June 9, 2026

Capitalizations Index – B ∞/21M

Re: Miner cartel, Bankster cartel, or an altcoin? Your choice?

Re: miner cartel, bankster cartel, or an altcoin? Your choice?

Re: Miner cartel, Bankster cartel, or an altcoin? Your choice?

I understand now why MPeX (with the support of the banksters) want very small blocks. That is because they want to control the blockchain, and so as long as they can keep our transactions off the blockchain by making it too expensive for us, then we won’t be able to interfere when they need to change the PoW hash to spank some slave mining cartel that is disobeying their masters (because we won’t control any significant amount of on chain tokens).

MPeX is going to destroy the Chinese mining cartel. Watch.

The plan is to put all of us off chain on LN with centralized hubs controlled by the banksters.

MPeX hates democracy and stupid average people. He doesn’t want us making the decisions on choosing the protocol of the blockchain.

Now it is all very clear to me. This is why he wasn’t afraid to tell the SEC to go fuck themselves. This dude is connected in high places. He probably wasn’t joking when he claimed he ended Hillary Clinton’s presidency bid.

After sleeping and while laying in bed upon awakening, I realized something (which if I am correct is) very important.

Readers you need to pay attention because this is the most important post you are going to read about the entire blocksize debate. This will make it all crystal clear.

When I wrote the above quoted, I didn’t realize the precise reason the bitcoin whales must defend small blocks. It apparently has nothing to do with a desire to force the non-whales to off chain transactions. Rather I have deduced that the requirement could be driven by a very specific technical reason.

So the bitcoin whales want to retain the power to remove any mining cartel that forms, because this is absolutely necessary to prevent a cartel from doing evil things such as increasing the money supply limit beyond 21 million tokens, blocking transactions from certain individuals, and other forms of non-meritorious monkey business.

The bitcoin whales simply want a meritorious money system that can’t be used to sustain the fiat debt nonsense which has turned our world into a fucking mess. This is why Mircea (alias his business MPeX) is against what he abbreviates as “USG.MIT”, which means all the fuckers running the bankrupt fiat system and their brainwashing academic institutions. So actually we are on the same side as the bitcoin whales philosophically.

The bitcoin whales retain this power because they control sufficient liquid and real cash flow generating assets such that they could cause a selloff of the tokens on the mining cartel’s fork, thus their fork would win because investors move to the fork which has more demand. The mining cartel has only illiquid sunk costs assets (the mining infrastructure) and self-referential (i.e. not real) cash flow.

Thus the bitcoin whales only need to change the PoW hash function to render the mining cartel’s ASICs useless. There is absolutely no way for the BU mining cartel to win the war of attrition. It is just economics. Think it out. MPeX and his cohorts own more than 80% of the liquid Bitcoins.

But there is one crucial detail. In order the kill off the mining cartel’s fork, it must be possible to split the tokens so they are separately spendable on the two forks. But if the mining cartel is determined that their fork will always honor the data format of the transactions of the bitcoin whale’s fork, then the only way to accomplish splitting is to spend the tokens first on the fork with the large blocks but send them with such a small transaction fee that they do not make it into any small block. Then after those are confirmed on the large block fork, respend the same tokens on the small block fork with a sufficient transaction fee. The bitcoin whales will make sure the small blocks are always full so that this strategy is available.

So that was an essential insight. The reason bitcoin whales need small blocks, is that is the only technical way they would be able to split tokens to kill off an attack by a determined mining cartel!

So it is not that the bitcoin whales subjectively desire our non-whale transactions to be off chain. They objectively have no choice, because of the technical design of Satoshi’s PoW.

I’ve been wondering why the bitcoin whales didn’t tell us this frankly, so that we would be on their side. I think the reason is it would have hindered the adoption of bitcoin, because it would make it clear there are overlords who are safeguarding bitcoin. It sort of kills the delusion of an autonomous decentralization. However, the small text below posits a solution.

I posit I have a solution to this technical problem which will meet the aims of the bitcoin whales and also keep all transactions on the blockchain. My solution gets rid of PoW. I have not yet publicly published this solution.

Btw, to profit on the upcoming scenario such that you can sell the fake bitcoin asap before its price collapses, you might think that you will need to have your BTC in a wallet (not on an exchange) and then you will need to spend your bitcoin for an altcoin or fiat making sure your transaction fee is small enough that it only goes into a large block. Then later you will need to join together with other bitcoin holders to issue a joint transaction with a high enough transaction fee to make it into a 1MB block. Because the demand will be so high that the transaction fees on 1MB blocks will likely be higher than you can pay alone. So since this is likely to drive demand for altcoins then it might just be easier to buy an altcoin now, except you won’t have a copy of the real bitcoin token and will need to trade to get back into it later. But the problem with this strategy is how do you find and execute a trade of your fake bitcoin with someone willing to give your fiat or an altcoin?

The situation of the exchanges is more complex. The exchanges must split the tokens before they can allow them to trade as split tokens (because exchanges can’t take exchange rate risk of splitting them internally if they aren’t already split on chain of the blockchain forks). So initially what the exchanges will be offering for trade is the joint token which hasn’t been split yet. But that joint token won’t allow you to arbitrage the difference in value of the fake and real forks of the token. So therefor, to trade your altcoin (or fiat) back to the real bitcoin, you will not be able to do this on an exchange when the relative price of the real bitcoin (relative to the fake bitcoin) is low, because you will only be able to trade for the joint value of the fake and real bitcoin. To maximize your gains from this coming split (i.e. trade for the real bitcoin when its price is low), you would need to trade off exchange somehow. Or mine it! The bitcoin whales will be selling their fake bitcoin for fiat for spending on mining the real bitcoin, if they can find anyone to execute a trade with. There really won’t be much incentive for the exchanges to split the tokens because the fake bitcoin will rapidly approach worthlessness.

Thus the fake Bitcoins that the mining cartel mines will be worthless. Nobody will be willing to trade for them because everybody is going to be trying to dump them. Well perhaps some fools who didn’t read my post explaining why large blocks are evil, will be willing to buy the BTU tokens and perish along with the other retards. Maybe Roger Ver will bankrupt himself in the process if isn’t reading my posts. So it won’t be too long before the mining cartel goes bankrupt since their revenue dies. And they won’t be able to come back to the real bitcoin because the PoW hash will have changed. The BU and Chinaman retards are going to be totally destroyed. There is absolutely no way the BU mining cartel can win this fight. Fugetaboutit.

Re: miner cartel, bankster cartel, or an altcoin? Your choice?

(Why?)

Published at Sat, 25 Mar 2017 18:06:10 +0000

[wpr5_ebay kw=”bitcoin” num=”1″ ebcat=”” cid=”5338043562″ lang=”en-US” country=”0″ sort=”bestmatch”]Do not try this at home – leave it to the BBQ professionals!
If you enjoy my photos, you are welcome to #‎donate #‎bitcoin to me at: 1Q2LV3bsxZjRBQoRXAXikpUGPCrNeGSUWc
By antwerpenR on 2013-10-26 15:36:22
Tags

Previous Article

Show new replies to your posts – Behaviour?

Next Article

Live Bitcoin Trading Session +8% in 30 minutes

You might be interested in …

Re: 央行数字货币有望票据市场率先尝试 支持离线支付

Re: 央行数字货币有望票据市场率先尝试 支持离线支付

Re: 央行数字货币有望票据市场率先尝试 支持离线支付 日前,李克强总理在政府工作报告(以下简称“报告”)中,对2016年金融工作作出了全面部署,为全年及今后一段时间的金融体制改革指明了方向。 而就在不久前,中国人民银行(以下简称“人行”)试运行了数字货币,为金融创新这一课题再增加了一个“例证”。人行也是世界上首个发行数字货币并投入真实应用的中央银行。 人民银行数字货币研究所筹备组组长、人行科技司副司长兼数字货币研究所筹备组组长姚前此前就对媒体表示,央行发行法定数字货币的原型方案已完成两轮修订,未来有望在票据市场等相对封闭的应用场景先行先试,但推出暂无明确时间表。 研究始于2014年 据了解,由中国人民银行推动的基于区块链的数字票据交易平台已经测试成功,由人行发行的国家法定数字货币也已经在该平台上试运行,而人行旗下的数字货币研究所也将正式挂牌。 数字货币到底是个什么样的东西?火币网COO朱嘉伟对此解释称,数字货币是区别于实物货币(比如黄金、白银)、纸币和电子货币的一类新型货币的总称,它从发行到流通、记账、清算都数字化。数字货币从发行机制可以分为两类,一类是中心化的数字货币,一类是去中心化的数字货币。前者的代表有我国央行正在研究发行的法定数字货币,后者的代表有比较知名的比特币。 “数字货币本身就是货币,而非一种映射;数字货币的发行会产生真正的新货币,数字货币的流通会是真正的所有权的转移。以国家信用背书发行的数字货币,我们称之为法定数字货币;不以国家信用背书发行的数字货币,一般会称为私人数字货币。”朱嘉伟称。 这就决定了数字货币与微信、支付宝等平台不同,因为这些平台不管如何交易,其背后还是人民币为支撑。 据悉,数字货币的发行很可能会沿袭当前的二元货币发行机制。根据《中国金融》第17期,人行数字货币研究小组发表的文章显示,央行法定数字货币体系包括一个币,两个库,三个中心。其中两个库就是指央行的数字货币发行库、商业银行的数字货币流通库。法定数字货币的发行很可能会沿袭当前的二元货币发行机制。根据数字货币发行总量,央行统一生成数字货币(即生产数字货币基金),存放在央行发行库中;然后再根据商业银行数字货币的需求,将数字货币发送到相应商业银行存放数字货币的数据库,即数字货币从中央发行库到银行流通库。 目前,在数字货币的底层技术中,区块链技术被认为是可选的技术之一,这与比特币的底层技术相同。 中央财经大学法学院教授、金融法研究所所长黄震表示,区块链只是被认为可以作为数字货币的底层技术之一,随着技术发展,未来也许会有更先进的技术。而实际上,底层技术也可能会采用复合结构,比如人工智能、云技术、大数据、物联网等等都融合进去。而电子化、网络化和数字化是必然趋势和正在进行的过程,数字货币的研究正是顺应了这个潮流。 人行科技司司长李伟日前在接受媒体采访时也表示,区块链技术仅是数字货币可选择的实现技术之一,具体还要看区块链的一些不足能否得到解决。 实际上,人行对于数字货币的研究早在2014年就开始了。2014年,人行成立发行法定数字货币的专门研究小组,论证人行发行法定数字货币的可行性。2015年发布了人民银行发行数字货币的系列研究报告,人行发行法定数字货币的原型方案完成两轮修订。2016年1月20日,人行召开的数字货币研讨会上,人行首次对外公开发行数字货币目标。11月,中国人民银行印制科学研究所公开招聘相关专业人员,从事数字货币研究与开发工作。 大额结算优势明显 数字货币进入测试阶段,是否意味着我们马上进入无纸币时代?人行表示,目前尚无发行的具体时间表。 姚前此前就对媒体表示,央行发行法定数字货币的原型方案已完成两轮修订,未来有望在票据市场等相对封闭的应用场景先行先试,但推出暂无明确时间表。 人行副行长范一飞此前同样指出,“中国人口多、体量大,像换一版人民币,小的国家几个月可以完成,中国则需要约十年。因此,法定数字货币的推出也应该本着循序渐进的原则稳步推进,比如可以选择一两个封闭的应用场景(如票据市场等),先行开展推广,观察其使用效果,逐步积累经验,随时改进和完善,待成熟后再推向全国。” 更重要的还在于法律问题。目前,我国有关人民币的法律都是以纸质形态作为依据的,如果数字货币普及,那么先要设定一系列法律。 对此,郑荣尧表示,数字货币目前的目标还是做一些银行间的大额结算、票据业务。“其实还没有具体说要做什么样的数字货币,我想我们普通人对数字货币不会这么快就有感知。” 用数字货币做银行间的大额结算,优势则十分明显。 “采用数字货币替代纸币的话,银行间大额结算和票据业务则可将记账、清算合二为一。记账和清算之间的时间差、信息差容易给金融犯罪分子创造机会,我们也看到过非常多的票据被盗案例,用数字货币则可以大大降低这一风险。” 朱嘉伟称。 据了解,目前,英国、瑞典、澳大利亚、俄罗斯等国都在探讨发展数字货币的计划,希望对数字货币进行规范化的管理,并借由数字货币的发行、流通特点,不断降低支付结算的成本,增强便利性。 根据 IBM 的一项调查,90% 的政府组织计划在 2018 年前对区块链技术在金融交易管理、资产管理、合约管理以及监管合规方面的应用做出投资。 在黄震看来,虽然数字货币作为国家法定货币还有一段距离,但随着数字化技术加速,也许会比预想的快一些,特别是技术支持可控的情况下,数字货币在技术条件和用户习惯初步形成的国家,率先推出是有可能的。 支持离线支付 既然数字货币的作用等同于人民币,那么它自然有买卖的功能。 […]