Hahahahaha! Oh mo god! Sorry I missed this thread earlier, and it was such a slog to read through it all, but it's frikin hilarious! AnonyMint just misses point after point after point with this easily refutable non-issue (which, by the way, I understand perfectly, including the parts MoonShadow misunderstood), and then nearly made me lose it with the wall of scripture on page 9. I mean, I knew he was all "I have a high IQ and am more intelligent than you, you should be thankful that I give you the fruits of my mind" type, or whatever, but a christian fundie too? Haaaaaaa!  

God, I hope you are actually seriously this broken and not a troll, otherwise I'd feel bad for falling for this level of smug idiocy. Jesus, AnonyMint, did you get your high IQ score from an internet quiz?


EDIT: Aaahahahaaa! And then you of the "I am smarter than you, and understand this new Bitcoin thing I just found better than you, because I am so smart!" bring up Dunning-Krueger, in a rather blatant display of suffering from that effect yourself. Seriously, are you sure you're not just trolling? I can't stop laughing!

P.S. MoonShadow commands a lot of trust and respect on this forum, because even if he says something wrong, he can admit it and change his mind. On the other hand, your "Ignore” button is getting browner every day.

It has none

Interesting

So basically you say the cartel will for bigger future profits, now not reap the profits of non-cartel transactions. (that do give transaction fees, transaction without fees I now disregard, as i find it normal nobody wants to work for free...)

So analogy in the ´real´world in the sense that a cartel of shops somewhere lower their prices substancially, running losses, to outdo other shops to bankrupcy, and after that raise prices and earn a lot of money ?

Also I noticed you talk about 2 things: firstly a cartel not forwarding transactions to other miners, secondly a cartel not accepting transactions from non-cartel members.

The first thing I find completely OK, as they are running risks here for double spends I guess (if somebody double spends in other shop, and they find the block earlier), so up to them... The second not accepting transactions from non-cartel members (thinking about transactions that do pay fees, free transactions no need to be taken in blockchain anyway, as nothing is for free), then the cartel is refuting to earn money, and thus running less efficient than other miners competing "cartels".

Basically another mini cartel (so not the big evil cartel being talked about) could mine its own transactions, and that cartel also accepting paying transactions from non cartel members will make more money, because they take up profitable transactions out of their own customerbase (out of their cartel).

Thats the whole thing, I dont believe too much in cartels.  Because as we see, the miner that would fake being part of the cartel, is gonna win.
(as the cartel is artificially lowering its turnover (not accepting certain offers on which they do make profit, read: not accepting transactions that do pay fees)

The only real cartel is Government itself (cartel by legislation, or by government making it difficult to enter a market due to excessive cost, etc etc), in a free market (without legislation) I just dont see cartels hold on any long....as each individiual member of the cartel is better of not being member of the cartel. (unless they think of in some future day being able to rule 100%...but they wont think that...)

Or do I completely miss the point you want to make?

What I see as a real threat to bitcoin, is not an economical attack but a political attack. (as to say, some group who thinks to profit from hurting bitcoin, simply ordering 1 million asics, and take 90% of the network.) (how difficult is that gonna be if all fees earned by miners are transaction fees....transaction fees not to be huge, to make a ultra secure network that cannot be overtaken with some billions of dollars.) So basically for bitcoin its a race against the clock i guess.

Question: can you come up with 1 successfull cartel/monopoly, which does not exist due to force( gunpoint, government)

Of course many times competing companies might make agreements to make higher prices etc, but i want to know of a successfull cartel existing over some period of time.

In an unregulated economy, there are no cartels ( my point of view)

So this discussion, as for me, can also be reduced to whether cartels really do ever exist anyway to start with. ( would like to hear some examples)

If not, then might bitcoin give rise to the possibility of successfull cartels?
Cartels is something from a static world i think, ours is very dynamic and ever changing.

The only transaction fees they will receive are from transactions they generate. They are just paying themselves, that can't generate profit.
Exactly the same result would be achieved by just mining their own transactions for zero fees, or processing them off-chain.

the attack is technically incorrect i think, because cartels theoretically are inherently instable. (or an organisation that calls itself a cartel,really never exists as a cartel, unless they want to know them selves a cartel) (just anecdotical read something about opec cartel, http://edwardjayepstein.com/archived/opec3.htm)

I asked you for naming me 1 succesfull stable cartel, not thanks to governmenthelp (or even a government cartel).
I still did not get any reply for this.

The cartel you describe is simply trying to disrupt bitcoin, and is willing to pay a price for it.

You could make it more simple: what if amazon and some friends buy 1 million asics, and mine only their own transactions, others will loose business, because their blocks get mined too late, have double spends, etc etc

If Amazon-cartel does not subsidize its mining department, then how ever can they gain traction just because they get all the work from their own network? (even refuting others transactions so loosing business)
Amazon is here by doing this basically loosing money, as they give all transactions to their daughter company, where another mining company might be willing to do certain transactions at certain times for lower fees.

Anyway: amazon/cartel (which is inherently instable as all members of cartel could earn more money by not obeying the cartel-rules) will have to subsidize its mining activities, and thus invest in something, for which later the cartel should receive some kind of payout.

I dont see this attack happening really...

jajansen,

Why do you assume force and possibly government collusion won't be involved?

You can't win the debate by arguing that cartels have never existed.

You attempted to construct a strawman and say that if cartels don't use force or government collusion, they are unstable. And I agreed and said the cartel attack would thus destroy Bitcoin if the community creates an altcoin that is resistant to this attack, i.e. rendering the outcome unstable for the cartel in agreement with you. But that does not invalidate the attack (as it stands against Bitcoin and clones). And it would actually require the free market to create an altcoin that is not vulnerable to this attack.

So you have no answers, and just refer to your previous non-answers.
People can see that, you know?
(And you'll write 10 more pages, either in this thread or another, because you can't seem to help yourself)

I agree some government force could destroy bitcoin, but not a cartel (this cartel is never gonna exist) of companies, they will never arrive to the attack, as for the members of the cartel, it would pay NOT to subsidize. (isnt it the same as opec cartel members completely not following opec policy, but going for own gain, at the cost of the other opec-cartel members. As to say, the opec-cartel, does not exist...or better said, the opec intends to be a cartel, but never was and never will)

As you state its a slow process where the cartel gains power, with in the back of their heads the idea of being able to raise prices later when the cartel-strategy succeeds...
Also please note that amazon transactions are and will be quite a small part of the transactions. It would really have to be some kind of supercartel like never seen before in history (and theoretically unstable, so it will never exist as the cartel how it was intended).
Total world production is like 70 trillion, so then (if all pay bitcoin), some 25 trillion stable cartel would have to come up.
Also most transaction in bitcoin will still be the cup of coffee in the morning in the small cafee (ok...starbucks....)

This economical attack I really see it not happening. (if governments have to be involved, I would rather call it a political attack)
If a cartel cant exist, then how can it make the attack?