident filmmaker. He made a few films considered to be highly critical of Russian government. He alleged the FSB blew up houses in Moscow in order to justify the Chechnya war. He condemned the Russian war against Georgia in 2008, and had been given a medal by Georgian authorities. He did not doubt the official Western version of Browder-Magnitsky affair, and decided to make a film about the noble American businessman and the brave Russian lawyer fighting for human rights. The European organisations and parliamentarians provided the budget for the film. They also expected the film to denounce Putin and glorify Magnitsky, the martyr.
However, while making the film, Mr Nekrasov had his Road to Damascus moment. He realised that the whole narrative was hinging on the unsubstantiated words of Mr Browder. After painstaking research, he came to some totally different conclusions, and in his version, Browder was a cheat who run afoul of law, while Magnitsky was his sidekick in those crimes.
Nekrasov discovered an interview Magnitsky gave in his jail. In this interview, the accountant said he was afraid Browder would kill him to prevent him from denouncing Browder, and would make him his scapegoat.
The Magnitsky Act Behind the Scenes has been pulled from everywhere. You do not ban a film in Europe and the United States if it is wrong. This is perhaps a huge cover-up that goes really beyond comprehension. The film was funded by ZDF TV in Europe and they have the power to prevent it from being shown despite the fact that they are taking a huge loss. They would not do that unless there was political pressure behind it.
Trump canceled his meeting with Putin he said until this Russian witchhunt is over. The Magnitsky Act is being expanded throughout the West. Canada in 2017 passed its version of the Magnitsky Act. Denmark and Sweden moved for versions of the Magnitsky Acts. Estonia voted to ban entry to foreigners deemed guilty of human rights abuses in a law targeting Russia and inspired by the Magnitsky case. We also have versions of the Magnitsky Act adopted in Britain, Lithuania, and Latvia. This is clearly not to help Browder get his money back. This is the start of a narrative that is trying to convince everyone in the West that Russia is the dark enemy and then we MUST go to war to annihilate them once and for all. This is the script that is being sold to justify war.
[ ]
It also makes no sense WHY would Congress enact the Magnitsky Act to try to get money back for Browder who resigned his American citizenship. They have also used the Magnitsky Act to keep adding people who have absolutely no connection to Magnitsky. The case is far more than just Browder. That is what Putin is seeking access to in the USA.
Is this to protect the justification for war with Russia? Even Merkel in Germany said she feared that Putin would interfere in the German elections, which never took place. The entire socialist agenda is collapsing. Those in power have NO way to prevent it. The only way that they see to reset the world economy is another war? So pay attention. The peak is probably around 2027.
[ ]
The ONLY reason the Magnitsky Act has any traction is that it demonizes Russia and sets the stage for war. That is why this film was shut down in Europe and the USA/Canada. It exposes the lie behind the whole affair. They have used Magnitskys death to justify war.
Trump canceled his meeting with Putin he said until this Russian witchhunt is over. The Magnitsky Act is being expanded throughout the West. Canada in 2017 passed its version of the Magnitsky Act. Denmark and Sweden moved for versions of the Magnitsky Acts. Estonia voted to ban entry to foreigners deemed guilty of human rights abuses in a law targeting Russia and inspired by the Magnitsky case. We also have versions of the Magnitsky Act adopted in Britain, Lithuania, and Latvia. This is clearly not to help Browder get his money back. This is the start of a narrative that is trying to convince everyone in the West that Russia is the dark enemy and then we MUST go to war to annihilate them once and for all. This is the script that is being sold to justify war.
[ ]
It also makes no sense WHY would Congress enact the Magnitsky Act to try to get money back for Browder who resigned his American citizenship. They have also used the Magnitsky Act to keep adding people who have absolutely no connection to Magnitsky. The case is far more than just Browder. That is what Putin is seeking access to in the USA.
Is this to protect the justification for war with Russia? Even Merkel in Germany said she feared that Putin would interfere in the German elections, which never took place. The entire socialist agenda is collapsing. Those in power have NO way to prevent it. The only way that they see to reset the world economy is another war? So pay attention. The peak is probably around 2027.
[ ]
The ONLY reason the Magnitsky Act has any traction is that it demonizes Russia and sets the stage for war. That is why this film was shut down in Europe and the USA/Canada. It exposes the lie behind the whole affair. They have used Magnitskys death to justify war.
The Club & Why the Majority Must be Always Wrong
https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/international-news/politics/cnn-confirmed-money-was-stolen-from-imf/
https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/uncategorized/so-who-really-tried-to-blackmail-yeltsin-takeover-russia-nsa-cia-or-investment-bankers/
https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/international-news/politics/the-media-complete-ignores-putins-request-to-interrogate-us-officials-about-interfering-in-russia/
https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/world-news/corruption/magnitsky-act-the-strange-backdrop/
https://russia-insider.com/en/politics/agent-william-f-browder-smoking-gun/ri13858
https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/international-news/rule-of-law/why-is-former-ambassador-refusing-to-be-questioned-by-russians/
https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/uncategorized/interview-on-the-magnitsky-film/
https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/world-news/corruption/magnitsky-act-is-back/
https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/international-news/politics/magnitsky-affair-the-murder-of-edmond-safra-in-monaco/
https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/world-news/corruption/the-3rd-film-on-the-magnitsky-affair/
https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/armstrong-in-the-media/the-forecaster/gag-orders-cover-ups/
https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/international-news/politics/russiagate-the-slow-drip-of-the-coup-to-take-over-russia/
https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/world-news/corruption/russia-starts-criminal-investigation-of-browder-while-us-deep-state-protects-him/
https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/world-news/corruption/dominick-dunn-death-in-monaco/
Quote from: https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/world-news/world-trade/world-trade-who-needs-the-flash-cards/
While these remarks are deeply offensive, what they really reveal is how much EU officials prefer to promote propaganda as well and create their own FAKE NEWS to distract people from reality.
EDIT (Sept 10, 2018): https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/international-news/politics/deep-state-using-discredit-strategy-to-drive-trump-from-office-to-what-end/
EDIT (Sept 12, 2018):
Quote from: https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/international-news/politics/we-have-two-constitutional-crises-at-issue/
Once again, they seem to be scared to death that the truth about the US interference in the Russian 2000 election is what resulted in Yeltsin turning to Putin. Just look at the timeline.
July 1998, Republic Bank alerted authorities about unusually large wire transfers coming through its coffers from Russia.
July 25th, 1998 Yeltsin appointed Putin as Director of the Federal Security Service (FSB), the primary intelligence agency and the successor to the KGB.
August 9th, 1999, Putin was appointed one of three First Deputy Prime Ministers, and later on, that same day he was appointed acting Prime Minister. It was that same day that Putin agreed to run for the presidency.
August 16th, 1999 the State Duma approved Putins appointment as Prime Minister. There were opponents who fought hard to prevent Putins emergence as a potential successor. Putin had not been formally associated with any party.
August 20th, 1999 Wall Street Journal reports Bank of New York Investigation. They wrote: It was in late August when the suspicious transfers at Bank of New York were brought to the attention of the U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation by Republic National Bank of New York, a unit of Republic New York Corp., according to people familiar with the matter.
August 27th, 1999 Republic National Bank takes our funds, I demand to fly to Geneva to speak to Safra when the head of the bank George Wendler says he is only the messenger. This is when I was told Safra fled Geneva and went to Monaco for security reasons.
December 3rd, 1999 Edmond Safra dies in Monaco all his bodyguards were given the night off.
December 31st, 1999, Yeltsin unexpectedly resigned and, according to the Constitution of Russia, Putin became Acting President of the Russian Federation. Putin also passed that same day the decree made it a law that Yeltsin cannot be charged with corruption which is obvious that there was a problem with the whole Bank of New York and IMF missing funds incident.
January 25th, 2000; Putin consented to compromise with Duma that Yeltsin can be prosecuted for any serious crimes committed while in office with a vote of 275 to 139 on second reading. Yet, Putin would never prosecute Yeltsin.
July 1998, Republic Bank alerted authorities about unusually large wire transfers coming through its coffers from Russia.
July 25th, 1998 Yeltsin appointed Putin as Director of the Federal Security Service (FSB), the primary intelligence agency and the successor to the KGB.
August 9th, 1999, Putin was appointed one of three First Deputy Prime Ministers, and later on, that same day he was appointed acting Prime Minister. It was that same day that Putin agreed to run for the presidency.
August 16th, 1999 the State Duma approved Putins appointment as Prime Minister. There were opponents who fought hard to prevent Putins emergence as a potential successor. Putin had not been formally associated with any party.
August 20th, 1999 Wall Street Journal reports Bank of New York Investigation. They wrote: It was in late August when the suspicious transfers at Bank of New York were brought to the attention of the U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation by Republic National Bank of New York, a unit of Republic New York Corp., according to people familiar with the matter.
August 27th, 1999 Republic National Bank takes our funds, I demand to fly to Geneva to speak to Safra when the head of the bank George Wendler says he is only the messenger. This is when I was told Safra fled Geneva and went to Monaco for security reasons.
December 3rd, 1999 Edmond Safra dies in Monaco all his bodyguards were given the night off.
December 31st, 1999, Yeltsin unexpectedly resigned and, according to the Constitution of Russia, Putin became Acting President of the Russian Federation. Putin also passed that same day the decree made it a law that Yeltsin cannot be charged with corruption which is obvious that there was a problem with the whole Bank of New York and IMF missing funds incident.
January 25th, 2000; Putin consented to compromise with Duma that Yeltsin can be prosecuted for any serious crimes committed while in office with a vote of 275 to 139 on second reading. Yet, Putin would never prosecute Yeltsin.
EDIT (Sept 13, 2018):
There is a very slow flow of incriminating evidence which seems to grow almost daily revealing that FBI and Justice Department officials both worked together with Democrats in the Obama Administration to prevent President Trumps presidency from getting underway. The whole Russia investigation conducted by Robert Mueller must now come under serious question, and it seems likely that key FBI officials should be charged with crimes. The latest release by Congress of documents late Monday revealed an apparent systemic culture of media leaking among top officials at the FBI and Justice Department. This is quoting a letter that North Carolina Republican Rep. Mark Meadows sent to Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein. It turns out that FBI official even discussed their media leak strategy before making any Trump-Russia revelations.
[ ]
This is no longer about Trump this is about National Security for such people could just as easily be taking bribes from third parties domestic or foreign.
[ ]
This is no longer about Trump this is about National Security for such people could just as easily be taking bribes from third parties domestic or foreign.
EDIT (Sept 21, 2018):
Well, it was only a matter of time. President Trump on Monday threw a hand grenade into the center of the Russian investigation that was all started by Hillary blaming the leak of Democratic Party emails on Russia and Trump colluded with them. The Democrats and Hillary then paid to create the infamous dossier and pretended it was not funded by the Democrats. They have managed to keep the country distracted and that has been the political objective all along just politics.
Trump has now directed the Office of the Director of National Intelligence and the Department of Justice to declassify a number of documents related to the Russia investigation which will be for our reading pleasure and pull the curtain back a little further on just how seriously bad things have gotten in the Washington Swamp. Already the Democrats are screaming say this will put peoples lives at risk. If I recall, the same thing was said about the IRS scandal when the Obama Administration was targeting the Tea Party using the IRS with the silent support of John McCain and John Boehner. They wanted to have Lois Lerners testimony sealed claiming death threats she is still alive.
Trump also directed the release of unredacted versions of all text messages about the probe sent and received by multiple officials, including former FBI Director James Comey and deputy director Andrew McCabe [ ] Moreover, Trump also instructed the Justice Department to publicly release unredacted versions of all text messages related to the Russia probe of Comey, McCabe, Ohr, and FBI officials Lisa Page and Peter Strzok, who were involved in both the Russia investigation and the probe into 2016 Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clintons use of a private email server while she served as secretary of state. The leaks we have seen so far have been showing that they turned a blind eye to Hillary and abused their power to target Trump.
Additionally, he requested that the agencies declassify all FBI reports of an interview with Justice Department official Bruce Ohr that were connected to the Russia probe. Now, this should get interesting. If you remember, Ohr is the person who communicated with former British spy Christopher Steele back in 2016 to compile that dossier of damaging allegations involving Trump and Russia which was used to justify this entire case. Trump wants released information about confidential sources that Steele used while compiling his dossier, as well as Steeles own history as an FBI source.
Trump has now directed the Office of the Director of National Intelligence and the Department of Justice to declassify a number of documents related to the Russia investigation which will be for our reading pleasure and pull the curtain back a little further on just how seriously bad things have gotten in the Washington Swamp. Already the Democrats are screaming say this will put peoples lives at risk. If I recall, the same thing was said about the IRS scandal when the Obama Administration was targeting the Tea Party using the IRS with the silent support of John McCain and John Boehner. They wanted to have Lois Lerners testimony sealed claiming death threats she is still alive.
Trump also directed the release of unredacted versions of all text messages about the probe sent and received by multiple officials, including former FBI Director James Comey and deputy director Andrew McCabe [ ] Moreover, Trump also instructed the Justice Department to publicly release unredacted versions of all text messages related to the Russia probe of Comey, McCabe, Ohr, and FBI officials Lisa Page and Peter Strzok, who were involved in both the Russia investigation and the probe into 2016 Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clintons use of a private email server while she served as secretary of state. The leaks we have seen so far have been showing that they turned a blind eye to Hillary and abused their power to target Trump.
Additionally, he requested that the agencies declassify all FBI reports of an interview with Justice Department official Bruce Ohr that were connected to the Russia probe. Now, this should get interesting. If you remember, Ohr is the person who communicated with former British spy Christopher Steele back in 2016 to compile that dossier of damaging allegations involving Trump and Russia which was used to justify this entire case. Trump wants released information about confidential sources that Steele used while compiling his dossier, as well as Steeles own history as an FBI source.
EDIT (Feb 20, 2019):
One of the gaping questions that have gone unanswered is why has Mueller not taken Putin up on his offer to go question the Russian intelligence officer he has indicted in Russia? Putin said he would allow Mueller and his team to travel to Russia and be present at the questioning of 12 Russian military intelligence officers the special counsel previously indicted for hacking into the computer systems of the Democratic National Committee and the emails of Hillary Clintons campaign chairman. Putin wanted to question the former American diplomat, Michael McFaul who was appointed by Obama. Interestingly, it was Senator Chuck Schumer who introduced on 07/19/2018 the resolution to deny Putin to question any Americans including Bill Browder. John McCain, the sponsor of the Magnitsky Act, led the charge among Republicans to support Schumers resolution to deny any investigation into the Magnitsky affair. The Senate vote was a resounding 98-0 to deny the questioning of ANY Americans by Russia. This is one of the most curious cover-ups in modern history even after the questionable report that was released on the Trump Tower Meeting that was all about the Magnitsky Act.
The tail gets even more interesting when we look closer at the infamous Trump Tower meeting Mueller has been investigating. Russian-born lobbyist Rinat Akhmetshin worked closely with the research firm Fusion GPS which commissioned the infamous Steele Dossier on behalf of the Clinton campaign and DNC to smear Trump and begin the entire Russia-Gate affair. Interestingly, Akhmetshin also attended the infamous Trump Tower meeting.
Natalia Veselnitskaya was the Russian lawyer who also attended the Trump Tower meeting and in turned US prosecutors later retaliated and charged her with a single count of money laundering. To add further to all of these coincidences, one of the lawyers involved in the Trump Tower meeting was Scott Balber, who also worked on my case and was familiar with the Russian connection involving Edmond Safra and Republic National Bank and his assassination (Death in Monaco). Yet Akhmetshin and Veselnitskaya worked with Fusion GPS in an effort to expose the truth behind the Magnitsky Act. Fusions main task was investigating Bill Browder, the London-based financier whose lobbying efforts led to the Magnitsky Act passage. (see also the film Behind the Scenes Magnitsky Act)
I have stated many times that I was asked to invest $10 billion into Hermitage Capital by Republic National Bank. Edmond was the major shareholder. This is the fund that Browder claimed he was Putins number one enemy and Magnitsky was not a lawyer but an accountant. There would have been no incentive for Putin to have killed Magnitsky for he would have been a witness against the entire cabal of bankers seeking to take over the Russian government by blackmailing Yeltsin to step down and stuff in their puppet Boris Berezovsky, who flees to London when Putin comes in an amazingly interesting incident hangs himself in Britain (see the movie the Forecaster).
The ultimate client for Fusion GPS, Akhmetshin, and Veselnitskaya was Katsyv, whose firm, Prevezon Holdings, which was sued by the Justice Department for allegedly laundering money stolen during the tax fraud scheme uncovered by Magnitsky. Interestingly, Prevezons payments to Akhmetshin and Fusion GPS were routed through its U.S. law firm, BakerHostetler. That arrangement was the mirror-image of its work for the Clinton campaign and DNC. On that project, Perkins Coie, the law firm for the Democrats, paid Fusion GPS $1 million to investigate Donald Trumps ties to Russia. BakerHostetler paid Fusion GPS $523,651 in 2016. Entangled in this entire affair is not just Hillarys paying Fusion GPS to create the dossier on Trump and the strang banning of Ambassador McFaul appointed by Obama and any possible connections with Fusion GPS. Most interesting is the fact that Bill Browder also donated money to Hillary. He donated $17,700 to Clinton and another $297,000 to the Democratic National Committee.
Also entangled deeply is the Bank of New York Money Laundering case for $7 billion and of course the involvement of Republic National Bank working with people in the US Treasury sending skids of $100 bills to Russia in the affair known as the Money Plane.
Here is what CNN Money wrote on September 1st, 1999 12 days before my case began:
Now the burning question the US press will not address is why does Putin want to question a former American Ambassador to Russia Michael McFaul, who was denied a Russian visa in June 2014 and subsequently banned from entering the country for his supposed active participation in the destruction of the bilateral relationship and relentless lobbying in favor of a campaign to pressure Russia, Foreign Ministry officials told Reuters at the time. Essentially, Putin was after U.S. State Department internal memos from 2009 and 2010 drafted in Moscow about the investigation into the Magnitsky case. The Russian agencys official spokesman, Alexander Kurennoi, told the news agency Interfax that McFaul is one of the Americans suspected of involvement in Browders illegal activities alleged by Russia.
Chuck Schumer wants Muller to indict Trump, but he will not allow any investigation into the DNC and Hillarys involvement in this entire tangled web of intrigue.
The tail gets even more interesting when we look closer at the infamous Trump Tower meeting Mueller has been investigating. Russian-born lobbyist Rinat Akhmetshin worked closely with the research firm Fusion GPS which commissioned the infamous Steele Dossier on behalf of the Clinton campaign and DNC to smear Trump and begin the entire Russia-Gate affair. Interestingly, Akhmetshin also attended the infamous Trump Tower meeting.
Natalia Veselnitskaya was the Russian lawyer who also attended the Trump Tower meeting and in turned US prosecutors later retaliated and charged her with a single count of money laundering. To add further to all of these coincidences, one of the lawyers involved in the Trump Tower meeting was Scott Balber, who also worked on my case and was familiar with the Russian connection involving Edmond Safra and Republic National Bank and his assassination (Death in Monaco). Yet Akhmetshin and Veselnitskaya worked with Fusion GPS in an effort to expose the truth behind the Magnitsky Act. Fusions main task was investigating Bill Browder, the London-based financier whose lobbying efforts led to the Magnitsky Act passage. (see also the film Behind the Scenes Magnitsky Act)
I have stated many times that I was asked to invest $10 billion into Hermitage Capital by Republic National Bank. Edmond was the major shareholder. This is the fund that Browder claimed he was Putins number one enemy and Magnitsky was not a lawyer but an accountant. There would have been no incentive for Putin to have killed Magnitsky for he would have been a witness against the entire cabal of bankers seeking to take over the Russian government by blackmailing Yeltsin to step down and stuff in their puppet Boris Berezovsky, who flees to London when Putin comes in an amazingly interesting incident hangs himself in Britain (see the movie the Forecaster).
The ultimate client for Fusion GPS, Akhmetshin, and Veselnitskaya was Katsyv, whose firm, Prevezon Holdings, which was sued by the Justice Department for allegedly laundering money stolen during the tax fraud scheme uncovered by Magnitsky. Interestingly, Prevezons payments to Akhmetshin and Fusion GPS were routed through its U.S. law firm, BakerHostetler. That arrangement was the mirror-image of its work for the Clinton campaign and DNC. On that project, Perkins Coie, the law firm for the Democrats, paid Fusion GPS $1 million to investigate Donald Trumps ties to Russia. BakerHostetler paid Fusion GPS $523,651 in 2016. Entangled in this entire affair is not just Hillarys paying Fusion GPS to create the dossier on Trump and the strang banning of Ambassador McFaul appointed by Obama and any possible connections with Fusion GPS. Most interesting is the fact that Bill Browder also donated money to Hillary. He donated $17,700 to Clinton and another $297,000 to the Democratic National Committee.
Also entangled deeply is the Bank of New York Money Laundering case for $7 billion and of course the involvement of Republic National Bank working with people in the US Treasury sending skids of $100 bills to Russia in the affair known as the Money Plane.
Here is what CNN Money wrote on September 1st, 1999 12 days before my case began:
Quote
The saga thats brought money laundering issues to the fore this summer allegedly began back in 1994, when Russias International Monetary Fund representative, Konstantin Kagalovsky, left the organization to join Menatep Bank in Moscow.
Over the next three years, its alleged, Kagalovsky arranged to funnel billions of IMF money meant to help transfer Russias communist economy into a capitalist one through a private company called Benex Worldwide Ltd. Eventually, the money went into and back out of Bank of New York (BK) and Republic National Bank, a unit of Republic Bancorp (RBNC), as well as several institutions in Europe, including the Union Bank of Switzerland AG and Deutsche Bank AG and its Bankers Trust Unit.
Over the next three years, its alleged, Kagalovsky arranged to funnel billions of IMF money meant to help transfer Russias communist economy into a capitalist one through a private company called Benex Worldwide Ltd. Eventually, the money went into and back out of Bank of New York (BK) and Republic National Bank, a unit of Republic Bancorp (RBNC), as well as several institutions in Europe, including the Union Bank of Switzerland AG and Deutsche Bank AG and its Bankers Trust Unit.
Now the burning question the US press will not address is why does Putin want to question a former American Ambassador to Russia Michael McFaul, who was denied a Russian visa in June 2014 and subsequently banned from entering the country for his supposed active participation in the destruction of the bilateral relationship and relentless lobbying in favor of a campaign to pressure Russia, Foreign Ministry officials told Reuters at the time. Essentially, Putin was after U.S. State Department internal memos from 2009 and 2010 drafted in Moscow about the investigation into the Magnitsky case. The Russian agencys official spokesman, Alexander Kurennoi, told the news agency Interfax that McFaul is one of the Americans suspected of involvement in Browders illegal activities alleged by Russia.
Chuck Schumer wants Muller to indict Trump, but he will not allow any investigation into the DNC and Hillarys involvement in this entire tangled web of intrigue.
Anyway, it's difficult enough that I think the burden of proof rests on someone who wants to use this as an attack against him, not just assumed that he did something wrong and anyone who wants to dispute it must dig through ancient archives.
Ditto his slanderous and incorrect characterization of my technological worth. Right there he demonstrated he is a sleazy troll. You will not see him debate me about SegWit (on a neutral forum) because he knows damn well I am correct and he will be unmasked in the debate.
IOW, Gregory shouldnt throw stones in his glass house.
I was talking about the Bitcoin protocol... 
How can you claim you understand Satoshis protocol and then have such ignorance about Core being an altcoin as defined by the protocol and its associated game theory. Again this is not a matter of opinion for those who really know the protocol and the game theory which gives Bitcoin its value and security.
If you want to assert that Core has been consensus voted to be popularly known as the new Bitcoin, then okay but first recognize that any change to the protocol which modifies its security and game theory, thus constitutes an altcoin. Then I will accept that the n00bs voted to rename the Core altcoin Bitcoin and fool themselves into donating all their real BTC to the miners who have no choice but to restore the security by accepting those donations (and my nuked posts explained in great detail the mechanism by which that massive n00bs donation will come about eventually).
(for readers new to this thread, I am not a BCH shill)
P.S. I refer you again to some additional thoughts from Leah on how much we dont know until we dig in deep into STEM fields:
architecture is a complex and comprehensive profession and it is stronger because our experiences are so disparate from one another
A lot of people in our industry havent had very diverse experiences. So they dont have enough dots to connect, and they end up with very linear solutions without a broad perspective on the problem. The broader ones understanding of the human experience, the better design we will have. Steve Jobs
Because architecture is such a challenging profession with so much to learn, growing and taking on leadership roles can take a very long time and many never even see the business management side of the industry! But the positions I held before were simpler, with fewer barriers to advancement, and I grew into management and leadership positions quickly where I gained invaluable skills, like accounting, operations, and business administration, that most of my architecture peers now (and even superiors) dont have yet. Not only that, but I had the opportunity to tackle tough problems by developing unique solutions unburdened by influence of over a centurys worth of practice legacy, which gave me what my colleagues call my rebel spirit. I see fundamental flaws in practice and management and immediately innovate, looking outside of the AEC industry for inspiration, connect dots from a larger picture, and prototype new ideas without hesitation or fear.
A lot of people in our industry havent had very diverse experiences. So they dont have enough dots to connect, and they end up with very linear solutions without a broad perspective on the problem. The broader ones understanding of the human experience, the better design we will have. Steve Jobs
Because architecture is such a challenging profession with so much to learn, growing and taking on leadership roles can take a very long time and many never even see the business management side of the industry! But the positions I held before were simpler, with fewer barriers to advancement, and I grew into management and leadership positions quickly where I gained invaluable skills, like accounting, operations, and business administration, that most of my architecture peers now (and even superiors) dont have yet. Not only that, but I had the opportunity to tackle tough problems by developing unique solutions unburdened by influence of over a centurys worth of practice legacy, which gave me what my colleagues call my rebel spirit. I see fundamental flaws in practice and management and immediately innovate, looking outside of the AEC industry for inspiration, connect dots from a larger picture, and prototype new ideas without hesitation or fear.
That last paragraph indicates to me that she and I followed an analogous path in life and explains our conscientious rebel spirit. The preference to tinker and dabble in so many interesting tangents, experienced being a leader at a very early age (actually age 5 in my case1) and to become even isolated from the real world at times, and then feeling out-of-sync with the mainstream, yet also coming back into it via entrepreneurialism. Note again though, her IQ is higher than mine.
1 When I was 5 years old, my father was preparing to build a platform in the back of his VW bus to support a bed with storage underneath. I was unaware this was the camper he was to use to leave our family and go to Belize with the N.American lady who became his second wife. He seemed to be having some pause formulating the design he would employ (and note my attorney father seems to have a higher IQ than mine especially in logic and the literary arts, but I may have greater visual math skills than him). So I instantly visualized and explained the design I would use. I also instinctively became the leader in our neighborhood football games and relished my daily bloody nose at age 5. No exaggeration!
@Quickseller, @aliashraf, @Ix, @Traxo, @miscreanity et al, I appreciate that youre awake to the evils of centralized databases on the Internet. Dont expect altcoin shills to have any conscience, astute ethics, vision for future, or ability to foresee their own self-destruction. For example, the Core shills vision for the future is off-chain, fractional reserves, but theyre too blinded by their ignorance, fantasies, and/or vested interests to observe reality. Theres no solution that can brought forth within such a corrupt paradigm. The only solution is to move the Internet forward to Web 3.0 on decentralized ledgers. So lets just stop fighting the corruption from inside the corruption and get the necessary work done to disintermediate the corruption. You will get no where feeding the trolls and arguing with those who will vehemently shill for their altcoin (which is mostly the Core altcoin shills in this thread).
@cryptohunter my reaction to both your public and private comments, is I dont want to return. Because I agree with what you noted, that you and virtually all (99%) the other guys here on this forum arent able to discern the technological arguments.
Thus attempting to explain such technological, game theory, economics, sociology, is a mostly fruitless (or lets say insignificant ROI) misallocation of precious time. For example, after all the careful and patient effort I put into holding @Wind_FURY's (and to a lesser extent @Anon136s) hand(s) recently and explaining everything to him very carefully in numerous threads and posts (which were censored), they both for example continue to make clueless and ignorantly boastful, erroneous statements in the Lightning Networks discussion thread. The shills for altcoins such as Core (and all the others such Ethereum, etc) are analogous to violent soccer fans. Its always my team is better than you team with hands over ears and eyes, yelling na, na, na, na, I cant hear you nor see you and employing whatever sort of trolling is necessary to support their team and show their allegiance to either vested interests and/or inaccurate fantasies.
Its like baboons who are cheering on the blue vs. red team which they religiously believe in while the blue team is leading to a failure which they cant comprehend. Its both sad and hilarious. This is the unfortunate reason the masses are and will always be fodder. Unlike scammers and manipulators who only want to use their ignorance or who dont care, I really tried to explain and help them but all I get in return in their ire (and ridiculously boastful ignorance) even when I patiently tried to teach them. So theres nothing to be gained from me posting here where I cant form my own decentralized circles and kick off the riff-raff. And worse, since the content is not stored on a decentralized, open database, I risk my effort being nuked as it has been so many times.
Its a wiser allocation of my resources and much more productive for me to focus on my work. And no I am not frustrated at all that others dont understand my work. They dont really understand Bitcoin either yet they appreciate it. My work can be similarly appreciated at the correct juncture if I am able to complete it, which is mostly dependent on my health and my ability to not waste time.
Here is an example of what I am referring to and I must post here in Meta instead of in the LN thread where the discussion is:
This, exactly this, was my problem with Shelby lately.
I addressed this twice near the end of this post in Meta.
Also when y’all admit Core is an altcoin, then it can receive the same critical analysis that the other altcoins receive from myself. I dont discriminate against Core.
I had also stated (in the posts that were nuked from the LN thread) that Im not against the LN experiment. I stated very clearly the reasons I think it will become entirely centralized, run by the banksters, and be a fractional reserve system, that also donates all the real Bitcoin to the powers-that-be. In the future, well observe if I am correct in my analysis and expectation.
Yet you all go on and on thinking that your errors in the LN thread will change that outcome. It wont. And yall do not understand why, even though I tried to explain it to you. So there isnt anything more that needs to be said. Carry on to your destiny.
Even Gregory Maxwell admitted the LN is not what youretards[n00bs] think it is:
https://news.bitcoin.com/the-curious-case-of-gregory-maxwell-and-the-lightning-network/
If this is true, it would be trivial for someone with similar or greater technical knowledge than him to publicly prove him wrong and/or defeat him in a debate.
Oh Gregory surely can dig up something where I have been wrong (and probably where I even admitted my error) in order to obfuscate that Gregory will be unable to address the specific technological challenges that I presented in my prior post.
Note in the prior post made by @Traxo on my behalf, I have provided two examples where in a debate with Gregory he was shown to be incorrect and he refused (even until this day) to admit he was incorrect.
No you do not understand much in any holistic sense. Compounded on top of your lack of holistic understanding is your bunny rabbit fantasy confirmation bias, i.e. you really want to believe that proof-of-work can have some form of off-chain instant transactions and transaction volume scaling that wont be centralized and wont be fractional reserves. This fantasy bias causes you to reject becoming holistically astute, yet I also doubt that you have the ability to assimilate all the necessary information because of the extreme level of discipline and effort that is required.
By analogy, females-at-large (and note theres always exceptions) can be awarded engineering degrees (by corrupted SJW holiness cesspools they name universities), but then cant produce tritium or complete the Obamacare website. Not even because theyre not smart enough (as James Donald astutely points out females more typically excel as first lieutenants although of course there can be exceptions), but because as Jordan Petersen explains, most of them arent willing to work 100 hours a week like I do grinding away at assimilating all the boring engineering details. Similarly, you may understand (but as you admit at lower level of understanding) paradigmatically in the way the computer science student thinks he understands how to program and then gets into the real world of needing to holistically integrate programming, economics, game theory, sociology, etc. and falls flat on his face. Which BTW, is also one of Gregory Maxwells failure modes to some degree (although hes expert in cryptography and encodings and various other computer science disciplines). Yet Gregory also suffers the SJW victimization holiness psychosis which he probably learned as most Millennials do these days from these cesspools of academia.
Your Dunning-Kruger overconfidence can be best explained by a woman on Quora who has a 160 IQ. She is smarter than me. Read how she explains it. @WIND_Fury you should also read that and take heed about what I had explained to you in the nuked posts, that if youre 1 to 2 SD below in IQ or equivalently in detailed expertise, then you dont understand anything at all and are just making errors pretty much every time you write anything. Leah also wrote more about the hateful, ignorance you trolls spew.
The 160 IQ Eric S. Raymond wrote about the destiny that awaits you n00bs: The return of the servant problem
I wrote on Quora:
Leah, you put into words the thought Ive had that Millennials dont appreciate their elders enough to apprentice under our expertise. Im 53 and in the computer science field. I had the desire to work with the youth and build something together but the chasm between our respective attitudes seems so great. For example, I reject the SJWs mayonnaise spread on everything. For example recently I contributed to a question on Stackoverflow Meta about how to address the spam problem of low quality questions that could be easily answered with a Google search. I suggested the simple economic solution to charge for asking a question more than the opportunity cost of doing a Google search. I pointed out that attempting to give away for free what is not free is impossible. Thus the insoluble problem they have and until they address the root cause theyll just dig deeper into a clusterfuck of for example enabling arbitrary censorship. The Millennials downvoted my answer relentlessly because in their logic this would disincentivize participation (and Im noting that uniform anything is negentropic). The irony is their votes cost them nothing so they had nothing at stake of than their ideology (and could potentially be sockpuppet accounts harvested for free). My point is theyre losing the participation of those with high opportunity cost who value quality, for which the negligible cost for posting questions would be far outweighed by the gain in relevancy. The cost charged could be reputation instead of money, if identities are not free. Actually that is only a simplistic summary, as I have a more complex design in mind for a decentralized ledger. Anyway, my point is that theyre not experienced or open-minded enough to consider the holistic integration of economics. That is just one of many example interactions that indicate to me that they prioritize SJW egalitarianism mayonnaise on everything. Im probably oversimplifying and missing some other facets of this generational phenomenon. Maybe Im coming into contact with too many INTJs who lack interpersonal skills and an appreciation for hardwork, because I did stumble on this counter-example today:
SOLD EVERYTHING | GOOD-BYE USA | Jake Mace - Living in Portugal, pt. 2
Also its not surprising that Millennials dont value their elders, because Millennials are being thrown under the bus by the Boomers who filled their heads with political nonsense and have supported a politics that has saddled the country with debt servitude. I wrote on Medium:
If you want the country to be less polarized then stop writing, talking, and thinking about
That nonsense is a perfect example of your bunny rabbit fantasy and lack of holistic understanding of the world you live in. Rights dont exist without the power to defend them. Thats why you bunny rabbits huddle together in a collective in order to try to assert some power to defend some rights. But a collective is a power vacuum that demands that the bunny rabbits be manipulated by the most ruthless. Core is another bunny rabbit collectivized clusterfuck. So the answer to your question is power and the power vacuum of collective rights. In that light, your question reveals how blissfully ignorant you are. Yet you claim you understand much. No you dont.
If you want only soundbites, then you will never understand anything holistically at a level capable of not making a fool of yourself as you continue to do in the Lightning Networks (LN) thread you started recently.
How silly that you blame me for the complexity of the confluence of technology, economics, game theory, sociology, etc.. That exemplifies the ridiculousness of your claim of understanding a lot. Come on man stop jerking yourself off and get in touch with reality. Or dont. Stay in your bunny rabbit fantasy and be played by disorder as it should be (see the tail end of the prior post from @Traxo about order and disorder which I am confident is entirely incomprehensible to you).
Okay... So what did he change on wikipedia that was "vandalism"?
You claim, I understand a lot. But youre unable or unwilling to do a Google search:
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=36639732#User:Gmaxwell
https://twitter.com/sayurichick/status/954381661885538304
https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/74se80/wikipedia_admins_gregory_maxwell_of_blockstream/
https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/4klqtg/people_are_starting_to_realize_how_toxic_gregory/
https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/45ail1/wikipedians_on_greg_maxwell_in_2006_now_cto_of/
https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/459iyw/gmaxwell_in_2006_during_his_wikipedia_vandalism/
https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/457y0k/greg_maxwells_wikipedia_war_or_he_how_learned_to/
Oh like I called the BTC triple bottom in late June and early July before the rest of the Speculation forum caught up to the concept. And I emphatically stated (which is in the nuked posts that @mprep refuses to assist in sending me a copy of) that BTC would bounce from $6100 up to $8000+. Thats both not terrible and quite empirical.
I could go through a laundry list of examples like this such as my correct public prediction in 2010 that silver would rise from $25 to $45 by Q2 2011 then crash (which is exactly what it did), but youre just here to troll and write lies. So it would be a waste of my time, because youre not interested in being non-disingenuous. Or never mind that I screamed all over these forums multi-posting in numerous threads in early 2017 to buy LTC at $6 days before it blasted off and proceeded to over $350 in 2017. As I said, I could go on and on. But you trolls will try to make up some lies about my record by citing something out-of-context or based on your incorrect vague memory. And I dont have enough time to continuously correct all your lies and errors. Because theres a lot of more of you Core shills than myself. One against a horde of trolls is certainly a recipe for misallocation of scarce resources.
Did you also forget my Speculation Rule: buy when others are IRRATIONALLY pessimistic/cautious (c.f. also my blog of the same title) on October 25, 2016 when Bitcoin was in the low $600s right before it started to blast off.
Wheres your empirical proof? No, I would actually like to mute you from the circle of people I want to discuss with, so I never see your useless slobbering.
Readers be very clear that every person spreading lies about me on this thread is a Core shill. They are offended about the truths I have explained.
Nice strawman. Please give the actual quote word for word where he said that, instead of just saying that he said it.
Ah yes, we must remain technically accurate while obfuscating the reality of the situation. The Jews werent exterminated as cockroaches because they were Jews, but because they didnt have the correct papers indicating they were not Jews.
Your point is analogous to Slick Willy Bill Clinton arguing in the court what the definition of is is.
I explained up-thread that I felt that people who didnt like my dissenting information were asking mods to temp-ban me for spreading that information. They used technicalities to single me out for the activities that others were also doing and not being temp-banned for. The response here has been just because other people get away with it, doesnt absolve me from responsibility to adhere to the rules. And I have pointed out that the rules arent even working to prevent trolling and spamming, so basically those rules exist so that shills (presumably who buy off the mods and @theymos behind the curtain, yeah where is the audit of the finances of these individuals?) have the means to be arbitrary against your critics. @QuickSeller and others (including myself) have correctly pointed out such a paradigm of censorship is the antithesis of our decentralization movement.
Im not arguing with you because I want to come back to your centralized clusterfuck. Im making sure that others who read this in the future (and we are archiving everything in case you realize Im winning the argument and devolve to censoring in Meta as Stackoverflow does), will understand the importance of the decentralized replacement I will create to disintermediate your corrupt shit.
Core shills want to dominate bitcointalk.org and r/Bitcoin with their propaganda and censor any dissenting information especially when a dissenting person is quite successful at attracting attention to that dissenting information.
So you Core shills want to have a monopoly on truth. But the fact is that we could not even exist (time would not be irreversible and thermodynamic processes would not move forward irreversibly) if anyone had a monopoly on information.
@cryptohunter my reaction to both your public and private comments, is I dont want to return. Because I agree with what you noted, that you and virtually all (99%) the other guys here on this forum arent able to discern the technological arguments.
Thus attempting to explain such technological, game theory, economics, sociology, is a mostly fruitless (or lets say insignificant ROI) misallocation of precious time. For example, after all the careful and patient effort I put into holding @Wind_FURY's (and to a lesser extent @Anon136s) hand(s) recently and explaining everything to him very carefully in numerous threads and posts (which were censored), they both for example continue to make clueless and ignorantly boastful, erroneous statements in the Lightning Networks discussion thread. The shills for altcoins such as Core (and all the others such Ethereum, etc) are analogous to violent soccer fans. Its always my team is better than you team with hands over ears and eyes, yelling na, na, na, na, I cant hear you nor see you and employing whatever sort of trolling is necessary to support their team and show their allegiance to either vested interests and/or inaccurate fantasies.
Its like baboons who are cheering on the blue vs. red team which they religiously believe in while the blue team is leading to a failure which they cant comprehend. Its both sad and hilarious. This is the unfortunate reason the masses are and will always be fodder. Unlike scammers and manipulators who only want to use their ignorance or who dont care, I really tried to explain and help them but all I get in return in their ire (and ridiculously boastful ignorance) even when I patiently tried to teach them. So theres nothing to be gained from me posting here where I cant form my own decentralized circles and kick off the riff-raff. And worse, since the content is not stored on a decentralized, open database, I risk my effort being nuked as it has been so many times.
Its a wiser allocation of my resources and much more productive for me to focus on my work. And no I am not frustrated at all that others dont understand my work. They dont really understand Bitcoin either yet they appreciate it. My work can be similarly appreciated at the correct juncture if I am able to complete it, which is mostly dependent on my health and my ability to not waste time.
Here is an example of what I am referring to and I must post here in Meta instead of in the LN thread where the discussion is:
Indeed, it's very telling how much effort they put into trash talking in comparison to how much they want to add supporting voices to alternative ideas to improve cryptocurrencies.
This, exactly this, was my problem with Shelby lately.
I addressed this twice near the end of this post in Meta.
Also when y’all admit Core is an altcoin, then it can receive the same critical analysis that the other altcoins receive from myself. I dont discriminate against Core.
I had also stated (in the posts that were nuked from the LN thread) that Im not against the LN experiment. I stated very clearly the reasons I think it will become entirely centralized, run by the banksters, and be a fractional reserve system, that also donates all the real Bitcoin to the powers-that-be. In the future, well observe if I am correct in my analysis and expectation.
Yet you all go on and on thinking that your errors in the LN thread will change that outcome. It wont. And yall do not understand why, even though I tried to explain it to you. So there isnt anything more that needs to be said. Carry on to your destiny.
Even Gregory Maxwell admitted the LN is not what you
https://news.bitcoin.com/the-curious-case-of-gregory-maxwell-and-the-lightning-network/
AnonyMint's posts are almost exclusively jargon-laden techno-babble. His posts are angry and abusive while at the same time they often fail to even make syntactic sense when it comes to the technical content-- at least to anyone who knows what the words mean.
If this is true, it would be trivial for someone with similar or greater technical knowledge than him to publicly prove him wrong and/or defeat him in a debate.
Oh Gregory surely can dig up something where I have been wrong (and probably where I even admitted my error) in order to obfuscate that Gregory will be unable to address the specific technological challenges that I presented in my prior post.
Note in the prior post made by @Traxo on my behalf, I have provided two examples where in a debate with Gregory he was shown to be incorrect and he refused (even until this day) to admit he was incorrect.
I understand a lot.
No you do not understand much in any holistic sense. Compounded on top of your lack of holistic understanding is your bunny rabbit fantasy confirmation bias, i.e. you really want to believe that proof-of-work can have some form of off-chain instant transactions and transaction volume scaling that wont be centralized and wont be fractional reserves. This fantasy bias causes you to reject becoming holistically astute, yet I also doubt that you have the ability to assimilate all the necessary information because of the extreme level of discipline and effort that is required.
By analogy, females-at-large (and note theres always exceptions) can be awarded engineering degrees (by corrupted SJW holiness cesspools they name universities), but then cant produce tritium or complete the Obamacare website. Not even because theyre not smart enough (as James Donald astutely points out females more typically excel as first lieutenants although of course there can be exceptions), but because as Jordan Petersen explains, most of them arent willing to work 100 hours a week like I do grinding away at assimilating all the boring engineering details. Similarly, you may understand (but as you admit at lower level of understanding) paradigmatically in the way the computer science student thinks he understands how to program and then gets into the real world of needing to holistically integrate programming, economics, game theory, sociology, etc. and falls flat on his face. Which BTW, is also one of Gregory Maxwells failure modes to some degree (although hes expert in cryptography and encodings and various other computer science disciplines). Yet Gregory also suffers the SJW victimization holiness psychosis which he probably learned as most Millennials do these days from these cesspools of academia.
Your Dunning-Kruger overconfidence can be best explained by a woman on Quora who has a 160 IQ. She is smarter than me. Read how she explains it. @WIND_Fury you should also read that and take heed about what I had explained to you in the nuked posts, that if youre 1 to 2 SD below in IQ or equivalently in detailed expertise, then you dont understand anything at all and are just making errors pretty much every time you write anything. Leah also wrote more about the hateful, ignorance you trolls spew.
An IQ of 135 is just over 2 standard deviations above normal. The definition for gifted should be 130, which is 2 standard deviations about normal. If 100 is average, then the gifted individual has as much in common with the person of average IQ as a person of average IQ has in common with someone of labeled as needing special services. The person who qualifies for special education services, at 2 standard deviations below, would have an IQ of about 70.
One could ask, does a person of average intelligence become frustrated with someone of less than average intelligence? I believe that the question would have the same answer, as the differences in IQ and functioning would be exactly the same.
One could ask, does a person of average intelligence become frustrated with someone of less than average intelligence? I believe that the question would have the same answer, as the differences in IQ and functioning would be exactly the same.
The 160 IQ Eric S. Raymond wrote about the destiny that awaits you n00bs: The return of the servant problem
I wrote on Quora:
Leah, you put into words the thought Ive had that Millennials dont appreciate their elders enough to apprentice under our expertise. Im 53 and in the computer science field. I had the desire to work with the youth and build something together but the chasm between our respective attitudes seems so great. For example, I reject the SJWs mayonnaise spread on everything. For example recently I contributed to a question on Stackoverflow Meta about how to address the spam problem of low quality questions that could be easily answered with a Google search. I suggested the simple economic solution to charge for asking a question more than the opportunity cost of doing a Google search. I pointed out that attempting to give away for free what is not free is impossible. Thus the insoluble problem they have and until they address the root cause theyll just dig deeper into a clusterfuck of for example enabling arbitrary censorship. The Millennials downvoted my answer relentlessly because in their logic this would disincentivize participation (and Im noting that uniform anything is negentropic). The irony is their votes cost them nothing so they had nothing at stake of than their ideology (and could potentially be sockpuppet accounts harvested for free). My point is theyre losing the participation of those with high opportunity cost who value quality, for which the negligible cost for posting questions would be far outweighed by the gain in relevancy. The cost charged could be reputation instead of money, if identities are not free. Actually that is only a simplistic summary, as I have a more complex design in mind for a decentralized ledger. Anyway, my point is that theyre not experienced or open-minded enough to consider the holistic integration of economics. That is just one of many example interactions that indicate to me that they prioritize SJW egalitarianism mayonnaise on everything. Im probably oversimplifying and missing some other facets of this generational phenomenon. Maybe Im coming into contact with too many INTJs who lack interpersonal skills and an appreciation for hardwork, because I did stumble on this counter-example today:
SOLD EVERYTHING | GOOD-BYE USA | Jake Mace - Living in Portugal, pt. 2
Also its not surprising that Millennials dont value their elders, because Millennials are being thrown under the bus by the Boomers who filled their heads with political nonsense and have supported a politics that has saddled the country with debt servitude. I wrote on Medium:
If you want the country to be less polarized then stop writing, talking, and thinking about
Quote from: @Anon136s signature
If one can not confer upon another a right which he does not himself first possess, by what means does the state derive the right to engage in behaviors from which the public is prohibited?
That nonsense is a perfect example of your bunny rabbit fantasy and lack of holistic understanding of the world you live in. Rights dont exist without the power to defend them. Thats why you bunny rabbits huddle together in a collective in order to try to assert some power to defend some rights. But a collective is a power vacuum that demands that the bunny rabbits be manipulated by the most ruthless. Core is another bunny rabbit collectivized clusterfuck. So the answer to your question is power and the power vacuum of collective rights. In that light, your question reveals how blissfully ignorant you are. Yet you claim you understand much. No you dont.
Honestly, I still never read any of your ridiculously verbose (and presumably the technical) posts.
If you want only soundbites, then you will never understand anything holistically at a level capable of not making a fool of yourself as you continue to do in the Lightning Networks (LN) thread you started recently.
How silly that you blame me for the complexity of the confluence of technology, economics, game theory, sociology, etc.. That exemplifies the ridiculousness of your claim of understanding a lot. Come on man stop jerking yourself off and get in touch with reality. Or dont. Stay in your bunny rabbit fantasy and be played by disorder as it should be (see the tail end of the prior post from @Traxo about order and disorder which I am confident is entirely incomprehensible to you).
Further, it is difficult to take his post seriously when Greg's actions/behavior at Wikipedia have been described as "vandalism" by his peers at Wikipedia. Some have claimed that Greg continues to have a positive professional relationship with the admins at Wikipedia, however I have not seen evidence of this, nor have I seen anyone to claim to have affirmative direct knowledge of this.
Okay... So what did he change on wikipedia that was "vandalism"?
You claim, I understand a lot. But youre unable or unwilling to do a Google search:
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=36639732#User:Gmaxwell
https://twitter.com/sayurichick/status/954381661885538304
https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/74se80/wikipedia_admins_gregory_maxwell_of_blockstream/
https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/4klqtg/people_are_starting_to_realize_how_toxic_gregory/
https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/45ail1/wikipedians_on_greg_maxwell_in_2006_now_cto_of/
https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/459iyw/gmaxwell_in_2006_during_his_wikipedia_vandalism/
https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/457y0k/greg_maxwells_wikipedia_war_or_he_how_learned_to/
He always argues that some terrible event is going to occur at some unspecified time in the future.
Oh like I called the BTC triple bottom in late June and early July before the rest of the Speculation forum caught up to the concept. And I emphatically stated (which is in the nuked posts that @mprep refuses to assist in sending me a copy of) that BTC would bounce from $6100 up to $8000+. Thats both not terrible and quite empirical.
I could go through a laundry list of examples like this such as my correct public prediction in 2010 that silver would rise from $25 to $45 by Q2 2011 then crash (which is exactly what it did), but youre just here to troll and write lies. So it would be a waste of my time, because youre not interested in being non-disingenuous. Or never mind that I screamed all over these forums multi-posting in numerous threads in early 2017 to buy LTC at $6 days before it blasted off and proceeded to over $350 in 2017. As I said, I could go on and on. But you trolls will try to make up some lies about my record by citing something out-of-context or based on your incorrect vague memory. And I dont have enough time to continuously correct all your lies and errors. Because theres a lot of more of you Core shills than myself. One against a horde of trolls is certainly a recipe for misallocation of scarce resources.
Did you also forget my Speculation Rule: buy when others are IRRATIONALLY pessimistic/cautious (c.f. also my blog of the same title) on October 25, 2016 when Bitcoin was in the low $600s right before it started to blast off.
He clearly likes the attention
Wheres your empirical proof? No, I would actually like to mute you from the circle of people I want to discuss with, so I never see your useless slobbering.
Readers be very clear that every person spreading lies about me on this thread is a Core shill. They are offended about the truths I have explained.
It is absolutely ridiculous to explicitly say (as Maxwell has said) that it is acceptable to ban people because you do not like them, or because many people do not like them.
Nice strawman. Please give the actual quote word for word where he said that, instead of just saying that he said it.
Anonymint didn't get banned because people don't like him, though.
Ah yes, we must remain technically accurate while obfuscating the reality of the situation. The Jews werent exterminated as cockroaches because they were Jews, but because they didnt have the correct papers indicating they were not Jews.
Your point is analogous to Slick Willy Bill Clinton arguing in the court what the definition of is is.
I explained up-thread that I felt that people who didnt like my dissenting information were asking mods to temp-ban me for spreading that information. They used technicalities to single me out for the activities that others were also doing and not being temp-banned for. The response here has been just because other people get away with it, doesnt absolve me from responsibility to adhere to the rules. And I have pointed out that the rules arent even working to prevent trolling and spamming, so basically those rules exist so that shills (presumably who buy off the mods and @theymos behind the curtain, yeah where is the audit of the finances of these individuals?) have the means to be arbitrary against your critics. @QuickSeller and others (including myself) have correctly pointed out such a paradigm of censorship is the antithesis of our decentralization movement.
Im not arguing with you because I want to come back to your centralized clusterfuck. Im making sure that others who read this in the future (and we are archiving everything in case you realize Im winning the argument and devolve to censoring in Meta as Stackoverflow does), will understand the importance of the decentralized replacement I will create to disintermediate your corrupt shit.
he's here to tell us everything is broken yet again, even though it isn't.
Core shills want to dominate bitcointalk.org and r/Bitcoin with their propaganda and censor any dissenting information especially when a dissenting person is quite successful at attracting attention to that dissenting information.
So you Core shills want to have a monopoly on truth. But the fact is that we could not even exist (time would not be irreversible and thermodynamic processes would not move forward irreversibly) if anyone had a monopoly on information.