...
Since the Caucasian genes are recessive, this is how it turns out nearly every single time in these kinds of offspring, the child looks nothing like the white parent.  From a strict biological and natural selection point of view, the purpose of reproduction is solely to spread your genes into the future.  In the scenario above, what she has done is basically pass on her genes as non-influential junk DNA, while the African genes determined almost the entire outcome of the child where it doesn't resemble one of the parents at all.

Of course there will be tons of Marxists coming along to claim that mentioning African genes are dominant and Caucasian and Asian genes are recessive is "da raycism", because it doesn't take a genius to figure out that whatever genes compromise the recessive groups would basically be made extinct by full integration between all groups.  This infuriates the common Marxist because it blows the lid off their fake narrative where those groups of people tend to constantly push for things like conservation of variety in animal species, yet they would be pushing for the exact opposite in this case, the extinction of the recessive human groups on purpose.

^^ DNA testing?  

jk.

No, I think you have no idea how anything works, keep trying to push your cultural Marxism though, claiming everyone that walks the earth is identical little clones.  Every group is different from both physical and behavioral aspects, because that is the purpose of evolution, to create differences, not to create Marxism.  You should really go join the fiat world where your delusional view is commonplace.

A fucking good post and I agree with everything you said!

Now, if only the world could sort out it's Jewish Problem once and for all!

Assuming the doxer isn't a reverse troll/shill, and poopchop really is this "Izabella Kaminska" person.

Now everyone knows who I am



Thanks for outing me, Jimbo

 Izabella Kaminska has a classic case of acute sociopathic personality disorder. She fits the symptoms as well as one can. The sociopath fears exposure above most things. I don't know what methods The Doxing used to unmask her and they likely weren't legal in many jurisdictions, but it has already been done. It is understandable that The Doxing left no concrete proof to avoid incriminating himself. I for one would not want to see him arrested for making the world a better place. It is very obvious she is indeed Lambie, and she has admitted it on multiple occasions, so further proof is not necessary. If she is low on funds from shorting bitcoin in hopes of blogging hit pieces and trolling the market so much she turned a profit, then I believe she would make a great candidate for a high level psychiatric study that might warrant a stipend. I believe in her delusions of grandeur she believed that one blogger could affect a world wide market. One can't help but notice the irony that Izabella tweets about her financial hardships, yet spends her days and nights fighting to defend the corrupt system that make her barely able to afford the high cost of living in London, rather than finding a mate and giving birth to and raising more Izabellambies. Perhaps that is for the best, who knows. It is nice to know who is doing all the ridiculous trolling, so The Doxing, if your reading, this ones for you buddy.


https://twitter.com/izakaminska/

Well, seeing as you lot have turned it into the Lambie Observer Thread again.


I tend to agree with this.

This, " interested in all things energy, central banky, market structurey and science fictiony.", is just so horrible... a pseudo-intellecutual-valley-girl-speak that doesn't jive with what we know. Real lambie's ego is far too huge and confident to willingly smear their own public image so badly.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/42fggm/chinese_community_has_voiced_consensus_opinion_to/

I think this is why we are starting to go up. Miners providing clear road map.

Also, I'm interpreting this as a miner revolt. Not siding with core or classic. Just changing 1mb to 2mb and nothing else. I'm happy with the move but not everyone might be.


Copied from Google translate.


[Currency] 1992 consensus reached circle gathering support 2MB, against less than 90% count bifurcated force consensus
Lai Bite mine pool | 01-24 | Look landlord
This post was last at 2016-1-24 22:25 edited by 莱比特 mine pool

Author : Lai Bite mine pond river Thatcher stakeholders : Bitcoin / litecoin miners, who hold out

January 23 afternoon, the coldest day in Beijing, good Bitcoin (haobtc.com) organized a party in full swing in currency circles. Participants in the development of good bitcoins, bitcoin block expansion, force mining operator, on Bitcoin future prospects and other topics heated discussion.

On the block expansion, the participants reached the following consensus and hoped that all bitcoin businesses and users to join this broad nine (90%) di (2MB) consensus:

1, Bitcoin need expansion to 2MB.
2, against less than 90% count bifurcated force consensus.

Meeting participants :
Good Bitcoin CEO Wu Gang, super bitcoin, Thief, Bear, etc.
Continental CEO Wu Ji Han Bit
Ants mine pool Panzhi Biao
Ants mining machine Li Ying Fei
Guo Hong Btc123 only
Wells Fargo Funds Zhao Guofeng
Cloud coins cat
Too wallet than Wenhao
Look currency Fangfang
Soso Bitcoin Linjia Peng
(Many participants, if missing, please forgive me)
...
Consensus:
As we all know, this block expansion is no longer a technical issue, but a conflict of interest due to political problems. Background see previous article: " [Bitcoin facing a critical choice] urge all people to support macro news 2MB expansion . "...

Why are you calling experts the people who don't see the need to move the blocksize limit, which you agree is needful?

OK I was worried that you thought that Core folks are the only experts out there.

Increasing the blocksize is fairly straightforward choice but there is a civil war about that. What will happen with possibly more contentious issues?

We need a governance mechanism for future debates because we can be sure there will be several others. And I prefer a governance mechaism who is bottum up  -hard fork and let the ecosystem choose - than one who is top down and doesn't support competion (extremely fragile position).

We don't rip apart the ecosystem by hard forking, not more than the creation of an altcoin rips apart the ecosystem. Remember when the first alcoin was created there were debates about whether that should be avoided for the good of Bitcoin. The endgame of a hard fork is the same : there will be yet another altcoin. And the network effect of the winning chain will keep sucking every human and capital resources which want to be part of this revolution.

So if there is 90% hashrate in favor of Classic and a fork ensues would be be ok with that outcome?

I pretty much agree with what you say*, initially I think the treshold was 75% Classic but if making it 90% can bring more peace I don't see any problem with that.

*I would add that future users are as valuable as present users and should be take into account (miners, by their profit calculations, incorporate so it's good they have the final say).

And someone didn't want to accept my statement that bitcoin is a currency and not money so I had to explain in greater detail why:

No. The distinction between money and currency is quite clear!

Money is the monetary form itself. It is the "thing" we use as money. Its value doesn't depend on a single body or entity safeguarding its value.

Currency is the certificate that certifies you have money kept in a storage somewhere else. It is a storage receipt payable to bearer on demand. The storage owner/keeper has to take care that all issued certificates are backed by adequate quantity of the "thing". In different countries and during different times this certificate was different. It had different properties, attributes, and requisites to avoid dishonest storage owners/keepers and counterfeiting. The latest reliable certificate with most current properties, attributes, and requisites was most widely used for transactions. Hence, the newly coined word "currency" describing current certificate in circulation.

If we use LN we'll be using bitcoin not as money but as currency. Using currency instead of money is riskier but much cheaper. It is a trade-off. People will have a choice depending on their willingness to take small risk in exchange for much lower tx fees. And that is GOOD!  

The difference is that cryptocurrency has the potential to someday climb beyond fiat beyond gold even on Exter's pyramid.

Gold can essentially be thought of as an eternal partially anonymous POW blockchain. It is mined and mining requires work limiting its supply and allowing it to be used as a store of value. Gold does have counterparty risk. The counterparty is society. The purchaser of gold takes the risk that the gold network (the network of individuals in society willing to buy and own gold) will continue to exist. Governments play a role here in that they have the power through their actions to strengthen or weaken this network but they lack the ability to destroy it entirely. The gold network has existed for thousands of years it has also survived multiple government attempts to eliminate it so the counterparty risk is lower than with anything else that exists.

To displace gold cryptocurrency would need to have a counterparty risk that was lower than gold.
This would require
A) Demonstration of enternal nature currency would need to hold its value over several generations
B) Demonstration of resilience cryptocurrency network it would need to show its ability to survive outlast and not be broken or destroyed by hostile government action.

The jury is still out on whether bitcoin can meet these very high hurdles. However, even if bitcoin fails it seems almost inevitable that something will come along someday that can meet them.

I don't understand what counterparty risk has to do with money/currency distinction? Counterpaty risk is the probability of not getting good or services you have paid for or not getting the money if you're the seller. If I hold a gold coin in my hand or I''m the only one that knows the private keys of a bitcoin address then there is no counterparty risk and I'm 100% confident that I received payment for goods or services I sold.

It doesn't matter how many members one organization has - two or five or 50. You have to define what do you mean by "secured by"? I'm using "depends on". Doesn't depend on means if that organization of two or five or 50 members disappears this asset was and still is money if it still has value. If the value of this asset goes to zero then it was currency before losing its value as it was backed by a second asset that disappeared. The distinction is very clear. If something is backed by nothing and is used as money then it is money!

Until 1971 the US dollar was currency. It was a certificate giving you the right to convert it into gold as it was pegged to gold. After gold window was closed the US dollar became money. Yes, that's right! If you present a 100 dollar bill to the Fed they will not redeem it as they don't have any obligation whatsoever. If Fed disappears the US dollar will still have value IF it is scarce and has limited supply! I'd even say that without Fed the value of US dollar will increase.

Do you own said tree? Some weirdo might take a fancy to it and decide to steal it during the night. Your wallet might be unearthed during the theft.

LOL best answer ever

1 - Explain how it provides freedom from capital controls any more than cold hard cash does? I have BTC and I have travelled pretty extensively, my BTC has been pretty much useless to me abroad. "Dirty fiat" i.e. USD cash money is accepted pretty much everywhere. This is not a criticism of BTC, it just illustrates that we are early in the game.

2 - I'm not a debt slave so I wouldn't know. I own my house and owe nothing to the bank or anyone else, so I guess I'm struggling to understand your point? You say that BTC provides freedom to the user, then say the avg debt slave doesn't care about freedom? I'm confused....
I'm sure any slave, debt or otherwise, has freedom at the front of mind.

Yep

Call me crazy or dumb...but I am starting to have a desire of shorting BTC at these levels...

yes, because the period from august 2017 to november 2017 is the enforced period for Segwit ... not the LOCK period.
https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0148.mediawiki

so Segwit2Mb is a trap.
they want introduce the 2Mb before SegWit LOCK.

Any block size increase is not a reasonable roadmap forward. It solves nothing! It just postpones the inevitable next block size increase - 4mb, 8mb, 16mb... until full centralization. Big blocktards will accept anything just to follow this roadmap.

I have removed the rest of your message as it is based on a wrong premise. No, it was not a stop-loss order. I learned not to ever use stop-orders on Kraken as they simply don't work as intended (exactly as you are describing). I underatand stop loss orders are NOT on the order book until they get triggered and inserted (whenever that happens) in the order book. This has NOTHING to do with that.

It was LIMIT ORDERS, opened several days in advance, already on the order book that HAVE NOT BEEN EXECUTED YET THE PRICE HAS KEPT RISING ABOVE THEM.

When I say the trading engine/order book in Kraken is broken I really mean it. There is absolutely no technical explanation to this. The only doubt I have is WHO profited from it.

Dunno. If the silly sausages had been there then they would've been able to voice those reservations and help draft a better agreement. A bonkers idea I know.

Does that mean that this announcement is NOT as bullish as anticipated.  So what if all these folks agree, but if core does not agree, and they end up forking off with these terms, then we could have two forks.

Maybe this is not as bullish as we thought because core is not agreeing to lower the consensus threshold in this case, right?

You think that you can make an exception to lower the consensus threshold and then every time there is a dispute, there would be an attempt to use 80% as the new consensus threshold?  

I suppose ultimately if this is a softfork rather than a hardfork, then it is not as big of a deal to have a consensus threshold that is lower than 95%.

Actually, even though technically you are probably correct that bitcoin would be better with blocksize limit that is lower than 1mb - there is a certain advantage in just keeping the status quo - even if a lower blocksize limit would technically be the better design.

cashless societies, borderless currencies, blockchain apps for business, cheaper financial infrastructure

the big players are developing now

I find after extensive investigation it's usually down to a lack of money. Some people are just born to suckle on the shitty end of the stick. And there but for the grace of God go any of us.

Ok so she's too old to realistically leave and find someone else, and you likely got married before divorce court became what it is now. That's why you are happy to defend marriage. Your wife is TOO OLD for you to worry about her splitting with your shit.

For the rest of us, it doesn't take an academic study to figure out that getting married today is about the most self-destructive thing a man could do.

If you can call the tops - and the bottoms - then you are a better man than 99.9% on here.

For the rest of mankind cost averaging doesn't seem like a bad strategy to me.

Feels like I'm talking to a bunch of millenial transgender children.  First of all, only cuckolds go to Starbucks.  Secondly, bitcoin is:

1) a currency, not money
2) does not remove counter party risk
3) is not a store of value

...
So please, stop being complete idiots and pretending bitcoin is in some way superior to gold and silver.  The noble metals are the only viable candidate for sound money on this entire planet at the moment if you do not want to live under central bankers - which are the one of the main tenets of (((communism))).

The difference is that crypto currency has the potential to someday climb beyond fiat beyond gold even on Exter's pyramid.

Gold can essentially be thought of as an eternal partially anonymous POW blockchain. It is mined and mining requires work limiting its supply and allowing it to be used as a store of value. Gold does have counterparty risk. The counterparty is society. The purchaser of gold takes the risk that the gold network (the network of individuals in society willing to buy and own gold) will continue to exist. Governments play a role here in that they have the power through their actions to strengthen or weaken this network but they lack the ability to destroy it entirely. The gold network has existed for thousands of years it has also survived multiple government attempts to eliminate it so the counterparty risk is lower than with anything else that exists.

To displace gold cryptocurrency would need to have a counterparty risk that was lower than gold.
This would require
A) Demonstration of enternal nature currency would need to hold its value over several generations
B) Demonstration of resilience cryptocurrency network it would need to show its ability to survive outlast and not be broken or destroyed by hostile government action.

The jury is still out on whether bitcoin can meet these very high hurdles. However, even if bitcoin fails it seems almost inevitable that something will come along someday that can meet them.

It's an attempt to change governance and to accomplish such in the form of a hard fork.... A hardfork is not necessary. so why agree to something that is not necessary and that is problematic and that is going to set bad precedent for future take overs.. especially if they agree to either a hardfork or a change in governance.. ?
 

The lack of code is probably a good thing at this juncture. I have been following this dispute only recently but the strong impression I get is that the only possible path to consensus on something like the miner agreement is if the code is ultimately produced, vetted and shipped by the core developers.

The miner agreement at this stage is simply a proposal. That proposal must now be vetted by the rest of the community to determine if a grudging consensus can be built around it.

Hopefully such a consensus will be possible. It strikes me as a far healthier path forward then stagnation forever in the current state or a civil war leading to a split into two coins.
...
It appears very clear that regardless of their technical merits neither

1) Variable blocksize
or
2) SegWit alone without a block size increase

can achieve consensus at this moment in bitcoin history. Thus neither are viable pathways forward right now.

Some compromise position must be adopted. It does not matter if it is a perfect solution. All it needs to be is safe and good enough to achieve widespread if grudging consensus.
...

There is fundamental disagreement in the community regarding on-chain versus off-chain scaling. Best hope of a breakthrough is a half-measure that allows both sides time to show what their solution offers.

Personally I hope to see some variation of Barry Silbert segwit agreement coded up vetted and released by the Bitcoin Core team as this is the only option on the table that appears to have any chance of achieving consensus.
...

We don't need to make a final determination between on-chain and off-chain scaling at this time. Kicking the can down the road by allowing both to be tried in parallel under the vetting and safety provided by the Bitcoin Core team sounds pretty good to me.

Plus though it is not the primary concern here it is worth mentioning that a successful consensus solution to this problem would likely be very good to everyone's pocketbook.

I don't know what you are talking about.  The plan seems to be somewhat vague.

First, if there were consensus to agree to seg wit then some of the witholders from signaling segwit could start signaling seg wit.. but they wont agree to signal seg wit without a 2mb increase first and in the form of a hardfork... so?  What does that mean?  

It means that the supposed supporters of a compromise do not agree to signal seg wit unless they get a 2 mb increase in the form of a hard fork.  A hardfork is not going to fly because it is not necessary.

seg wit has already been vetted and approved but a 2mb increase has not.. so that would need to be coded and tested... Anyone did that yet?  

So, how can core just agree?  You want them to agree to a hardfork?  You said that no change in governance.. ?  Looks like the threshold is 80% rather than 95%, and that appears to be a change in governance, no?  change from 95% to 80%, right?  that is a change?

Ok, people.  I'm tired of fucking around with ambiguous definitions:  Is bitcoin decentralized?  Does bitcoin have value? etc.  I have decided to address these issues from proof of work to proof of stake where a normal human can easily quantify if Bitcoin or any other cryptocurrency has value and whether it will live or die:

http://steemit.com/steemit/@r0achtheunsavory/the-r0ach-report-14-defining-if-cryptocurrency-has-a-value-or-zero-value-from-a-fundamental-scientific-perspective

It's relatively short to read, but if you want the TLDR version, my stance is that proof of stake has no value whatsoever and I explain why, and proof of work with ASIC is almost functionally the same thing (externalized proof of stake) in practice and would also have no value.  I don't think anyone will find a valid argument against this post.

As for proof of work - the basis of bitcoin - this will be an unpopular view but I really see it as just a form of externalized proof of stake in practice and not an actual open entropy system. Energy costs are not uniform across the globe so this causes the transaction validators (miners) to centralize into something resembling a matrix covering the earth:

This is a big centralization pressure, but arguably not a terminal one if you believe the energy costs on the planet are not outrageously lopsided in uniformity. The next evolution of the system was the introduction of ASIC mining. This is yet another layer of centralization on top of energy costs which I believe is not just additive, but more like multiplicative or quadratic in nature with the previous layer. Now your matrix of miners tends to look something like this instead:

It's a completely arbitrary number, but once you've reached a point where you can fit all the actors together into a large car where they can collude and form an OPEC-style cartel, doing things like blocking transactions from people they don't like, setting transaction fees abnormally high, or forking the network, you obviously no longer have any form of Nash equilibrium and the system I would say has become inherently valueless. No, this does not magically mean proof of stake now has value; it never had value in the first place.

Let's do a peer to peer gold transaction. I'll pay you double spot for an ounce of gold on delivery. Let's see about those $0 transaction fees.

Here is my address. https://www.google.com/maps/@-43.1382064,147.2102165,17z

Gonna place this prediction here for sake of posterity to look back in a few years:

r0ach I dislike your profile picture having an innate dislike of cockroaches in general. I dislike your signature finding it disrespectful to a people and faith I hold in high esteem and I am unclear why you are so active in a bitcoin forum given your feelings on bitcoin.

That said I am going to try and help you by highlighting where I feel you are grossly mistaken. I believe your current paradigm if unadjusted will lead you to loss of economic opportunity. Like many detractors of bitcoin you focus on the speculative delivery vehicle (get rich quick mentality) and the ease of launching alt-coins. Both of these may be currently important in terms of price and adoption but are ultimately irrelevant in regards to long term value.

The long term value of bitcoin is the consensus network that remains after the mining rewards decline into insignificance. The quotes below highlight this logic. I recommend reading them including the linked Scientific American article on group selection.

Well, I kinda agree with you here r0ach.
...

It's a package deal SegWit first followed by 2MB later. Those signalling are agreeing to activate SegWit and also support a later hard fork to increase the block size.

Now it is true that major players could lie and later retract their support for 2MB sort of a "ha ha I got mine" approach to negotiation but this would be utterly destructive to trust and kill any chance for future upgrades to the protocol for the foreseeable future.

You can't build a consensus on falsehood. Once commitments are made they should be honored. Otherwise it is very bad news for all of us as the consensus system will become nonfunctional.

Do you understand the concept of a compound question?

Do you understand the concept of contingencies?

You keep trying to suggest that the situation is cut and dry, and it is not.  There is both a compound subject matter and there are contingencies that are connected with the second part of the implementation that have not been worked out and are subject to mustering support for the testing and for the outcome of the testing leading to the implementation of the second part.

Most of us are simple bitcoin holders and just want the issue to be resolved.

Most of us do not want the Chinese miners to take over the bitcoin code and trust Core to manage upgrades far more then we trust other groups that do not prioritize decentralization.

For those of us who have educated ourselves on the issue it is clear that a 2MB hardfork is not needed as some kind of emergency solution but it is equally clear that it is needed to maintain overall good will in the community especially the mining community.

Since everyone seems to agree that a blocksize increase will eventually be required as bitcoin grows and most people including core developers feel that the dangers of a single one time increase are manageable I am of the strong opinion that a 2MB hardfork rolled out and deployed by Core using their usual slow and complete vetting process would be far less damaging than telling the miners to go take a hike after SegWit is activated.

Yeah, but what code is going to be run?

Will it be the segwit tested code or some inferior variation?

Yep, enjoyed that.

It also highlights why Bitcoin is so important. Imagine if the jews had bitcoin during WWII.

Jews!

Ok then let me post this and I expect some of you to call me an idiot here but here goes.

I have paper wallets and my plan to get BCH is this...

1. Create new paper wallets and using bitcoin core wallet as a middle man I'll  transfer stash to new paper wallets.

2. Use a BCH software wallet and insert my old private keys (that are now empty)
(Which BCH wallet do I use? Is there more than one?)

3. When I want to trade them, send them to Kraken.

What am I missing?



Edit. Morning JJG!

I use Bitcoin Classic as a wallet (on a separate computer) It took ages to sync the blockchain though, days in fact.  

Probably gonna see a dip to 3.5k-3.7k

Bob was probably wise to wait to get verified. For the first time I have real money sitting on Poloniex, just waiting for them to go bust. I don't even think the daily limit is real. I was able to withdraw about $800 24 hours ago.

One thing would be to get more BTC with your BCH, another would be to sell part of the BCH into dollars, and another (that you are assuming) is that they are selling more than the BCH dollar amount, which is a bit larger of an assumption....

Advice on electrum please.

 Is this a good wallet to use to be middle man when creating a new paper wallet?

I.e. Moving coins from one paper wallet to a new one.

The difficulty has already went up for BCH, hours ago. Surprisingly, the average block time has only been about 15 minutes since then. They may be able to go this entire 2016 blocks without the emergency difficulty adjustment kicking in.

Gay frogs; the science - Atrazine induces complete feminization and chemical castration in male African clawed frogs (Xenopus laevis)

Interesting read. I can't help but be reminded of Base Commander Jack D. Ripper in Dr. Strangelove.

By measuring Pb isotope compositions of sediments from the Tiber River and the Trajanic Harbor, the present work shows that “tap water” from ancient Rome had 100 times more lead than local spring waters.

Because they are the enemy. Literally. They own the banks, which run on principles contrary to bitcoin. The media, which corrupts our culture. The politicians who make the laws. No culture has ever benefited from letting jews live among them, which is why they keep getting kicked out of their host cultures. Hundreds and hundreds of times.

There is only one single category of humans (?) more despicable than the joos, and that's the shabbos goym.
I feel shame for you.

You are just wrong. There is really nothing else to say.

Would you like to address my points? Prove me wrong if you can. Or not, as you please.

Because they are the enemy. Literally. They own the banks, which run on principles contrary to bitcoin. The media, which corrupts our culture. The politicians who make the laws. No culture has ever benefited from letting jews live among them, which is why they keep getting kicked out of their host cultures. Hundreds and hundreds of times.

Religion and Progress

The greatest obstacle to human progress is not a technological hurdle but the evil inherent in ourselves. Humans have knowledge of good and evil and with this knowledge we often choose evil.

Collectivism exists because it employs aggregated force to limit evil especially the forms of evil linked to physical violence. Collectivism is expensive and inefficient but these inefficiencies are less than the cost of unrestrained individualism. Collectivism aggregates capital for the common good and we are far from outgrowing our need for this.

1.   Prehistory required the aggregation of human capital in the form of young warriors willing to fight to protect the tribe.
2.   The Agricultural Age required physical capital in the form of land ownership and a State to protect the land.
3.   The Industrial Age required the aggregation of monetary capital to fund large fixed capital investments and factories.

A farmer in the agricultural age could achieve some protection from theft and violence by arming himself. He could protect himself against a small hostile groups by forming defensive pacts with neighboring farmers. To defend against large scale organized violence, however, requires an army and thus a state.

In 1651 Thomas Hobbes argued for the merits of centralized monarchy. He believed that only absolute monarchy was capable of suppressing the evils of an unrestrained humanity. He described in graphic wording the consequences of a world without monarchy a condition he called the state of nature.


There may well have been a time in human history when the absolute monarchy of Hobbes was the best available government but Hobbes was writing at the end of that era. England had been transformed from a nation almost completely conquered by the Odin worshiping Great Heathen Army of 865 to a country that protected the legal rights of nobles in the Magna Carta of 1215 to a devoutly Christian nation that formalized the rights of judicial review for common citizens in the 1679 Habeas Corpus act. Hobbes had failed to appreciate the growth of moral capital that allowed for superior forms of government with increased freedom.

Our forefathers understood that it is morality and virtue that allows for freedom a lesson many today have forgotten.


In human interactions we often face a choice between cooperation (reaching a mutually beneficial exchange) and defection (advancement of ourselves to the detriment of our fellow man). The nation state, police, and laws suppress physical violence but do nothing to maintain the morality and virtue that sustain freedom. Collectivism limits some avenues of defection while opening entire new possibilities. New opportunities for defection arise along the entire economic spectrum. Everything from special interest lobbying, to disability scammers, and on a larger scale our entire fiat monetary system are essentially forms of defection allowing the few to profit at the expense of the many. Nation state collectivism has allowed for the creation of great civilizations and yet is entirely unsustainable in its current form.


The perishing of Western civilization, however, does not mean fragmentation and collapse. Indeed in this instance the opposite appears to be true and collapse looks set to drive us via economic fundamentals and debt into a single world government paradigm for reasons discussed at length elsewhere.

The evolution of the social contract is a progressive climb to higher potential energy systems with increased degrees of freedom. The state of nature begat tribalism. Tribalism grew into despotism. Despotism advanced into monarchy. Monarchies were replaced by republics. It is likely that in the near future republics will be consumed by world government, and perhaps someday world government will evolve into decentralized government.

Each iteration has a common theme for each advance increases the number of individuals able to engage in cooperative activity while lowering the number of individuals able to defect. Each iteration increases the sustainable degrees of freedom the system can support. Moral capital is the foundation that allows this progress to occur. For this reason ethical monotheism is the single greatest contributor to human progress from any source since human culture emerged from the stone ages.


The utopia of limited to no government would only be possible for a population constantly striving at all times to be moral. Such a utopia would require all individuals to always act cooperatively, honesty, and transparently. We lack the required moral fiber for anything like this to work at our current juncture in history.

See: Freedom and God for more.

It's noble to at least try.  You are not the only one sickened at the rampant right wing, Neo-Nazi, antisemitic bile on here.

I have tried to stand against it, but they won't change. I realise you feel the need to point out this view is plain sickening, nonsensical and historically false.  However, these people live in a bubble of ignorance where the holocaust didn't happen and Hitler 'wasn't all bad' and no one where they live has challenged their twisted views of reality.

I have seen r0ach willing on the 'Second holocaust' on here and no one spoke up, bar me. Shocking it is and so speaking up is right.  America is fucked if this is this is a level of debate that is even tolerated, but I guess you realised that, if you have spotted the irony of a nation of immigrants being so intractably racist. Voting for a leader who is a essentially a white supremacist withe temperament of a thin-skinned five year old proves it.

I am sure this may make me persona non grata here, but if they can say what the hell they like - no matter how evil or pro-genocidal - then others are free to say just how much they disagree and indeed hold their views in contempt.

Junk science leads to more Junk Science leads to death.

The clearest example of Junk Science turning deadly is Trofim Lysenko.

Lysenko was Stalin’s director of the Soviet Union’s Lenin All-Union Academy of Agricultural Sciences. He rejected Mendel’s theory of genetics. He also rejected Darwin’s theory of natural selection, not on the grounds of being unsupported by evidence, but instead on the grounds of being “being foreign, impractical, idealistic and a product of “bourgeois capitalism.”

He proposed instead that evolution was based on cooperation and group struggle rather than the “bourgeois” notion of competition between individuals.

He held to Larmarckian that organisms evolved through the acquisition of traits that they needed and used (as when a giraffe, by stretching its neck to get leaves, actually made its neck lengthen and that this longer neck was then somehow passed on to offspring).

On this basis Lysenko boasted of being able to turn wheat into rye in a few years, to turn spring wheat into summer wheat and to be able to use the principles of material dialectic to get organisms to cooperate rather than compete.

Scientists who disagreed or showed insufficient enthusiasm were sent to jail, gulag, or firing squad.

The net result was that Russia, which had been a wheat exporter, went heavily into debt buying wheat from the United States, and went into a famine.

Millions died.

The race science of the National Socialist German Worker’s Party is the most notorious example of Darwinism run amok.

The idea here is that Darwinian competition between breeds of man produces an invariable conflict no peace can solve; that, indeed, such a peace is not desirable, as it will lead to a degeneration of the breeding stock; and that the competition has brought out higher and lower forms of human life, that is, Untermensch and Übermensch the slave races and the master race.

The theory from this concludes that one’s political loyalties and general worthiness as a human being spring from one’s genetic code, not from one’s political beliefs. Your skin color is your uniform. The fact that Cassius Clay (Negro) and Cat Stephens (Caucasian) are both Mohammedans, whereas Saint Kateri Tekakwitha (American Indian), Saint Paul (Jew), Saint Justin Martyr (Greek) and Saint Augustine of Hippo (North African) are all Catholic is a fact this theory cannot explain and cannot brush aside. Apparently the fact that one’s values, virtues, and habits of thought come from one’s genes is taken as a given, and the fact that these things come from one’s religion, or the religious background of one’s upbringing even if one is an atheist, is ignored without being addressed.

Race science is a crass attempt to solve the paradox of nature versus nurture merely by denying that upbringing and education have any effect on the human animal, that free will plays no part in one’s personality and loyalty. Race science merely decrees nature the sole sovereign of destiny.

That led to the extermination not only of appalling and astronomical numbers of Jews and Gypsies, but also of Catholics. Apparently genetics is passed through the Eucharist, according to the wonder science of the Left.

An aside: Those who believe that the Nazis were creatures of the Right rather than the Left are using a deliberately misleading classification. Leftists regard all who oppose Communism as one party, whether they be monarchists, republicans, libertarians, anarchists or totalitarians.  Since the National Socialists of Germany, the Fascists of Italy, and the International Socialists of Russia and China use identical means (propaganda and violence) to pursue identical goals (collectivist secular totalitarianism) and differ only in their uniforms and buzzwords, I suggest the debate about classification is fraudulent.

To be sure, whether one is a race collectivist who seeks the extermination of all lesser races by the master race, or one is a class collectivist who seeks the liquidation of all bourgeoisie and aristocratic classes by the proletarian class, may seem like a big difference to the twin brothers during their murderous struggles with each other. I am sure that a male rhino can tell the difference between a pretty female rhino and a plain one as well.

To the Christian, who believes that God gave the right of life, liberty and property, with the concurrent rights of freedom of conscience and the right to self-defense, to individuals first and foremost, I only care that I have a large bore rifle handy to shoot the rhino as it rampages, pretty or plain.

So it is with the various forms of Leftism. You may debate the Linnaean classifications of the various forms of political insanity involved if you wish. Which side is the Devil’s party is not under debate: merely count the number of piles of innocent dead bodies in mass graves, or cooked in furnaces, or unburied. You may use units of ten thousand per pile for ease of calculation. End of aside.

In America, the most persistent scientific fraud, working far more damage even than the many eco-hoaxes and enviro-scares of the modern Marxist attack on the West, is the Kinsey Report on human sexuality, which was used as the intellectual justification for the disaster known as the Sexual Revolution. Kinsey published two books: Sexual Behavior in the Human Male (1948) and Sexual Behavior in the Human Female (1953). He met all criticism of his methods and findings by pretending that the objections were moral and ethical, hence were mere superstition and prejudice, whereas he was engaging in honest science. The findings were clear. The debate was over.

However, the findings were absurd on their face, claiming that seven out of ten men had slept with prostitutes, that half of all married men were adulterers, four out of ten males were homosexual, and one out of ten exclusively homosexual, and on and on. Of course, it was soon shown that his sample relied disproportionately on prison inmates, including those jailed for sex offenses, college students, and members of homosexual clubs and associations. The whole thing was Junk Science from start to finish, the Kinsey’s so-called research institute was just a swinger’s club where the ‘researchers’ staged orgies and swapped wives.

The junk science was again deadly, for the Sexual Revolution ushered in the abortion cult, which has consumed more innocent blood than ever the Aztecs spilled across the stepped pyramids of Mexico.

The junk science of environmental scaremongering has its death toll as well, when deaths from diseases carried by insects that could be easily and harmlessly killed by DDT continue to mount, when deaths from the poor freezing to death in Northern Europe, allegedly in civilized nations, when energy costs have been driven up by a jihad against coal and petrol. And, of course, the coal miners who die because atomic energy plants are never more erected in America are all preventable deaths due to environmental alarmism. Likewise the automobile injuries and deaths produced by the government mandating the creation of unsafe, lightweight cars to achieve unrealistic and artificial mileage-per-gallon standards.

There are pools, lakes, and oceans of innocent blood on the hands of all these ignoramuses and willfully ignorant cultists who worship science rather than understand science. The question is why we have for so long tolerated this deadly self-imposed blindness, insanity and hysteria?

I see nothing objectionable there, at least nothing worth making an argument of. But if we are looking at core issues, then we are looking at the cultural cycle which is driven by the amygdala.

When cultures rise they are majority K and largely homogeneous. This is necessary for them to rise in the first place, as a homogeneous population is a high trust population, which is required in order for a culture to operate under the rule of law and philosophical principles.

But cultures eventually peak. They defeat all their enemies and expand their borders as far as they will go, people become wealthy and decadent and intellectual and the next generation is weaker than the previous. After the peak comes the decline.

A culture in decline is majority r, as is the case now. One common trait of declining cultures is multiculturalism. The old values are not enforced, which enables foreigners to take over.

Jews, having no country of their own, have to live in a host culture. And only declining cultures allow that. This is why they actively work to undermine their society. They can only exist in a declining culture which will inevitably destroy itself, at which point the jews move on to another host culture. They are not the direct cause, but they do further the speed and severity of the decline and makes it harder to turn things around (which, as far as I know, has never successfully been done - I only know of a single example where the decline never set in, due to some very specific circumstances which can not be replicated today).

They are parasites, in the literal sense, and no culture has ever benefited from hosting them. If you or anyone else has an example to the contrary, I would like to hear it.

monotheism is possibly the biggest problem we have, because there are several, and other reasons. But since you must be a jew, let me fuck you off once again.

Indeed. I reached the stage where I expect to bring most of my coins to hell with me,

Yeah, religion is super important. Nietzsche predicted that replacing religion with secularism would lead to pretty much what happened a century later. But religion requires ignorance, and we simply know too much now. Not gonna come back in our time.

And this probably also has to do with the cultural cycle. A rising culture is a united one, and nothing unites people like religion. r's, on the other hand, are individualistic and so have less need for religion.

And yes, it is true that jews helped invent some stuff. But the advanced technology we have today is also one of the factors in our decline. It makes life easy, and it is an easy and safe life that turns people into r's. And I question the overall benefit of the nuclear bomb.

Really? I don't think that they accept any new entry if your mother is not jew, even if you hack your dick. I thought about this move myself in order to gain a second passport, but it seems that only russian mafiamen are allowed in.

Don't worry, this is the general purpose thread where anything happens. But if you manage to become a jew please let us know how.
KThx

Guys, I converted to Judaism today. After the ceremony, I was handed a kilo of gold, paid for by the blood and sweat of the goyim. Immediately after, I received my job offer from Goldman Sachs, and I was handed an invitation to the Bilderbergs.

But none of this has anything to do with the reason I converted. I did it for the jokes!

It is. Knowledge defies faith, which is why god went poof in a cloud of logic.

Just skimmed that link and not gonna bother with it, except for this little tidbit: "Our model explains things such as why stars look fair and beautiful to our eyes when it serves no credible Darwinian purpose to do so."

Yes it does. Stars are not dangerous to us so there was never a reason to develop a negative reaction to them, and we like sparkly things. Probably because water is easier to find when it reflects light, water being required to survive. And of course we use them to navigate, probably since millions of years ago. Stars benefit our survival.

That seems trivial to me, which is why I will assume the rest is as well.

Moderator Image

I recognized this as well. You don't want to name a name. well then I will do. The first one was that Crypt0s guy who suddenly starts to pushing Bcash. But not just that, he also started bashing Bitcoin and reading out comments about Blockstream etc. which can easily be put into conspiracy land!! Even his followers were surprised he is doing this, as he generally claims to represent objective news.
To me it's obvious these guys were offered some nice amount of money to push certain coins, as they show some never seen before behaviour, a complete 180°. I mean we've seen pushing and pumping altcoins before, that's not new. But this dramatic change by some Youtubers is sooo obvious!

Even if it is 'friendly' it's still not helpful.

And it also has the magic three letters of I C & O

http://btcgpu.org/

...I wonder how market will react at $4800

9 BTC ? What a poor.

Who sold at the bottom?

Most people are already all in - In terms of the maximum exposure they would like to take towards Bitcoin. But if it goes below $3000 again, I am sure they will tweak their asset allocation given the good opportunity they see.

Bought @ 4200  

Yeaaah. Sure. We're all here for the ethics right.

 

$3500 would be nice to be able to buy back in  

There's a big, smart short with pockets deeper than a whale puss that's gonna wreck any futile attempts at recovery.

It's just the way it is. Don't shoot the messenger.

What does the weekend even do to keep people from "getting fiat onto an exchange"? I've never understood this. Any wire will have to be sent days in advance anyway.

I know this may be crazy to conceive but have you possibly thought that there are people who both own a lot of BTC and a lot of fiat? I know, crazy right? Who'd think that the two would be in any way correlated.

yes, but you can short BTC with leverage, even high, almost naked. And if you have deep pockets or a money printer you can short forever. But I guess that now the lizards are undecided between milking and killing crypto.

There's a big, smart short with pockets deeper than a whale puss that's gonna wreck any futile attempts at recovery.

It's just the way it is. Don't shoot the messenger.

Now, Coinbase has surpassed 10 million registered users. In the last three weeks of August, the bitcoin exchange added an astonishing 800,000 users.

Bitcoin Cash was a sophisticated, well-funded attack. These hobos couldn't even shell out for an english translation.

How the fuck are RogerBucks up 15% over the last 24 hours.

Lunacy !

Why assume it's a couple of sinister puppeteers when it's just as much your bog standard alt pumpers?

Thirdly, Jihan has (at least to my knowledge) no direct involvement in any of the code implementations for node/wallets that run the Bitcoin Cash chain. How is he going to make any changes that would be enforceable on the community? The very idea is absurd.

Bitcoin Cash is the realization of the “User Activated Hard Fork” (UAHF) that was first announced as Bitmain’s contingency plan ...

A lot of people contacted us and wanted to launch Bitcoin Cash.

“Random” people? Or also companies, miners or perhaps well-known individuals in the space?"

All of the above. But I do not wish to mention anyone specifically. Some, like ViaBTC and OKCoin have gone public. If others want to do that too, they'll have to do it themselves.

So I'm still looking for some explanation as to how Jihan might be able to enforce his nefarious goals upon the populace.

GMO plans to develop its own mining chips, claiming they will operate at an unprecedented degree of efficiency. If GMO successfully introduces the chips, it would trigger an arms race within the bitcoin mining industry. The proposed chips will use 7 nanometer nodes, which would be four times more energy efficient than the current industry standard 16 nm nodes.

That's according to an onion site, whose authors insist that if Equifax forks over 600 Bitcoin — approximately $2.66 million at the time of this writing — then they'll delete all the stolen data. Oh, and Equifax better decide quickly, because if the ransom isn't paid, the self-identified hackers say they'll dump all the data on September 15th.  

Well, almost all of the data. The supposed hackers wrote that they won't publicly post credit card numbers—suggesting an intention to get some illicit use out of those.

"We are two people trying to solve our lives and those of our families," the site explains. "We did not expect to get as much information as we did, nor do we want to affect any citizen. But we need to monetize the information as soon as possible."

I don't know Why but i Just want to make same ATH guess like last time
Rules ....: the one  with the right date of ATH gets .25 btc paid directly  (UTC time)    (closest to ATH.....)
I look to Every page in here from now When a date is picked first iT cannot been taken again ( 1st =1st)
Another .25 btc is rewarded for ho makes best of technical analyse of the time When we strike ATH.... and Why iT happens at that time.....

https://twitter.com/btcdrak/status/908998917995552776

This is annoying even if unverified.  Now supposedly the Great Firewall of China is supposed to block all foreign BTC exchange.
For those who can read Chinese and something not discussed in that thread, there is a note inside that document about how
to use Layer 1 firewall to stop Bitcoin client updating the blockchain, prevent synchronization, and miner contributing to the
distributed ledger.  

I am not a technical person, but can Blockstream type satellite/lnb setup be blocked by the Great Firewall?  Though supposedly
Blockstream only beam the block headers, would it be useful for mining pool to use it to sync and broadcast to the network?
It would be really bizarre (not to mention karma) if Antpool had to work with Blockstream to bypass Great Firewall of China.  

Look at this : China lose less ! GAP decrease ...

I’m in 🤪

Let us hope these forums, and both of us, are around in 30 years, then.

Nope. Fuck off.

All that exists in reality is natural selection and evolution....

To clarify, now that I'm less tired and (slightly) less drunk. Some of what he says is legit enough, but the difference is even more basic than that. Lefties are losers. They want to rely on the state for all their needs, while righties prefer freedom and open competition, even if they lose in the end.

And apologies for the fuck off. That was not entirely called for.

Open competition is great for the 1% that are already rich.

very quick short list  for a small "game list" or how i have to call it..... only  when breaking 12288 dollar price.....  almost same rules as the list before just a winning date AND
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              .15 BTC for correct date
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              only accounts with minimum 5 Merit and 20 activity (last time to many new pop't up  )
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              LIST CLOSES tuesday 12 CET allways CET time  no execptions
just for quick enjoyment

normal tommorrow i look @the dates.... firts one posted has the choosen date , some one with the same date have too take another one so look out a bit....
DATES sended in PERSONAL MESSAGE will    NOT count

let us break back 5-digits

07/03/2018 CoinCube 

I see most everyone here is bearish.

So I need to ask, how many of you have basically hodl from the ATH till now.

I will start: I have basically hodl all the time and the little in comparison that I was selling I used to rebuy in the way down. Not a single $ withdraw back to my bank account, not now, neither in 2013/14. Of course I could easily withdraw the total I invested right now if I wanted to, obviously I am not underwater at all, but that's not the question.

I would like to get a better picture of what the average situation is in that regards.

Thanks for the detailed reply. Yeah, what you say is perfectly reasonable among the possible scenarios.

Also it seems, that even if you sold some substantial part of your stash on the way up, you mostly didn't take advantage of the opportunity of $10K+ to $19K... as I suspect is the case of most here.

Divorce is the leading cause of suicide for men and the divorce rate is well north of 50%. No fucking way.

Then there is all the ridiculous stuff. Nevermind the pandemic of false rape charges, a woman is suing a man for "stretching her vagine with his unusually large dick so it has become loose". This shit is only going to get worse, and so will the divorce laws, which is also to say, the divorce incentives.

No. Just no. There is no way to credibly reduce the risk to something even approaching acceptable levels.

It's all about incentives. Women, especially the women we have today, don't actually have the ability to love like they did a few generations ago. It's all about immediate incentives, little things like taking half of everything you own plus future income plus money for the children that can be spent in whatever way she wants. It's the entire system that's fucked.

Prenups are worthless, and you can't trust numbers like that. But even if this particular number is true, you still need to ask the question "compared to what?". The odds of a fresh marriage today surviving for ten years, in the form of an intact marriage, is about 3%. So with your religious reduction, that still leaves us over the 50% mark. You have better odds betting everything you own at the casino. Literally. And I use literally in the correct way here.

Let me just make something clear, for the record. I am not against marriage in principle. If we were still religious and it was a purely cultural function, it would be fine. It used to tie people together. But as it exists today it is a legal contract with the state, and it incentivizes women to divorce.

I am also not against family. Because I have one. It's a very necessary thing. But the laws in the west today, and the US especially, are such that it is a suicidally stupid thing to do.

You are defending something indefensible. It has to work for the majority, or the system is broken.

While this whatever the fuck Israeli or Arab semite girl tends to have more rodent-like, animal features, but with lighter skin:

In Germany, Jews were labelled Untermenschen (subhumans) and were likened to vermin, maggots and disease-transmitting parasites. Half a century later in Rwanda, Hutu génocidaires referred to their Tutsi quarry as cockroaches and snakes. This year, the Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu characterised the Palestinian killers of three abducted Jewish teenagers as predatory beasts (an epithet that he did not apply to the Jewish extremists who burned a Palestinian boy alive in retribution). ‘They were kidnapped and murdered in cold blood by animals,’ he said. ‘Hamas is responsible and Hamas will pay.’

What is the common element in all these stories? It is, of course, the phenomenon of dehumanisation. But this is neither recent nor peculiar to Western civilisation. We find it in the writings from the ancient civilisations of Egypt, Mesopotamia, Greece and China, and in indigenous cultures all over the planet. At all these times and in all these places, it has promoted violence and oppression. And so it would seem to be a matter of considerable urgency to understand exactly what goes on when people dehumanise one another. Yet we still know remarkably little about it.
...
We dehumanise other people when we conceive of them as subhuman creatures. Dehumanisers do not think of their victims as subhuman in some merely metaphorical or analogical sense. They think of them as actually subhuman.
...
This pattern of thinking has been reproduced with spine-chilling fidelity across time and space, and from one historical epoch to the next

I think I have "capitulated".

No, I haven't sold. Any. There's no point for me to do that... not at this price, not at any price. But I am slowly losing hope I will see Bitcoin recovering its previous heights. It's more like I have accepted to ride this thing to hell.

Normally I would consider that feeling to be a great contrarian indicator... so bullish. But when I say I am losing hope I really mean it this time. (I) Never before felt like this.

I am struggling to post this or not. But it wouldn't be honest not to share my feeling just to avoid the (probably justified) critic/flame.

I wish to be wrong though. Would even wish for a pump right after I press the "Post" button.

I have never sold a single Bitcoin (trading doesn't count) but now I am starting to understand why some people finally "break".

Still struggling to post..... but will do it, just don't be too hard on me and my current negative view... maybe it is really even a good thing if there's more people feeling the same... or maybe not. Whateva.


* THIS IS NOT FINANCIAL ADVISE, IT'S JUST ME SHARING SOME THOUGHT/FEELING.... MOST PROBABLY COMPLETELY WRONG... HOPE SO.

Let's assume that we now live in a world without central banking. I am the first person to create a bank.

People deposit their money with me for safe-keeping because I have state-of-the-art impenetrable security. I now realize that people only use 50% of the funds during peak load.

Meanwhile, businesses ask me for loans so they can eventually turn them into profits.