Realistically this won't work well because the PoW hash would need to be written in C or assembly language because the bot could use its own optimized hash that would be an order-of-magnitude or more faster than Javascript or even Java applet.

Thus the delay for the site visitor would need to be orders-of-magnitude greater than for the bot.

Why would you want to make your site visitor wait minutes, when a Captcha can block the bots more effectively and get your visitor verified in only seconds?

Additionally so far all crypto-currencies end up being mined by GPUs and ASICs which the bot might have, which makes the site visitor's CPU even orders-of-magnitude slower.

Assuming you had truly CPU-only altcoin and the browser could be seamlessly optimized to run C code via a Java applet, this might work. I've done some reading on this and it might be feasible, but I believe the visitor is going to have to approve a security warning, which might lead to a high amount of attrition (attrition is precisely what site owners don't want).

I voted "Terrible idea", but I would have preferred to vote "Probably not viable".

CoinCube, Japan might be another good choice as an alternative to Singapore, with a different mix of cultural tradeoffs. Might be a better real estate investment opportunity if it crashes hard in 2016.


Actually that was an ongoing issue in my mind after participating in discussions over a mpettis.com with Michael Pettis the China expert. I even had debates with Suvy wherein I articulated what Armstrong is saying about Japan below.

I actually derived the government as a % of GDP difference between Asia and West myself independently before I read it from Armstrong. He may have gotten that from me, since I was emailing him. But in any case, his chart on China rising to be new financial capital of world aided my coming to a complete understanding.

http://armstrongeconomics.com/2015/03/08/why-japan-is-not-greece-or-eu-for-that-matter/



So exactly as I said, Japan will default on its own people and standard-of-living will crash, but this will be a bottom for Japan and then it will rise with Asia because it can leverage its technical superiority along with the massive youth productivity and low government spending in Asia.

Unlike Europe, which will slide into an abyss that has no escape. The only future for Europe is for the youth to migrate to Asia or wait for the boomers to die off (maybe the pandemic will help with that).

Whereas, the USA is a wounded Godzilla, still strong enough to do severe damage to the world for another 8.6 years from 2015.75. After that, it will be severely depleted, bankrupted as a 50 state republic run top-down (the DEEP STATE albatross around its neck) so it will need to fracture and breakup into competing regions in order to realize its productivity again. But all this strife is going to drag the USA into the toilet bowl from 2024 to 2032.

CoinCube, I would start with his blog archive. His prison writings were incoherent to me at the time. Maybe they would make more sense now. He was at a severe disadvantage of not having access to his resources (including no internet, no computer, no database) and using only a typewriter and a pencil to make drawings and charts.

I realize you are trying to go back further in time to try to gain more specificity with distance from the present, in order to judge his predictive accuracy over time distance. I explain below why that is the wrong paradigm of what is predicted.

Any way, I think you should learn to delegate to experts, so you don't become inefficient. The maximum division-of-labor applies. You could decide to trust my analysis of Armstrong.

I still can't fathom how you could have read his post about banksters leasing space at the WA D.C. Capital building as anything other than sarcasm. He is quite sarcastic in other blog posts, which you will gain a respect for if you read his entire blog archive as I have. Your opinion signifies great disrespect for Armstrong. There is no way you could view someone you respect as making such a claim. There is no way to make such a claim in error. One either believes it could be true, or realizes it is implausible and a joke. So sorry, but for as long as you hold this view, I will see you as a person who does not respect Armstrong. Since I respect immensely what Armstrong has accomplished, the $100 millions he selflessly donated to this cause, and the extreme importance at this juncture of what he has accomplished over 3 decades of effort, I am greatly indebted to the man more so than I am to Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, and Thomas Paine. And surely you don't disrespect the forefathers of our Constitution and principles of liberty. He even for example taught me that China and Asia will rise to be the new financial capitals of the world; and from that concept I was able to gain much more insight on the importance of government as % of GDP and make better planning about where I should emigrate and reside. Thus I am upset (disappointed) with you that you display disproportionate (unfair) levels of gratitude and respect. I had up to this point, seen you as a marvellously fair, generous, and good will driven person. I could understand your apprehensions based on some clear reasons for doubt. But you haven't been able to dig up anything significant. And your opinion this particular joke, stinks really bad, because there is no reason to doubt he was expressing sarcasm. Do you have any reason whatsoever to think so? Does he ever exhibit such sort of careless disrespect for plausible reality? NO! HELL NO! FUCK NO!

The error he made on alleging the shrapnel holes were machine gun fire was one of a few examples where I have seen him jump too quickly to sensationalize a news story to support his thesis of how bad government is. His noble goal (although I disagree with the efficacy of his ideas) is to motivate readers to support a solution which would involve direct democracy and other ideas he has for solutions. But it was an acceptable error, because I even on first sight thought the holes could plausibly be from bullet holes. But further analysis revealed that it was not plausible. So that is quite different than presenting something clearly implausible as plausible, which is the case on your (erroneous) opinion of his Capital building blog post.

I would be the first to bolt from my loyalty and gratitude if I had any inkling of fraud.

But still you are apparently missing the most salient point— there doesn't need to be any articulation from Armstrong of a prediction in the past. His cyclical model turn dates are implicitly predictions.

As for short-term predictions such as where he wrote on his blog in August 2012 that the Dow (DJIA) could double to 24,000 and possibly a phase transition to 35,000 before 2015.75, he was careful to point out (not all in the same post but over the month or so of posts) that this was contingent on whether the Dow did not invert to align with the Private assets side of the ECM. Note the Dow did rise consistently since that August 2012 contrarian prediction and did nearly double.  It the Dow remained aligned with the Public assets, then it would peak 2015.75, but if it inverted to align with private assets such as gold, then it would peak on the half-wave of Pi on 2017.325 which is now the current prediction since the inversion obviously occurred (which he had said he would know with certainty by the close of 2014).

The prediction of the interaction of specific asset classes or specific events with various cyclical models (ECM, War Cycle, 224-year Political change, 51.6-year Public/Private oscillation, etc), is much more complex and conditioned on predicates.

So we can say for example that his War Cycle model predicted an event like 9/11, but it would have been much more difficult to predict in advance that the specific event was 9/11 (the place and people involved and that it was focused on terrorism). Although I want to tell you that since the first basement bombing of 9/11, I was expecting it would be bombed again and the next time it be much more catastrophic. Had I been aware of Armstrong's models in 2000, aware of the Neocon whitepapers on Iraq, and aware that the terrorists were drawing planes hitting the WTC in their prison cells at the MCC as Armstrong was (he was imprisoned there with them), I would have likely pinpointed the WTC as a likely candidate for the War Cycle turn date.

So this is why your judgement of his weather prediction is entirely off base. You are judging it based on unrealistic expectations (you are too obsessed with trying to nail down too specifically the specific minute details of the prediction; whereas the predictions necessarily can't always be exact on certain specifics but close enough and can ALWAYS be exact on timing). The weather did indeed become more abnormal right on time with the cyclical model. Your focus on Armstrong's articulation of what sort of abnormality he expected is entirely irrelevant. The cyclical weather model did not fail.

For example, the pandemic cycle peaks in 2019. This means we will get some kind of pandemic event. What is not clear yet is whether it will be one that kills a significant portion of the global population or if it is more limited in mortality and scope.  Armstrong said he might try to produce a more detailed model on this soon. I hope so.

Armstrong is employing a real-time computer system with 32,000 variables to get more accurate at determining the specifics of events before they occur. Without that additional complexity, all we know is that significant events happen on turn dates, and their significance must be relevant to the model's taxonomy, e.g. Snowden's expose on April 2013 was relevant to the 224-year peak in the Political Change Cycle Model (for the USA).

Armstrong was able to pinpoint Ukraine as the focal point of the 2014 War Cycle turn date well in advance of it beginning.

P.S. You can add numerous predictions he articulated and got correct, for example the 2014 (Dec 31) closing price for oil below $57 which he made back when oil was over $100. There are so many examples. I have not enumerated them all. Sorry I will leave that as homework for those who are interested to save themselves from what is coming.

I trust Armstrong has read our latest discussion here (because I've been emailing him to) and has responded to CoinCube's doubts about financial motivation:

http://armstrongeconomics.com/2015/03/08/sorry-donations-not-accepted-just-spread-the-word/


I understand that "spreading the word" can be very lucrative marketing ploy when selling access to your reports and services. I understand he sells reports and services. I also understand being able to self fund gives him security and independence.

Please note that if Armstrong open sources his models entirely and too soon, then perhaps the powers that be don't need him any more, and they can proceed to kill him. For the time being, they need him because they do indeed call him up for advice (this is a fact!).

My well established understanding is he is trying to time his strategy in terms of protecting the models and maximize what he can accomplish within his remaining lifespan.


I saw only gold and white (with a slight bluish tint on the white in the rightmost photo), but then it suddenly changed to black and blue. Perhaps I have a very flexible mind.

I was able to get myself to see it as gold and white again for brief second then I watched it melt to black and blue like a 1 second animation transition effect. Bizzare!

I don't have any more free time. I hope my posts have helped those who want to be helped.

The preponderance of correlations with Armstrong's turn dates is undeniable proof of their efficacy. To say that the turn dates could match any event cherry picked after the turn date has occurred is illogical, because there are only a few applicable models, infrequent turn dates, and only a few significant events that are elligible.

For example, the 25-year War Cycle turn date correlated to the day with 9/11 false flag operation which was used to get us back into war in Iraq and start the terrorism lie. And the 224-year cycle of political change for the USA turn date correlated to Eric Snowden's expose on the NSA. Those are not arbitrary correlations, they are very unlikely and extremely precise, thus they are predictions (whether Armstrong articulated them in advance is irrelevant to the statistical confidence here; the salient point being the models are doing the predicting not the human Armstrong).

The War Cycle was also employed by Armstrong to publicly predict the Ukraine outcome a year before anyone was even thinking and talking about Ukraine.

CoinCube, congratulations your thread is about to cross the 60,000 reads threshold. I hope you don't fail to benefit from the insight.

CoinCube, to summarize my prior two rebuttals in one sentence:

My confidence comes from the math of statistical confidence of repeatability of cyclical patterns; and the well documented astounding performance of Armstrong's cyclical turn dates from the 1980s to present has convinced me that his computer has verified the necessary statistical confidence for each cyclical pattern it has identified.

Human error is thus entirely irrelevant.

I understand that you doubt the documentation of his record of performance. You've even tried to hint that he might have back edited documents. Based on my intimate, multi-year, deep, daily study of Armstrong, I have come to the conclusion that your doubt is ludicrous and absurd. It is litany of factors which my mind has weighted statistically and determined the odds of Armstrong being a fraud is unlikely. My confidence interval is roughly 95% at this point, as I mentioned upthread yesterday.

P.S. the stress of Armstrong's reality is so bitter for you to swallow, you will naturally attempt denial for as long as you can. This is human nature.

P.S.S. Armstrong's cyclical models not only predicted Eric Snowden's April 2013 revelations, I've read his computer model also predicted 9/11/2001!

http://armstrongeconomics.com/2014/02/15/the-model-the-dogs-or-war/


http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2013/04/top-economic-advisers-forecast-war-and-unrest-2.html

And why even bother posting that since in any case the carrier was some rodent. It is an irrelevant post and noise.

Edit: (I know the reason you think it is relevant, because you are trying to say that fundamental analysis can be wrong, thus we can't predict anything with certainty, But FA being fallible is precisely why I can trust cyclical models which do not incorporate any FA and instead are entirely based in statistical confidence of the repeatability of a cyclical pattern)

The point is that opportunistic mutations and plague spread with higher probability when society abruptly and collectively radically changes its behavior (because this provides a different host environment to which the human immune systems have not adapted and to which new opportunistic pathogens might fit the new modes of transmission).

War and pestilence of economic decline are one such factor.

But the more important point here, is that you doubt anything you can't understand fundamentally. The reason you are grasping at straws trying to judge my and Armstrong's mental state (which is irrelevant to cyclical model analysis!) is because you being a Thinking-Judging Myers-Briggs personality type do not trust anything you can not fully verify from the root of its fundamentals.

Your error is that cyclical models have their fundamentals based in statistical correlation of repeating cycles over long histories. This is not something a human can map in his mind. The computer must test the zillions of possible correlations and narrow it down to those which have reliability repeated for all of recorded history (since Mesopotamia 6000 B.C.).

Cyclical models don't incorporate any fundamental understanding whatsoever, and thus they aren't subject to the human error of confirmation bias and myopic perspective. Cyclical models are only based on testing those patterns of timing that repeat over and over without fail throughout all human history. Armstrong's computer has backtested all the cyclical correlations it found throughout all human history.

Edit: You want to view the problem space from FA, analogously as you wanted to frame Armstrong's weather prediction in terms of hurricanes or some irrelevant aggregate statistic of annual tornadoes for the entire USA, thus you trying to force the analysis into your cherry picked (arbitrary) bias. Whereas, if you broadened your perception, you would see the logic that cyclical analysis doesn't even incorporate any FA and is verified via statistical confidence. You would see that you will make human errors of assumptions that the computer doesn't make when it tests all possible patterns for repeatable statistical confidence, e.g. you wanting to test only the pattern of East coast hurricanes or the aggregate of annual continental tornadoes.

Until you grasp that cyclical models can predict anything that repeats with a cyclical pattern, then you will continue to be lost.

If you deny that pandemics follow a cyclical pattern, then you are saying recorded history is a lie.



Again you are trying to find fundamental reasons that certain phenomena could be cyclical, because you believe on the micro level of analysis that the mutation of viruses is random.

But this is a myopic perspective on your part.

Again refer to my math explanation of why Black Swans are not random.:

The person who was overworked, suffering from lack of concentration due to Chronic Fatigue Syndrome, and too tired was myself when I wrote the above. If you look the comment I wrote later after the one you quoted above, you will see that I realized later that Armstrong didn't make a mistake at all, and in fact he was been sarcastic all along. Also I was mistaken in your quote above; he never removed the link to the New Yorker article. I was rushing and made an error in my vision (I am blind in one eye and I was probably having a "forehead on keyboard" moment of fatigue and inability to keep my eyes open-- it happens to me quite regularly since 2013).

CoinCube, for you to claim that he was not intentionally joking (being sarcastic) just boggles my mind.

If you persist in saying you are comfortable with this ludicrous doubt of Armstrong, I am going to have to part ways with you. You can stay in the USA with your idiotic (juvenile!) hope that the USA can reform and you can ride it down into the abyss just like Ann Frank (her father Otto Frank) did waiting too long to flee Europe until it became too late to flee.

I understand very well your bias, it is so typical the pride of Americans. You don't seem to understand that the DEEP STATE is well documented[1], even Bill Moyers did a documentary on it. And the $trillions in Black Budget for the NSA et al was admitted by Donald Rumsfeld on the eve of 9/11 (and all the records of the investigation were destroyed at the Pentagon the next day), as well as confirmed by numerous other sources. You deny that the Armstrong had all the recordings of evidence against the banksters, which the SEC admitted in writing were destroyed on 9/11 at the WTC collapses.

For Armstrong to publish a chart in the 1990s of the breakup of the USA showing it will peak and decline after April 22, 2013, and for that April 2013 to exactly match the time at which Eric Snowden made the final, irreversible moves to leak the famous revelations on the NSA, is yet another in a litany of exact predictions Armstrong's cyclical models have made.

There is no other event in recent memory other than 9/11 and the Patriot Act which were as significant to the impending decline of the USA (the totalitarianism is how empires always destroy themselves and force the peripheral nations to gang up to defend against the cancer of the empire, e.g. Armstrong often points out how when Athens turned totalitarian, they forced their allies to align with Sparta). And the Snowden whistleblowing leaks were the actual start of the world having hard evidence of the USA being an evil cancer. This was the action that lead to the decline of respect for the USA and its imminent demise.

The error Armstrong made on the shrapnel of the downed commercial airline in Ukraine (stating it might be machine gun fire where analysis clearly proves it can't be) does not any way detract from the objectiveness of his cyclical models and their PROVEN performance, which continues to astound.

It saddens me that you have poor logic skills (well it is not surprising, because that is what makes me an excellent programmer is my extraordinary 100th percentile logic skills). Why can't you grasp that the cyclical models are generated from data and correlation and have no human interpretation involved in their generation. Thus for you to present logic about Armstrong's personality and human flaws is entirely irrelevant.

I don't think you've ever won a logic debate with me yet. The one time you've made very strong logic was in private where you pointed out clearly the reasons why you probably had until at least early 2017 to make an exit from the USA, because of several factors. And I commended you on those insights and immediately saw the astute logic you had employed. I was beginning to gain respect for you.

But this latest from you is extremely subjective and illogical.

It is probabilistically impossible (astronomical odds) for the Armstrong's cyclical models to have been so well correlated to future events, if they were not a valid model of the universe.

In fact, in my own investigations of the fundamental matter of the universe, I also came to the conclusion that the universe is composed of cyclical patterns. And in fact upthread, I explained that friction must give rise to cyclical patterns and without friction we could not exist (if speed-of-light was infinite, past and present would collapse into a single infinitesimal point).

Sorry my friend, you are appearing to be an obstinate dimwit now. It saddens me. I has always feared you would exhibit these inferior intellectual qualities, based on your Introverted-Thinking-Judging Myers-Briggs personality type versus my Extroverted-Feeling-Perception.

Thinking-judgement types have a difficulty visualizing the wider scope of the logic, as you exhibiting yet again recently with your myopia about hurricanes. They become too fixated on judging the person for example, and not able to see the logic of the math and probabilities at hand. Luckily introverted thinking-judgement types don't become dictators, only the extroverted ones apply their totalitarian judging to (in their minds "what is best for") the people.

You should be aware that I was very skeptical of Armstrong for many years. It was only as the record of astoundingly correct and amazing predictions since the 1980s had become clear to me, that I became convinced that cyclical models indeed predict the future with great accuracy.

Differentiate between "hero whor[e]ship" and objective analysis of the probabilities. For you to take a math argument and turn it into a judgement of of my mental state is form of subjective judging and irrational.

CoinCube, by 2019 you will realize what a fool you are. But it will be too late for you by then.

I am done wasting my time here. Carry on fools so you can meet your destiny.

[1]	https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=455141.msg5704180#msg5704180 https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=455141.msg5347903#msg5347903 https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=455141.msg5602429#msg5602429

If would not die for the unprofitability of mining, which was your original logic, because the difficulty would drop until those miners felt it was profitable to continue mining (unless this demand price level fell below 1 Satoshi per BTC). It would only die if trust and usership fell below some critical level, where no one would bother receiving it because they didn't think they could (within a reasonable cost of time and effort) find someone to sell it. IMO the likelihood of that is nil, because there are some reasonably popular nefarious things that you can do with Bitcoin that you can not do any other way. Also the speculative demand will fall to more realistic appraisals of its future value, but that is not 0.

We are in the process of exhaling all the false speculative demand based on selling fanboys on the "its going to the moon, $1 million / BTC fantasies". We will find a solid bottom somewhere at or below $150, but not $10.

Go back to Bitcoin 101 class.

As miners exit, the difficulty drops, so one earns more coins with the same computing power. There is always an equilibrium point above 0 miners.

http://armstrongeconomics.com/2013/12/26/224-collapsing-wave-structure-point-to-breakup-of-usa/


So what happened in April 2013, which is the peak of the USA in its current political structure as a constitutional Republic of 50 States?

Are you ready?      

http://nucleardiner.com/2013/06/12/edward-snowden-timeline/


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Snowden#NSA_contractor


http://3dblogger.typepad.com/wired_state/2013/07/us-russia-and-world-timeline-for-edward-snowden.html


http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/27034-citizenfour-inside-story-of-nsa-leaker-edward-snowden-captured-in-new-film-by-laura-poitras#


http://3dblogger.typepad.com/wired_state/2013/07/idiot-wind.html


http://3dblogger.typepad.com/wired_state/2013/07/us-russia-and-world-timeline-for-edward-snowden.html


http://3dblogger.typepad.com/wired_state/2013/07/jacob-appelbaums-data-trail.html

Yes I expect the West will double-down on totalitarianism until it is so bankrupted that it collapses onto itself by about 2024.


http://armstrongeconomics.com/2013/12/26/224-collapsing-wave-structure-point-to-breakup-of-usa/


http://armstrongeconomics.com/2014/09/11/will-the-usa-also-break-up-into-regions/


http://armstrongeconomics.com/2014/05/01/how-far-in-the-future-does-your-computer-model-project/

My time scale started back when it as $1000 in late 2013 and it has been falling (lower lows) ever since exactly as I predicted.

You are doing fundamental analysis of how you think a pandemic would have to be predicted. But Armstrong isn't using fundamental analysis.



It is apparently a fact that pandemics correlate with a confluence of war and bad economics.

Perhaps this following would be instructive on how war leads to epidemics now you just have to have a pathogen ready to jump to the new mode of transmission brought on by the war and pestilence:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anne_Frank#Deportation_and_death

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bergen-Belsen_concentration_camp#Liberation

I understand they had to maintain a 48 km zone around the camp so they could delouse the lice which were the carriers of the Typhus pathogen.

Rats were the carriers in the Black Death.

Sex is the mode of transmission with HIV.

The next pandemic is likely to be influenza with breathing air as the mode of transmission. The Spanish Flu influenza was brought on by World War 1:

https://virus.stanford.edu/uda/


Note the outbreaks and genetic mutation of influenza in China recently. Notice the USA having troops all over the world.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Influenza_A_virus_subtype_H7N9


Note that influenza vaccines are typically not that effective in the elderly:

http://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2015/02/studies-spain-scotland-support-flu-vaccine-effectiveness


http://www.cbc.ca/news/health/vaccine-development-for-h7n9-flu-problematic-1.1370919


http://www.nih.gov/news/health/oct2014/niaid-07.htm


That study apparently didn't report the differential response in the elderly, and in fact didn't include anyone over 65.

I am expecting the next epidemic to help wipe out the socialism problem with entitled boomers. Eyeballing it roughly half of the boomers will be age 65 or older in 2019.

He slightly edited it for clarity (not to change the meaning) because it wasn't clear to readers that he was linking to a joke. He didn't edit months later, rather it was edited within days. He ABSOLUTELY doesn't go back and edit blog posts after the fact to change what he predicted. He was being sarcastic but some readers (including myself when I didn't read it carefully the first time) misinterpreted as he was saying the joke was actually going to happen.

For you to claim that he was claiming it was actually going to happen just boggles my mind.

I am flabbergast (or perhaps I should just accept that you are really naive about the nature of programmers and hackers). Armstrong is the former manager of $3 trillion in Japanese funds. Come on now. Let's stop assuming he is some fly-by-night dimwit. Seriously!

Please consider to retract your false accusation. IMO your accusation makes you look like a dimwit, not Armstrong. Sorry to ad hominem, but seriously this makes you look bad. You are claiming a person as widely respected as Armstrong is so stupid to claim a joke as being real.

I think you need to understand that Armstrong spends much of his time programming, and programmers occasionally blow off steam with wise cracks, especially ones that fool the weak minded. We actually enjoy puzzles and obfuscation when we are making a joke.

Let me cite a canonical reference:

http://www.catb.org/jargon/html/H/hacker-humor.html


http://www.catb.org/esr/faqs/hacker-howto.html#believe3


http://www.catb.org/esr/faqs/hacker-howto.html#style


http://catb.org/~esr/writings/homesteading/hacker-history/ar01s02.html


http://www.amazon.com/The-New-Hackers-Dictionary-Edition/dp/0262680920

The sovereign debt big bang will begin outside the USA as of 2015.75, i.e. Europe will precede the USA's sovereign debt collapse by a half Pi cycle (roughly 18 months). Thus the German DAX is in its final bubble and will peak and collapse as of 2015.75.


Additional current specific predictions (not mentioning those that come after 2020 such as breakup of the USA, rise of Asia as new global financial capital, and the global monetary RESERVE unit):

1. Rise of the war cycle as of 2014, which should lead to shooting wars by 2017 or 2018. Armstrong has mentioned China and Japan might resort to war to deflect blame for the global crisis from internal politics to external enemies. Armstrong has even speculated that the pandemic might be spread by the marauding troops, as was the case with the Black Death entering Europe when the marauders threw the diseased bodies over the walls in Ukraine. (My interpretation is the pandemic is not likely ebola as it can't spread in the air. A influenza variant is more likely.)

2. Collapse of oil to $30.

3. The collapse of Euro and Pound to below parity to the dollar.

4. Rise of third party in politics and a split of the Republican party, specifically for the 2016 election (but my interpretation is they won't win a majority and the fascism will become more totalitarian to squelch their effectiveness in WA D.C., but separatism and rebellion will rise grass-roots).

5. Greater than 25% USA actual employment, perhaps as high as 50% (2023-24 target for the breakout above 25%). Ditto for Europe and it will come sooner for Europe.

Here are my own interpretations (not Armstrong's words):

From Armstrong's chart, it apears the USA will shoot up to 20% unemployment around 2017 (when the half-cycle of the ECM turns up again), then it will either recover somewhat or rise slowly, and then by 2024 the target line will intersect the breakout line and we should see a phase transistion and (as he has written else where) unemployment could rise as high as 50%.

Thus the worst for the USA economically may be from 2024 to 2032, which may be as the free market has started to win and Asia is rising again as the West falls into State collapse (breakup of the USA, etc). The worst of the State fascism tribulations may be from 2017 to 2024. The State may go into overdrive in 2017 (Hillary Clinton likely elected in 2016) in terms of expropriating wealth and thus may be able to sustain another last gasp at the higher levels of unemployment (as they did with QE but double the unemployment rate) by becoming nearly 100% of the economy. 2017 to 2024 could be a very dark period for humanity. It is the totalitarianism that is going to kill the USA, and it looks like that damage will be done most egregiously from 2017 to 2024, then Asia will have broken free of the noose and the West will spin off into chaos from 2024 to 2032.

Armstrong noted the realization of some unlikely coincidences is a prophesy that the current Pope will preside over a period of Tribulations.

I added some documentation today to a server-side PHP function I wrote in 2010 (as part of the work I am doing to re-launch a website that I launched in late 2010 or early 2011 but had shutdown due to marketing errors, and chaos that entered my life in 2011):


Quoting myself from those linked IETF discussions I participated in the summer of 2010 as follows.


Note the underlined statement is Taleb's anti-fragility point.