Bitcoin: The Second Biggest Ponzi Scheme in History

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pID03RrmKow]Zhou Tonged - Bitcoin's Here (Drake - Started From The Bottom) - YouTube[/ame]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NG1qooBzE2w]Zhou Tonged - Holding (Billy Joel - The Longest Time) - YouTube[/ame]
 


See, this isn't too bad. It at the least accepts the idea that the coins should have a secondary (or primary) purpose other than being a coin.

The issue is going to be, these can be easily substituted for, is there enough demand for prime numbers to create a secondary market for these coins.

There's a huge demand for prime numbers. They're used in cryptography. See here.

Anyone wanting to safely encrypt their stuff from competitors, their govt and foreign govts would benefit. If I owned a firm specialising in cryptography I'd drop some money on XPM to boost the price just to keep the miners happy and thus incentivize them to continue to find those new primes. And if you are interested in the benefits of encryption in general, dropping a few dollars on it is the equivalent of donating to a good cause (every buyer allows a miner to cash out and pay his electricity bill) regardless of whether PrimeCoin is the "next new thing" as a speculative asset.
 
When quantum computers are available, and it could be less than 5 years, all sorts of today's consumer and commercial grade encryption will be in trouble.

I think the market for encryption is always going to be a moving target. Good old "shut the fuck up" is still the best form of privacy there is.
 
When quantum computers are available, and it could be less than 5 years, all sorts of today's consumer and commercial grade encryption will be in trouble.

I think the market for encryption is always going to be a moving target. Good old "shut the fuck up" is still the best form of privacy there is.

Oh really?

EDIT: ...

And that concludes my thoughts on this subject.
 
Last edited:
When quantum computers are available, and it could be less than 5 years, all sorts of today's consumer and commercial grade encryption will be in trouble.

I think the market for encryption is always going to be a moving target. Good old "shut the fuck up" is still the best form of privacy there is.

True - but you still need encryption to log into bank accounts and so on, unless everyone goes back to a paper system or a cash system.

Re the increasing processing power of computers - yes. That's the real reason there is a need for more primes, aside from an enjoyment of pure maths. The more primes available the more iterations the hacker needs to go through to factorize the public keys into the two private keys. So it's a good cause.
 
So guerilla, I will respond to you in full over the weekend. You're an absurd person. So I'm sure you'll respond absurdly to my post. That said, here are some graphs based on math that actually do have something to do with the price of bitcoin. You see? Bank of America actually did this thing called an analysis. they put 14 pages of good math and technical analysis together to explain what they think the price of BTC ought to be. The beauty of a paper like this is if someone takes issue with it, they can scrutenize the math and the reasoning, or both. The problem with you is that you make a bunch of broad statements that are unverifiable, and are as likely to happen as any Nostradamus prediction. I've seen you say so much stuff that I would assume that like 1% of it will be true, at which time I'm sure you'll point to the one time you were correct as evidence that you have any concept of what you're talking about. And if BTC goes to $0 in 200 years, I suppose you believe that you will be heralded as a genius who saw it coming from the beginning.

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/885843-banks-research-report-on-bitcoin.html
 

these are printed out historical data. math is used in printing and drawing, so you could say they are based on math, but not the way you think.

this is what math looks like:

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1312.1439.pdf

thats a paper from the field i work in. Theres much different math and their papers differ a lot from this one, but to you, theyd all look like the same gibberish.

what you posted is an analyzation of bitcoin covering only socioeconomic aspects. no math has been done. no math has been applied. this comes out of m&a (from an analyst working for that "department"). these are trained in economics, not hard sciences.

im not trying to diss that dossier. it might contain a lot of valuable information. its just not really math or anything related.

the reason you dont hear anything coherent from guerilla anymore is because hes quit giving a fuck about you.


i cant question the math performed on that paper because zero math has been performed. theres no quantifiable hypothesis being formulated. nothing to scrutinize. its just opinion, and for good reason. theyre trying to raise funds, not be correct.
 
How do we quote a quote?

See, this isn't too bad. It at the least accepts the idea that the coins should have a secondary (or primary) purpose other than being a coin.

The issue is going to be, these can be easily substituted for, is there enough demand for prime numbers to create a secondary market for these coins.

The way I see it is that there's a large community of bitcoiners, so alt-coiners can surely hope for a tiny piece of the goodness. So, instead of creating a clone-coin, they make a coin with a secondary purpose such as folding proteins, finding prime numbers, etc. which somehow helps them claim instant superiority over the 70 other clone coins.

Exchanges such as btc-e and even cryptsy have now said that they won't be adding clone coins.

The Curecoin guy recently raised around 15k from donations. He got a lot more offers from donors but he refused to take any more donations. Not bad.
 
these are printed out historical data. math is used in printing and drawing, so you could say they are based on math, but not the way you think.

this is what math looks like:

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1312.1439.pdf

thats a paper from the field i work in. Theres much different math and their papers differ a lot from this one, but to you, theyd all look like the same gibberish.

what you posted is an analyzation of bitcoin covering only socioeconomic aspects. no math has been done. no math has been applied. this comes out of m&a (from an analyst working for that "department"). these are trained in economics, not hard sciences.

im not trying to diss that dossier. it might contain a lot of valuable information. its just not really math or anything related.

the reason you dont hear anything coherent from guerilla anymore is because hes quit giving a fuck about you.


i cant question the math performed on that paper because zero math has been performed. theres no quantifiable hypothesis being formulated. nothing to scrutinize. its just opinion, and for good reason. theyre trying to raise funds, not be correct.
That looks like an alien language to me.

For an arbitrary root α, pick a generator gα of
the root space gα Ď g. Then the family tgαuα is independent, rgαi
, g´αj
s “ 0 for i ‰ j, and
rgα, gβs “ 0 if 0 ‰ α ` β is not a root. Choose a positive root γ of maximal height. Then
rgγ, gαi
s “ rg´γ, g´αi
s “ 0, for all 1 ď i ď r.
If r ą 2, we let Γ be the graph with vertex set V “ t˘α1, . . . , ˘αru and edges tαi
, ´αju for
i ‰ j. Clearly, Γ is connected. Now set ωα “ gα for α P V. Then ω P FpA
.
Γ
,gq is regular and
supppωq “ V, as needed.
If r “ 2 and g ‰ sl2 ˆ sl2, we let V “ t˘α1, ˘α2, ˘γu and declare the edges to be tαi
, ´αju
for i ‰ j and tǫαi
, ǫγu, with ǫ “ ˘1, while if g “ sl2 ˆ sl2, we let V “ t˘α1, ˘α2u and declare
the edges to be tαi
, ´αju for i ‰ j and tǫα1, ǫα2u, with ǫ “ ˘1. In both cases, the resulting
graph Γ is connected, and the desired form ω is constructed as before.
 
Can someone please answer this for me.. I was always under the impression that the whole point of bitcoin is that you can be anonymous while paying for things, but then what's the point if you end up spending them on something like a Virgin flight or a Namecheap domain when you're going to have to create an account with an email address, or give all of your info up so you can book a ticket for a flight?

Also, I could have sworn someone posted about the real benefit of bitcoin being a special transaction model or communication system.. Something like that.

I'd dig for these answers right now myself but I'm mobile.
 
When quantum computers are available, and it could be less than 5 years, all sorts of today's consumer and commercial grade encryption will be in trouble.

I think the market for encryption is always going to be a moving target. Good old "shut the fuck up" is still the best form of privacy there is.

How can someone who believes so strongly in the highly controversial existence and efficacy of quantum computers be so bearish on bitcoin, something that is obvious and currently, visibly happening?
 
How can someone who believes so strongly in the highly controversial existence and efficacy of quantum computers be so bearish on bitcoin, something that is obvious and currently, visibly happening?

because the day these computers spontaneously pop into existence, all your coins are worth 0
 
because the day these computers spontaneously pop into existence, all your coins are worth 0

If those computers start to come into fruition, wouldn't they just change the bitcoin algo to make it harder?

I'm not gonna pretend to be a cryptography expert but common sense would dictate that you could simply create harder-to-crack encryption faster than you could create computers that can crack that encryption. If there were ever a computer that could crack any possible code then the entire world, not just bitcoin users, would be fucked.
 
If those computers start to come into fruition, wouldn't they just change the bitcoin algo to make it harder?

I'm not gonna pretend to be a cryptography expert but common sense would dictate that you could simply create harder-to-crack encryption faster than you could create computers that can crack that encryption. If there were ever a computer that could crack any possible code then the entire world, not just bitcoin users, would be fucked.

encryption is really just "weve got this very large number and it takes this long to factorize". Thats how bits work. Whatever kind of meaning youre trying to assign to them, if you take n bits, youve just got a group (math) that is isomorphic to the finite group with n elements. Breaking encryption means figuring some details about the number out. That might take a while because you can make it really large, but thats it. From a mathematical point of view, encryption isnt really an interesting field.

The proposition of quantum computers guerilla was referring to would nullify encryption because such a device would gain access to a space of higher (possibly infinite) order. Difficult to explain, especially when i dont know how much you know. A quantum computer is to a computer what infinitely many supercomputer are to a first grader.

Even if "better encryption" existed, it would have to be formulated. you get an interval of time during which bitcoin is just not protected at all, which would drive its price down.
 
Can someone please answer this for me.. I was always under the impression that the whole point of bitcoin is that you can be anonymous while paying for things, but then what's the point if you end up spending them on something like a Virgin flight or a Namecheap domain when you're going to have to create an account with an email address, or give all of your info up so you can book a ticket for a flight?

Also, I could have sworn someone posted about the real benefit of bitcoin being a special transaction model or communication system.. Something like that.

I'd dig for these answers right now myself but I'm mobile.

Bitcoin is not anonymous, it's pseudonymous. The blockchain is public, but you are hiding behind a pseudonym, your public address.

The solution is to use multiple addresses (your wallet should be able to generate them), and keep small amounts in each address. If you do it right, they can't be connected (e.g. every time an exchange sends money to your address, they use a different sending address, and each time you request a withdrawal from an exchange, you request it to be sent to different receiving addresses you own.

Then when you buy from namecheap or an airline, pay from one address, and never use it again (request all the change from that address to be sent to a new address, which you then use for something else).

e.g. say you have an address that had 1BTC in it. To pay namecheap, you create a transaction that pays them say 0.01BTC with 0.99BTC change going to another address that you own. You never use the first address again, and you send the coins from the second address to an alt exchange. Play about buying alts and changing back into BTC, and when you withdraw btc, send it to a third new address that you've generated. The exchanges allow you to generate new receiving addresses too, to break any patterns.

If you are careful about not reusing addresses, you'll be fine.