Thanks for coming over here after I PM'ed you asking for your critique. You see I welcome it.

Unfortunately, I don't think you read the thread, because then you would understand that I am not describing a potential "51+% attack".

Please reply once you've properly absorbed the thread and understand the issue as well as the others do, who now understand and agree.

Btw, the main reason I PM'ed you is I what to be sure that the hard-core Bitcoiners are too cocky (and unwilling to read) to recognize and implement the fix. Because I want to make sure I won't waste my time coding a replacement for Bitcoin.

I had been studying your postings going back to 2011. So I expected you to do exactly what you do. Thanks.

I am glad to see that Colin Dean's one criticism shows that he doesn't understand that read/writes will be incredibly infrequent. And the rest of what he writes is positive.

I should stop teaching how my system is going to work, before I implement it.

I see they (bitcoin.stackexchange.com) block my account for 4 more days of "cool down", so I can't reply there (and I won't). Hey I am warming up and gaining momentum, not cooling down.

Please don't tell me that bitcoiners are Illuminati tinfoil hat reptile alien nut jobs?? I was just starting to get my hopes up... is this rant about a global elite banning trade (which is basically the same idea as the Antichrist in the book fo Revelation) a parody?

Socialism.

Economics doesn't work that way.

No one gains prosperity by going bankrupt.

The masses will want their free transaction processing.

The cartel can continue to ramp up the processing power provided for free (from the profits they extract from the transfer price mechanism), those few altruistic miners will find their % of processing power reduces continually if they don't have funding to perpetually add hardware.


Who said anything about power elite banning all trade? That is not the allegation. Try reading the entire thread and learn the meaning of the phrase "transfer pricing".

I guess you failed to study history, and don't remember how John D. Rockefeller cartelized oil and railroads with Standard Oil.

The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, and wonder why you get the same result. Sigh.

So Standard Oil didn't exist and any one who says he did is a "tinfoil hat reptile alien nut job".

Does your propaganda accomplish anything but destroy the process of open source improvement which is supposed to be based in rational facts, not in nonsense posts like yours?


You have no logic to retort the numerous facts discussed in this thread, so you resort to propaganda. As expected. Sad.

If you don't respect open source, then continue with that strategy of polluting this thread without factual discussion. If you respect open source, and want to be respected as helping make a better world, please don't do that. Consider the benefit to yourself and the respect you will gain from readers, if elevate yourself from the level of caveman tactics.

If you have a genuine factual and technical argument, I want to hear it. I want this to be peer reviewed. But peer review versus mudslinging represent two levels of evolution of homo sapiens. Elevate yourself. This isn't mud wrestling.

I am thinking about if it is possible to improve anonymity.

One thought is that if it is not already done, then transactions should be flowed between peers encrypted if this doesn't ruin performance, so that traffic analysis can't be used to determine which IP (peer) transactions originate from. MUTE is an inspiration.

I am also contemplating whether it is possible to virtualize addresses.

The logic that was used in the past to not do the correct thing for Bitcoin was called "inflatacoin":

https://bt.irlbtc.com/view/10666.40

Is gold "inflatacoin"? Gold's money supply increases forever (and there is probably more in outer space).

The Russians won't support this coins. In Russian "DURA" sounds as "female fool".

The powers to be already own it. Day one entity Satoshi owned more than 50% and never relinquished power since.

If anyone would try to establish a "one world currency" the traditional way he would face a revolt and people fighting toe to nail. Yet coming in in a a*se about way from behind it becomes "cool" and people trolling over each other to have a "one world currency".!

That would be the perfect opportunity for John to switch currency...
I think you are highly underestimating the emergent properties of something like bitcoin.
If the cartel wants to process for free they will need to provide the computational power.
If they decide not to process some stuff then someone else will make this processing power available.
The end result will be that there will be an ecosystem of currencies and noone will have control over the whole.
The cartell will need to evaluate their desire to control a coin against the losses of customers rejecting it for that reason.
It is a form of democratisation of currency.

If a cartell gains this kind of power and abuses it even once it can be proven through the block chains and at that very moment the whole coin cannot be trusted anymore. Effectively the cartel would commit suicide.
Momentum or not, investors will pull back and the coin the cartell has control over will crash pretty hard.

Why would any cartel want to do that and how would they retain the value of a coin that includes proof of them tampering with it?