If someone does not proselytize for their belief, they may as well not exist being a non-factor in the world and all, so you're just doing a segue to nihilism.  It's not like you can pretend anarchy can even exist without practitioners proselytizing in the first place, otherwise fascists will just exterminate you.  Nothing about so called anarchism makes any logical sense whatsoever, being required to be a suicidal nihilist, which is a demographic that doesn't reproduce well either, breeding themselves out of existence by whoever is dumb enough to adopt it.

Just look at the quote:  "Like anything else, nature is the best teacher".  Human life is a story of the individual moseying around, then comes in contact with a collective group who kicks them in the face, forcing the individual into a collective group of their own in order to not go extinct.  Jews practice all these blatantly obvious traits, which is why they're winning, while trying to impose Marxism on everyone else to prevent them from coming together for common interests to compete at all.  They are also heavy into anarchism, except not for their own civilization, only to destabilize others to take them over.

Bitcoin isn't required to be a digital 666 tracking grid to be a trojan horse like you're always saying.  It could just be a designed to collapse system they put up that acts the same way anarchy does to undermine power structures and then collapses, letting someone just walk in and impose some new system on top of it like a federated govt chain since none of these so called decentralized systems actually work.

The point is, Bitcoin isn't supposed to be a system of "no governance"; the Nash equilibrium is supposed to be the governance.  Therefore, an actual functioning Bitcoin would have nothing to do with anarchy because anarchy symbolizes a power vacuum, while a Nash equilibrium is generally the polar opposite.  

If the Nash equilibrium doesn't actually exist, then Bitcoin would be nothing more than something like the anarchist movement in Russia, where useful idiots known as anarchists were used as a tool to destabilize a nation and create a power vacuum, ceding power so that another entity can walk in and take the reins.  I would refer to just about everything that happened in Russia then a Zionist plot, but there's obviously delusional SJWs who refuse to admit more mafias than the Italian mafia exist.

This means Bitcoin with a non-existent or questionable Nash equilibrium is going to be more of a tool of destruction or espionage than anything, just like what we witnessed in Russia and other useful idiot anarchist movements since.

I didn't "abandon" BTC for silver, I simply think it's not a good idea to have every single cent of your wealth in BTC, which I did for years and don't really feel comfortable doing so anymore.  You can't even sleep at night doing that.  I use metals more as a savings account and Bitcoin as a checking account now and sleep like a rock.  

As I said before, there is no logical person on earth who is ever going to claim Bitcoin is lower on Exter's pyramid than metals, so Bitcoin will generally always be the bad money that drives out good money in that regard.  Silver and gold are still asymmetric trades so where you buy it at doesn't make a huge difference.

It's funny because some random commentator who doesn't even know how Bitcoin works described it perfectly on Zerohedge once.  That Bitcoin might give you some gains in the good times, but when you actually need it when things go bad it's going to fail you at the time you need it the most.  Metals are the exact opposite.  When I see people claim you should hold zero metals and only Bitcoin, they honestly belong in an insane asylum.

You're kinda trying to rewrite history here.  You went through a i hate everyone in Monero and hope you die stage and then claim you told people to buy it, so it's more like you posted completely contradictory information on Monero.

Let's not even get into the Bitcoin and metals stuff...


As for current metals situation, I think the best gold miners can put out gold around $900, while the not as good gold producers can put it out at $1200-1250, so it's mostly at cost of production already for the averaged unit.  While silver is also basically at cost of production for a lot of people:

https://srsroccoreport.com/forensic-evidence-why-silver-price-manipulation-will-end/

Unless the price of oil collapses more, which they seem to try and prevent from happening since it triggers further deflationary collapse, it doesn't seem that easy to push down metals much more.  As people have noticed, central bankers haven't let deflationary collapse occur since the great depression, so if it actually did happen, it would entirely be a conscious decision from insiders and have absolutely nothing to do with capital flows

The system is ALWAYS in this same fragile state, where the money required to service the debt is greater than the principal, so it's always sitting on the edge of deflationary collapse by default.  It's NOTHING new.  This is the basis of Keynesianism.  There is no aggregate market and the market just goes whatever way they send it.  Whether it dies by deflation or inflation is all due to a few heebs sitting in a room somewhere.

Someone is now going to respond with, "but Japan was unable to ignite inflation with QE so that can't be right".  Yes, QE does absolutely nothing in the near term for reasons explained in the following video by Richard Koo, but it does create hyperinflation later on:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8YTyJzmiHGk

So QE doesn't work, but things like direct fiscal stimulus on infrastructure does, ala building bridges to nowhere or Chinese ghost cities.  So don't tell me they can't ignite inflation if they want to; they easily can.  Everything is Keynesian and everything is the result of whatever Keynesian decision they make, not capital flows.  Martin Shillstrong knows all this but he just flat out lies and claim we live in a deterministic universe and that the price of metals is not manipulated (LOL).

It's right out in plain sight where they said in internal documents that they have to manipulate the price of metals in order to skirt the zero bound on interest rates.  Hence why you have charts that look like this with metals on sale for even lower than their already manipulated low prices in a giant inverse bubble that's going to eventually skyrocket:

There is not much for them to cover unless it breaks ATH.  "Bitcoin up 10%" is not exactly a big or abnormal happening lol.

Of course there is an endgame, much in the same way everyone on earth demilitarizing would also give you a predictable endgame.  The one party that decides not to is now the ruler of the world.  Bitcoin doesn't appear to have any real Nash equilibrium, so as I said in my post, this acts as a trojan horse to infiltrate nations and create a power vacuum where someone else can just come along and say, "Hey, this doesn't work.  I have a better idea how to run things", and since you have ceded power to a janky, non-functioning computer algorithm, might makes right takes over and they get their will accomplished of a ban on cash and imposed digital only Keynesian currency.

The other problem is that even if Bitcoin did work and have a functioning Nash equilibrium, any anonymous (or pseudoanonymous) digital currency would eventually implode most recognizable known forms of govt in the world.  An inevitable endgame of mostly anarchy in other words.  But anarchy doesn't actually exist, it's just a power vacuum or destabilization scheme where a strongman then comes in and takes over.  When you cede power, somebody else just takes it.

A nice game of, encourage your enemies to adopt Bitcoin first, while whatever nation resists adopting it at all then wins by monopoly of force.

You'd have to define if there is actually any form of Nash equilibrium or not.  To answer this question, I present to you:

Bitcoin as a function of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion

http://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1727889.0

Here is my one-up of Anonymint's Bitcoin "digital kill switch" post.  We're taking this to a whole new level with:

Bitcoin as a function of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1727889.0

It's claimed to be fake, but if you ever bother to read it solely for entertainment value alone, it's clearly up there in terms of literary competency, rivaling things like Machiavelli's The Prince or Art of War.  Why do I say this?  For example:

"12. Our right lies in force. The word "right" is an abstract thought and proved by nothing. The word means no more than: Give me what I want in order that thereby I may have a proof that I am stronger than you.Where does right begin? Where does it end?"

This thing is a hundred years old and claimed to be fake, but this is exactly how the world has played out ever since, with liberalism being used as a weapon to destabilize and take over nations:

"6. Political freedom is an idea but not a fact. This idea one must know how to apply whenever it appears necessary with this bait of an idea to attract the masses of the people to one's party for the purpose of crushing another who is in authority. This task is rendered easier if the opponent has himself been infected with the idea of freedom, SO-CALLED LIBERALISM, and, for the sake of an idea, is willing to yield some of his power. It is precisely here that the triumph of our theory appears; the slackened reins of government are immediately, by the law of life, caught up and gathered together by a new hand, because the blind might of the nation cannot for one single day exist without guidance, and the new authority merely fits into the place of the old already weakened by liberalism."


"14. In any State in which there is a bad organization of authority, an impersonality of laws and of the rulers who have lost their personality amid the flood of rights ever multiplying out of liberalism, I find a new right - to attack by the right of the strong, and to scatter to the winds all existing forces of order and regulation, to reconstruct all institutions and to become the sovereign lord of those who have left to us the rights of their power by laying them down voluntarily in their liberalism."


I think here you can see the dynamic of Bitcoin at play.  A nation cedes it's power to a supposed Nash equilibrium where instead of having a ruler, there's absolutely nobody in charge.  Forget the logistics of what happens if everyone on earth does such an action and concentrate only on the idea of:  does the Nash equilibrium actually exist or not?

If no Nash equilibrium even exists, then you're basically just blowing up your economy on purpose and ceding power to usurpers.  So, you be the judge.  Here is my take on - does any form of Nash equilibrium even exist in the first place?


What is the endgame of all this?  Doesn't seem like there's any Nash equilibrium going on.  The mining side centralizes in a winner take all paradigm as one faction of power, then you have other factions who just kinda say, "we wrote the client so therefore we have a hand in the power structure even though the system wasn't actually designed like that".  Then the users...the users are just a diverse mob with no agreement on anything so they don't even matter.  In the end it's just kind of random chaos...destabilization...

You might be onto something if Bitcoin actually had some type of Nash equilibrium, otherwise it's the same thing as centrally issued fiat.  With the exception that as soon as someone tries to tamper with it or implement something like inflation, instead of getting inflation, half the people reject it and the other half accept it and you get a rough consensus attack like Ethereum and it just dies.

Next we will have Ethereum PoS vs Ethereum PoW vs Ethereum Classic PoW vs Ethereum Classic PoS.  

Not sure how this is considered anti-fragile.  It's only anti-fragile if the coin had a working Nash equilibrium the day it was released and never forked or altered afterwards.  Bitcoin was released as some type of experiment that almost works but not really.  Now people are trying to cover up the fact that it doesn't actually work with the cover story of:  "hey guys, it works and has a Nash equilibrium...it just requires a permanent team of technocrats who will forever be fiddling with levers in an arbitrary manner just like the Keynesians do...but we will pretend that's a Nash equilibrium"

So you have a winner take all paradigm on the mining side, and a permanent technocracy on the client side that operates similar to how politicians work where they advocate needing permanent change to justify their own existence as a change maker.  So you centralize terminally in two directions at the same time with a joint rule of technocrats and Chinese slumlords who rule over everyone else.

I've honestly had it.  Bitcoin could go to $200,000 a coin but it won't be because it works as advertised.  It will either implode, skyrocket then implode, or just be co-opted by government and run as the digital slave system.  I cannot justify being all-in on Bitcoin anymore because it simply does not work, which is why I had to diversify a big chunk and buy the next best option which is silver.  The silver was essentially free since I made 800% on Bitcoin & Monero this year, so whatever.

No, I am not waiting to buy on a certain date because some guy named Armstrong believes we live in a deterministic universe and unicorns came down from the sky to give him a magical computer that cracks the code of life.  All this shit can go belly up in a black swan at any second.  It's like listening to the Heebs that think you can run the Torah through a number cruncher and print out a Nostradamus script.

And the side effect was the free market valued the coins at it's metal content, so the soldiers then demanded a larger amount of 40% coins instead of a smaller amount of 90% coins to afford their daily expenses.  Hence, you are just bringing up the fact that the metals are immune to government manipulation since their actions actually accomplished nothing by tampering with them.  Rome didn't collapse because of sound money, they collapsed from completely unrelated reasons and then tried to tamper with sound money and discovered it was pointless.

You guys are not one-upping me on Rome no matter how much Martin Shillstrong propaganda you pull out.

This is mostly just an appearance thing unless people are clipping the coins, in which case vendors would probably either reject them or turn you in to local lawmen who had punishments for doing things like this like death (lol).  The US government also used to offer a service to turn your bullion into govt coins for free I think.  It's overall not a big deal since the things are still recognizable a thousand years later.  They don't actually require overhead to "exist".

Germans use cash for almost everything and it didn't cause them to revert to the stone age.  There is nothing preventing the cash from being replaced by physical gold and silver (and maybe copper) coins utilized in it's native form.  Assuming cryptocurrency doesn't implode from the winner take all paradigm, it's entirely plausible every form of currency dies except physical gold and silver coins + Bitcoin for digital transations.  

It doesn't really have to be one or the other.  The market will demand some form of physical cash to exist and will demand some type of digital transfer mechanism to exist as well.  Physical BTC bearer bonds that are never actually checked or exposed to the system to determine if they're valid are kind of a dumb idea as a cash replacement and precious metals would probably easily defeat that use case.  

You also have the problem that physical BTC bearer bonds would be fee-free, hence maybe seeing a huge uptick in usage for a limited load system and undermine the security model of Bitcoin itself.  Imagine BTC transactions costing $100 each so people all decide to use physical BTC bearer bonds to skirt this drawback, or even mail or UPS them to each other and bypass the blockchain altogether.  People buy thousands of dollars in metals using the mail, so why not?

The blockchain of metals is two neutron stars colliding to create a permanent immutable ledger of supply for your local closed ecosystem.  It requires no overhead to exist or verify transactions, while also having unlimited TPS, making it obvious in having some use case as currency in all but the most dystopian locked in the matrix systems (which anonymint seems to refer to as progress).

The Satoshi quote of "no free lunch" is kind of erroneous as both fiat and Bitcoin require overhead just to exist at all while gold and silver do not.  This is probably the biggest Satoshi red herring that exists.  Nobody is forcing you to pay to store it in someone else's vault.  You cannot use the word "ideal money" to describe something that requires overhead just to exist when there are alternatives that don't.

Paper is always going to be Keynesian by definition, and even if you could somehow overcome that logic and eliminate the horde of parasitic technocrats, you'd still have to constantly reprint the bills, and using metal coins would eventually just be sending you back to gold and silver anyway.

lol, that's because the entire purpose of the fed is to naked short metals to oblivion in order to try and make their trash currency look more attractive, that and they use force to try and mandate their scam currency as unit of account.  If you wanted to abolish the US dollar, all you would have to do is stop the fed from manipulating metals and the market would organically do it by default.  It basically already is, just in a more slow motion state working through their fractional reserve inverse bubble which will boomarang right back into a giant blow off top.

Market makers are literally BANNED from being market makers in metals.  See the Hunt brothers as an example.  You are legislated against if you even try it.  Asking why the entire world doesn't stampede to metals is like asking why people in a war don't jump out of a trench and run into the front line to grab a dollar bill off the ground, because thousands of people will shoot you if you try it, that and most people are financially illiterate.

If you think Bitcoin can do better in this case of front line adventurers being able to grab the cash and run, that seems very unlikely.  It's much easier for the government to crack down on the internet than to turn every square foot of physical space in the real world into a police state.  Their only real attack vector for metals is fractional reserve, while Bitcoin has that same attack vector plus dozens more on top of it.

The security model of metals is two neutron stars colliding.  Unless you can replicate that or figure out how to economically turn the earth into an open instead of closed ecosystem, you're shit out of luck.  While the security model for cryptocurrency is Anonymint microwaving some hot pockets and typing on a keyboard.

If the Chinese were purposely trying to slam dunk western banks they are far more likely to do it using silver as they likely want revenge from the west's economic warfare in the silver markets in the past:



Russia, India, and just about everyone else on earth would probably also be on-board with this, so silver is kind of a bet of the world against the Zionist occupied US banks.  Some guy's youtube channel covers a lot of this backstory (although he has the strangest voice I've ever seen):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ykTzGPDMH6Y

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ktp3K_FFH9k

My philosophy on crypto is that there's no way possible it resides lower on Exter's pyramid than metals, so in this regard cryptocurrency will always be the bad money that drives out good money.  I know that's not what people want to hear, but fundamentally that is objective reality. 

In this example let's pretend no other cryptocurrency exists except Bitcoin.  People will simply wait for Bitcoin's market cap to top out whether it's from capacity, fees, full saturation, etc, then once they notice it has, all of that money will then run to the exits in a stampede to cash out for gold and silver since it's a superior store of value.  So in this regard, no matter how good you think you can do in creating some type of digital monetary contraption, in the end you will always be operating the equivalent of a pump and dump or elaborate casino arbitrage game.

It's kind of comical actually.  We're just moving the Wall Street casino into a new shell game for people to play musical chairs in, guessing where the top is going to be then everyone scrambles for the seat of actual sound money.

This is the type of stuff you read right before a blow off top involving collapse of financial institutions.