it's the content of what you write that's disturbing.

your whole schtick revolves around a doom and gloom scenario where the masses simply roll over and capitulate to a corrupt, evil elite.  that's IT.  yes, you're damn right i disagree and i think you're an idiot to think so.

You haven't studied history. And you and anyone that follows you, will pay dearly for that mistake.

Reality disturbs you. So ignore it. And lose your wealth. Fine with me.

You've chosen to ignore Armstrong because you don't like the reality that history paints for us now. Fine. You like the masses will stick you head in the sand. Go for it.

You haven't studied history. You slander the man who has. This is why you are oblivious to what time it is.

What ever you studied that you thought was history was some sampling below the necessary Nyquist limit, i.e. you are suffering aliasing error.


I guess you haven't ready my essays linked from the Economic Devastation thread wherein I refer to the fledgling GOLDEN KNOWLEDGE AGE.

You are preaching to the choir. I was on this wave back in 1986 when I created one of the world's first commercial WYSIWYG word processors. I was on this wave when I created a million user web page creation tool Cool Page in 1998.

Your myopia is that you don't understand the masses have moved from creating their own web pages, to all being lumped in on Facebook, Yahoo, Viber, etc..

You don't understand well the changes of the internet from End-to-end principle to the Fascist top-down system it is becoming.

You are going to get a lesson about ignoring experts soon... and that includes anyone that follows your ignorance about fields where you are not a domain expert.

why would i ever do that?

i appreciate the feedback.  i've already taken these types of thoughts into consideration.

thezerg once accused me of being a dinorsaur with regards to innovation in Bitcoin, which you kinda are above.  i don't think that's true.  this whole debate is consistent with my long held belief that all innovation should occur on the mainchain.  if Bitcoin fails to do that as an open source project similar to linux, which was supposedly the great promise it made imo, then the whole concept of cryptocurrencies has failed and we'll just go back to fiat for the next hundred years.  this whole movement of Gavin to go to XT, if necessary, is innovation on the mainchain as i see it.  he's simply going to upgrade the software to accept bigger blocks.  and that's a good thing.  if anything, the dinosaurs and fear mongerers are the one's wanting to keep Bitcoin artificially restrained.  enough about that.

as far as Monero is concerned, it is a completely new altcoin with a different signature scheme.  to be honest, it is so far off my radar and so insignificant of an alt that i hadn't paid much attention to it.  i still don't really care to understand how it works b/c i don't think it will go anywhere.  could be wrong.  i've always said i'd welcome more privacy in Bitcoin and it's possible Monero does that.  i know there was a big technical issue months back but can't remember what it was.  maybe someone could clarify.  but that's beside the point.  it is NOT innovating on top of Bitcoin which i quite frankly see as a problem for it.  it is not leveraging upon the huge network effect already achieved by Bitcoin.  does that necessarily mean it will fail?  no.  but i think we get one chance with this b/c the implications are so huge.  if Bitcoin fails, they all fail.  if it's not improved upon or upgraded, it will fail.  if we all don't stick together as a group, it will fail.  if that means the economic majority has to fork off and shed the likes of the Blockstream cabal, we have a chance.  the more i think about it, the better i like the idea of getting rid of gmax and luke.  i think they're toxic.  yeah, gmax is a brilliant cryptographer but he can't be trusted with the keys or to run a company.  he's a KNOWN Bitcoin bear and posts an XMR donation address.  that's his prerogative but i think a core dev should be all out pushing and working on Bitcoin like Gavin does to advance the project forward.  shedding those guys would be a good thing.

everything i say is said in the context of the broader markets.  we're probably heading into the next recession and in that environment i believer altcoins will be slaughtered.  if Bitcoin can hang on, or even thrive, as a safe haven alternative, a major shift in finance may be upon us.  Bitcoin has already survived an unbelievable 6 yrs and next yr we will halve.  the way all the charts have lined up, it's just a matter of time before we start the next advance to end Bitcoin's longest Bear.  this hasn't even been the greatest Bear, imo, which was from 32 to 1.98 in 2011.  that is a great sign.  i've always said that the majority of ppl investing in cryptocurrencies will lose money.  this is definitely playing out and includes Bitcoiners who bought high.  it also includes full node operators and miners, btw, and accounts for the decrease in their numbers too.  but that will easily reverse with new adoption and the next price rise.

Bitcoin is like threading a needle; it needs to stay private enough to prevent all out war with TPTB.  so far so good.  is Monero in that category?  i doubt it but i'm not saying it won't possibly find a niche with the iCELatte's of the world.  oh, btw, it took me a while to figure out what his agenda was with him coming in here and pretending to be all concerned about Bitcoin when his real agenda was to diss it and pump Monero.  even smooth, who offers up decent stuff, was confusing me a while back before i found out he was a Monero core dev.  i couldn't figure out why when i got skeptical about altcoins he'd always quickly negate anything i had to say on that.  also when we got to talking about the 49%-51% attacks against Bitcoin he was posting highly frequently against Bitcoin.  that's ok, he's smart and is entitled to his opinion.  but it was never clear until someone mentioned his Monero connection what was happening.  i like to focus on what ppl's motivations are, that should be clear.  i won't let that cloud my judgment however.  i really think Bitcoin is on the right path, even if it has to fork to XT.  to me, that would just mean a much easier path forward with a new group of devs.  then the market can be free of financial conflicts of interest from the likes of Blockstream.  i've heard enough complaints about how big players like Nasdaq won't entrust large amounts of money to a monetary system controlled by an unknown, anarchistic leaning group of new leaders.  i wouldn't either if i didn't fully understand the system.  that's why i would be willing to migrate to XT if need be.  how would it be for Gavin to initiate growth to 20x at least for Bitcoin?  not bad at all i'd say.  we will overcome the technical constraints, if there really are some.  the financial incentives to find a solution will be so great at that point that full node growth is bound to happen, bandwidth providers will be happy to accept more traffic and will be financially incentivized to find solutions, and Wall St will then jump in with both feet.  and if we need to, we'll just pair the block size back temporarily until a real solution is found.  Monero can't even be a part of all that b/c the big players won't be allowed to play.

we will thread the needle b/c we can guide it to be so.

actually, there's no way f2pool, Eligius, and BTCPool add to 31% of the network.  i count 10% max and f2pool isn't even on the chart.

Look here you grumpy old fart.  You need to take your gingko and go on vacation, instead of requiring spoon-feeding in the manner of a vegetative nursing home resident.

You are constantly losing your shit and repeatedly requiring correction of your misapprehension of common knowledge and basic facts.

Watching gmax slap you around on reddit is Good Times, but a waste of his invaluable energy.  Likewise for tvbcof's, hdbuck's, and Marcus' disastrous attempts at informing and educating you.

If you stay, I suggest making a standing reservation in the burn ward.  Because GavinCoin is toast.  

Please stop telling us VanillaCoiners what our "#1" anti-GavinCoin argument is, or at least get it approximately correct.

#1 trade-offs with negative impacts on existing levels of diversity/diffusion/defensibility/resiliency
#2 UXTO explosion
#3 blocksize gaming, propagation, bandwidth, etc.

I don't know, but I'm happy to find out.