I was talking to the GadgetCoin devs on one day only while this was all going on. And I even advised them that CfB's implementation is probably legit. And I sort of leaned them towards not burning their bridges with Iota, even though David (iotatoken) is a hothead for threatening (in a private message) to sue me for simply writing my IANAL opinions/research about the implications of USA securities regulation. And I told them that apparently some people are claiming the ICO/JINN is shady. Nevertheless I am sad to report that my conclusion after investigating is there is no money in IoT (now, maybe a decade from now but the corporations are looking for open source and open solution, not some proprietary token launched from scammy ICO). It is just another buzzword and these coins want to get endorsement from some big corporations, so they can go pump the tokens. I understand altcoinUK's expose on Iota could cause problems for such a marketing model. I tried to see if we could do some collaboration around the Streemo code w.r.t. to my social networking plans. But it just doesn't seem to fit. So I had to just fall away from that discussion. The Gadget coin folks I was exposed to seemed to be ethical as far as I could tell. I am interested in creating software that users use and I get feedback from them daily and they have feature requests for me. That is what I find rewarding. All these strategies for mining investors is so far removed from what I think software development is all about. So I am almost out-of-here. Will finish up and bite my tongue and let go of this place... |
|
|
|
We are coming to a global monetary reset in the period between 2018 to 2020.
Man, countries don't extradict their citizens. It's written in the Constitution of every developed country. You should have started learning the laws from the basics instead of jumping straight to complex cases. You don't seem to understand. I didn't say anything about extradition because I know that Belarus doesn't have an extradition treaty with the USA. My point is the unethical choice results in abject poverty and failure. There is always a more powerful gang member within your own hell hole who will extort you. Americans have succeeded because we believed in law & order and bettering people. Some significant portion of the population has become corrupted (and really embraced Socialism and stealing from each other), but there is still a core that will break free of the corrupted portion of the USA. Trump is indicative that the productive and conservative sector of the USA is beginning to rise up. Unethical systems always devolve into abject failure. |
|
|
|
If you trust a corrupt regime to not sell you to the USA government, then I think you don't understand how rule by criminality works. That is unless you can pay a larger bribe.
We discussed this nonsense several times, not going to waste more time on revealing your delusions. The fact that you consider yourself more knowledgable in legislation of numerous countries than the team of Ethereum lawyers already tells a lot. We are coming to a global monetary reset in the period between 2018 to 2020. The criminality is being allowed to run rampant with the protection of unharmonised international law. The global order will be rapidly harmonised upon this global crisis which was done by the elite to destroy the nation-states and usher in the new world order. This is not a fantasy or something that will happen in the distant future. This will accelerate next year due to the $10 trillion dollar debt the rest of the world must service which will send the US dollar and stock market sky high and send the result of the world collapsing. There will be political support for restructuring the global order and to harmonise legislation to put an end to the rampant criminality wherein the bankers were offshoring their corruption. Ethereum offshored their company and ICO to try to sideskirt ethics. That will never work out for them. Mark my word. Those who are unethical are planting the seeds for their future misery. Thanks for reaffirming my findings from summer 2015, that I will never again try to recruit a programmer from Eastern Europe or Russia. I was so naive. I thought given they are algorithmically clever, they would be an asset and that they would appreciate the opportunity to break free from the chains of Communism. Now I understand that instead they view Communism as a desirable feature to operate within. You can turn over a new leaf perhaps before it is too late. But I don't expect you to. And I want to stop all communication with you. Bye. |
|
|
|
Perhaps one might assume that operating in Belarus and selling illegal unregistered investment securities to non-qualified USA investors would be risk-free. Think again.
If you read it via Google Translate you wouldn't mention the law. Stop judging books by their titles. If you trust a corrupt regime to not sell you to the USA government, then I think you don't understand how rule by criminality works. That is unless you can pay a larger bribe. My point is once someone heads down the path of unethical choices, there is no turning away from criminality. They enter the dark underworld. The criminal mindset doesn't compute this probability correctly. I am speaking in generalities in this paragraph and not making an accusation. In order for Communism to flourish, the population must also support criminality. The Bible speaks about this. Proverbs 1:11-19New International Version (NIV)
11 If they say, “Come along with us;
let’s lie in wait for innocent blood,
let’s ambush some harmless soul;
12 let’s swallow them alive, like the grave,
and whole, like those who go down to the pit;
13 we will get all sorts of valuable things
and fill our houses with plunder;
14 cast lots with us;
we will all share the loot”—
15 my son, do not go along with them,
do not set foot on their paths;
16 for their feet rush into evil,
they are swift to shed blood.
17 How useless to spread a net
where every bird can see it!
18 These men lie in wait for their own blood;
they ambush only themselves!
19 Such are the paths of all who go after ill-gotten gain;
it takes away the life of those who get it.
|
|
|
|
Interesting if common USA citizens a happy with disservice provided by their govt.
You have been living in the totalitarian shit hole of Belarus, put up with the totalitarian regime which kills journalists and human right activists Perhaps one might assume that operating in Belarus and selling illegal unregistered investment securities to non-qualified USA investors would be risk-free. Think again. 12.01.2015
Belarus adopted the law on securities market
On 5 January 2015 the President of the Republic of Belarus signed the Law of the Republic of Belarus “On securities market”. The Law regulates relations concerning emission, circulation and redemption of securities and professional and exchange-trade activity on securities.
The Law was officially published in Russian on the National Legal Internet Portal of the Republic of Belarus on 10 January 2015, and its main provisions enter into force in six months after its official publication.
I think it is highly unethical to operate from behind the Iron Curtain selling investment "scams" to unwary n00bs in the USA. If one limited their ICO token pre-sales to qualified investors (i.e. in the USA that means $1 million liquid net worth and/or a signed statement attesting to their sophiscation), then I wouldn't think the ethics was corrupted. I simply won't associate professionally with anyone doing that. And such people will remain forever stuck in the business of scamming, because of their past, they will never be accepted into the mainstream where ethics and minimum levels of sane law & order are preferred. I made some major mistakes in my 30s. I would hope someone younger than me, who still has a chance to change course might think carefully about what I have written. Then again, culture is deeply engrained and probably not pliant. |
|
|
|
As long as you appear un-threatening, or controllable by means of the overtly structured norms, you can get away with just about anything, if clever, but once you become a threat, you face a trilemma: Get a bigger gun; grow too many necks to cut off; or, go quietly into the dark night.
That's the grown-up world, children.
The bigger gun is not realistic, because the DEEP STATE can access $trillions charged to the collective. Collectively going quietly into the night will be the next Dark Age. Growing too many necks to cut off seems the most realistic, because TPTB (the-powers-that-be) bide their time patiently in this case because they always assume they can subsume any phenomenon due to that fact that economics of profit and capital centralizes into a power-law distribution and the power vacuum of the Iron Law of Political Economics. Do something to benefit the masses in order to force TPTB to switch from full frontal attack to insidious co-option mode. Or remain insignificant enough to be ignored. |
|
|
|
4. the largest music monetization company is MUSE
What the fuck is that? Okay this is Peertracks and apparently the Bitshares asset is MUSE. Peertracks runs on the Bitshares block chain, which means it can't scale[...] The Peertracks Note features is interesting. It might turn audiences in P&D targets though, so I am not sure it is desirable. It is also not clear if these are illegal unregistered securities under SEC law in the USA. I do know that in the case of airplane VIP memberships the Supreme Court ruled they were not subject to the Howey test. I will need to study that more. [...]I just don't think the masses are going to be tuned into Notes as something they are interested in. You are basically trying to turn the serious music fans into speculators. A rule of Marketing 101 is don't assume you can change an Apple into an Orange. You must target a real existing need, not a fantasy. Yeah speculators here will think Notes are cool, but the actual music fans I think will perceive it to be a negative feature and an insult to love of music. You basically corrupt the musicians teaching then to do P&D instead of produce great music. Sigh. C. Expectation of profits "significantly" due to efforts of others.When tokens are created and issued (whether it be an ICO or tokens created+assigned during mining), if they are acquired primarily for investment and not primarily for use (in what ever ways a token can be used other than for holding for appreciation of value), then there is an expectation of profits due to appreciation of value. The fact that no investor is in control of the decentralized collective "common enterprise" qualifies for the "due to efforts of others" clause of this criteria of the Howey test: https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=4524095741732962732&hl=en&as_sdt=6,33&as_vis=1&kqfp=10330650611816444522&kql=132&kqpfp=14710406364156655404#kqinvestment contracts may be found where the investor has duties that are nominal and insignificant or where the investor lacks any real control over the operation of the enterprise
So the only way a crypto-token can potentially avoid qualifying for this criteria is for there to be no expectation of profits, either because the tokens are never obtained for investment or always the primarily consideration is the use value and not the appreciation of value. As documented in my prior post and here in another example, if the primary consideration is the use value, then there is no expectation of value appreciation: http://law.justia.com/cases/oregon/court-of-appeals/1975/535-p-2d-109-2.htmlJet Set is a nonprofit corporation, organized under the laws of Washington in 1970 for the purpose of owning and operating an airplane in order to provide vacation travel for its members. The club scheduled flights to fixed destinations. Members were permitted to reserve space on any flight on a first-come, first-served basis; however, scheduled flights were often canceled if there were insufficient reservations. Members, in addition to membership fees, paid approximately one-half the cost of commercial airline fares for their flights. Flights were limited to particular dates and destinations. Membership also included participation in certain social activities sponsored by the club, including parties, ground accommodation packages and social activities at some destinations. Memberships in Jet Set were transferable.
After Jet Set was incorporated in 1970 "select memberships" were sold for a price of $1,000. The proceeds from the sale of these memberships were placed in escrow until Jet Set secured the use of an airplane. Approximately $70,000 was raised from the sale of these memberships, which were lifetime and nontransferable in nature, and entitled the holder to fly on any Jet Set flight for $20. These memberships were also subject to monthly dues. I find it useful to quote the Indiegogo Terms of Use as follows:Prohibited CampaignsCampaign Owners are not permitted to create a Campaign to raise funds for illegal activities, to cause harm to people or property, or to scam others. If the Campaign is claiming to do the impossible or it's just plain phony, don't post it. Users must comply with all applicable laws and regulations in connection with their Campaigns, including offering Perks and using Contributions. Campaign Owners shall not make any false or misleading statements in connection with their Campaigns. Prohibited PerksCampaign Owners are not permitted to offer or provide any of the following as a Perk: - any form of "security" (as such term is defined in the Securities Act of 1933);
- any form of financial incentive or participation in any profit sharing;
- any alcoholic consumer products (vouchers or memberships offering physical delivery of alcoholic consumer products are permitted);
- any controlled substance or drug paraphernalia;
- any weapons, ammunition and related accessories;
- any form of lottery or gambling;
- any form of air transportation; or
- any items promoting hate, discrimination, personal injury, death, damage, or destruction to property; or any items (a) prohibited by applicable law to possess or distribute, (b) that would violate applicable law if distributed, or (c) that would result in infringement or violation of another person's rights if distributed.
|
|
|
|
4. the largest music monetization company is MUSE
What the fuck is that? Okay this is Peertracks and apparently the Bitshares asset is MUSE. Peertracks runs on the Bitshares block chain, which means it can't scale[...] The Peertracks Note features is interesting. It might turn audiences in P&D targets though, so I am not sure it is desirable. It is also not clear if these are illegal unregistered securities under SEC law in the USA. I do know that in the case of airplane VIP memberships the Supreme Court ruled they were not subject to the Howey test. I will need to study that more. [...]I just don't think the masses are going to be tuned into Notes as something they are interested in. You are basically trying to turn the serious music fans into speculators. A rule of Marketing 101 is don't assume you can change an Apple into an Orange. You must target a real existing need, not a fantasy. Yeah speculators here will think Notes are cool, but the actual music fans I think will perceive it to be a negative feature and an insult to love of music. You basically corrupt the musicians teaching then to do P&D instead of produce great music. Sigh. C. Expectation of profits "significantly" due to efforts of others.When tokens are created and issued (whether it be an ICO or tokens created+assigned during mining), if they are acquired primarily for investment and not primarily for use (in what ever ways a token can be used other than for holding for appreciation of value), then there is an expectation of profits due to appreciation of value. The fact that no investor is in control of the decentralized collective "common enterprise" qualifies for the "due to efforts of others" clause of this criteria of the Howey test: https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=4524095741732962732&hl=en&as_sdt=6,33&as_vis=1&kqfp=10330650611816444522&kql=132&kqpfp=14710406364156655404#kqinvestment contracts may be found where the investor has duties that are nominal and insignificant or where the investor lacks any real control over the operation of the enterprise
So the only way a crypto-token can potentially avoid qualifying for this criteria is for there to be no expectation of profits, either because the tokens are never obtained for investment or always the primarily consideration is the use value and not the appreciation of value. As documented in my prior post and here in another example, if the primary consideration is the use value, then there is no expectation of value appreciation: http://law.justia.com/cases/oregon/court-of-appeals/1975/535-p-2d-109-2.htmlJet Set is a nonprofit corporation, organized under the laws of Washington in 1970 for the purpose of owning and operating an airplane in order to provide vacation travel for its members. The club scheduled flights to fixed destinations. Members were permitted to reserve space on any flight on a first-come, first-served basis; however, scheduled flights were often canceled if there were insufficient reservations. Members, in addition to membership fees, paid approximately one-half the cost of commercial airline fares for their flights. Flights were limited to particular dates and destinations. Membership also included participation in certain social activities sponsored by the club, including parties, ground accommodation packages and social activities at some destinations. Memberships in Jet Set were transferable.
After Jet Set was incorporated in 1970 "select memberships" were sold for a price of $1,000. The proceeds from the sale of these memberships were placed in escrow until Jet Set secured the use of an airplane. Approximately $70,000 was raised from the sale of these memberships, which were lifetime and nontransferable in nature, and entitled the holder to fly on any Jet Set flight for $20. These memberships were also subject to monthly dues. I find it useful to quote the Indiegogo Terms of Use as follows:Prohibited CampaignsCampaign Owners are not permitted to create a Campaign to raise funds for illegal activities, to cause harm to people or property, or to scam others. If the Campaign is claiming to do the impossible or it's just plain phony, don't post it. Users must comply with all applicable laws and regulations in connection with their Campaigns, including offering Perks and using Contributions. Campaign Owners shall not make any false or misleading statements in connection with their Campaigns. Prohibited PerksCampaign Owners are not permitted to offer or provide any of the following as a Perk: - any form of "security" (as such term is defined in the Securities Act of 1933);
- any form of financial incentive or participation in any profit sharing;
- any alcoholic consumer products (vouchers or memberships offering physical delivery of alcoholic consumer products are permitted);
- any controlled substance or drug paraphernalia;
- any weapons, ammunition and related accessories;
- any form of lottery or gambling;
- any form of air transportation; or
- any items promoting hate, discrimination, personal injury, death, damage, or destruction to property; or any items (a) prohibited by applicable law to possess or distribute, (b) that would violate applicable law if distributed, or (c) that would result in infringement or violation of another person's rights if distributed.
|
|
|
|
smooth looked: Regarding Monero, while the price has been somewhat weak over a two year period (as you say, whatever the reason, there was certainly an unsustainable pump early on), the market cap is now well into the all-time-high zone. That is not something you see much (if ever) with two-year-old coins, other than Bitcoin. I just clicked through every single older coin in the top 10 (ignoring the unseasoned ones such as Ethereum, Factom and Maidsafe). Not a single one other than Monero is anywhere near its market cap peak. The same applies to all of the top 20, with the exception of FedoraCoin (TIPS) which has had an insane pump recently. What is going on there? |
|
|
|
I do not see much reason to be bearish... Previously my main argument why XMR cannot rise has been high inflation basically. To me it appears the inflation is not high, at least not as high as it used to be.
That is an astute observation that I can agree with. The main threat is a crypto wide market melt down. XMR would outperform the rest and rise relative to BTC, but still come down relative the US dollar. |
|
|
|
The poll, imho, is nothing more than a pageant of a selct few. If BTC is up thereas a scam then all of them are scams. Listed or not.
Look, features aside, all of this is nothing more than a new and growing market, to either exploit or be exploited by in the name of profit. Whether through skill, luck, or the lack of both the only determination of ROI is timing, perception and patience.
Greed is neither good or bad. It's simply a motivating factor to be used by those who are astute enough to know when to rein in their own greed. Or to profit off of the greed of others.
As to the choices presented in the poll, to a noob, it would appear that all of them might be more risk than the effort of DYOD is worth.
Let us not kid ourselves, the vast majority of those who hold, develop, discuss ANYTHING in this cryptosphere do so because they believe there will be a decent ROI in it for their time, money and effort. So too will the vast majority of those who become involved in the foreseeable future.
Thanks for explaining why the SEC is likely going to be putting many insiders in jail for selling unregistered illegal investment securities to n00bs over the coming years. The G20 will cooperate on this. TPTB are letting these insiders incriminate themselves now. And some such as CfB think they are immune because they reside in some backwater Eastern European country, but I think they have not properly calculated the risk. Now you know one of my other purposes for creating this thread and poll. It is to collect evidence for the authorities to use in the future. Sell Pink Sheet shit to n00b USA investors without complying with the SEC laws is going to end up very bad for these scammers. This poll is far and away too exclusive. Again, in my honest opinion, a poll on all crypto currencies/platforms already exists. It's called the free/open markets.
Nonsense about free/open markets. The market caps reflect insider manipulation, not any information. The is why the government has to regulate securities, because n00bs can't control themselves. As you know, a market cap greatly overstates the amount of capital actually invested. Additionally these ICO/premine/ninjamine scams enable the insiders to control the float and buy from themselves pumping up the price, volume, and market cap and thus also causing jealous n00bs to follow and lose their money on the P&D. Look at the chart history of all altcoins. They are all P&Ds. Not a single exception, except perhaps Monero's breakout from a downwedge that had existed since launch with the initial pump done by arguably by rpietila's pronouncements.
Then let's factor in the user base of Altcoins is kids with ADD with money to burn who care about nothing but profits NOW !
Sometimes he writes something astute. The long-term investors appear to be HODLing Monero and Bitcoin (and perhaps Litecoin?). |
|
|
|
Perhaps he really believes he can solve the insoluble FAA problem.
I guess he doesn't like it that I know with 100% certainty he can not.
I am really interested in the formal proof, that shows that the FAA is insoluble. Furthermore, as Dazza already pointed out, some fault-tolerance might be the way to go. I'd like a formal proof that FAA is soluble. When you have one, alert me so I can show you why you failed. The reason you can't solve it is because it is impossible to know that a particular algorithm is full optimized. That is a fundamental mathematical restriction in the analysis of computation complexity. That is why the only way we can define computation complexity classes is by nebulous rules. Even Bitcoin's SHA256 is not proven to be fully optimized, but at least we only have one well studied hash function that controls the proof-of-work security. Whereas, you want to introduce unbounded number of new algorithms, and there is no means of forcing any particular level of peer review on them in a decentralized environment. Really what you pumpers and scammers want is to be able to write some technobabble that n00bs can't comprehend and present insoluble problems as solved, so that you can sell tokens and make a profit on hype. If you were a real career oriented software developer, you would work on things that have real world practical adoption baked in, and not be some 20 year old college dropout like Vitalik who has never accomplished any adoption in his life and waste $18 million on technobabble nonsense. When I hear you talking, I think about someone saying "no, its 100% impossible to reliably transmit something over an unreliable channel" prior to the invention of TCP. Also, someone also predicted that decentralized payment systems just cannot work and argumented with some fancy byzantine generals ... then Bitcoin came.
Satoshi did not solve the Byzantine Generals problem, and Bitcoin is failing because Satoshi's design is forced to centralize economally: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1388887.0https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1388887.msg14144978#msg14144978https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1183043.msg13823607#msg13823607 |
|
|
|
Perhaps he really believes he can solve the insoluble FAA problem.
I guess he doesn't like it that I know with 100% certainty he can not.
I am really interested in the formal proof, that shows that the FAA is insoluble. Furthermore, as Dazza already pointed out, some fault-tolerance might be the way to go. I'd like a formal proof that FAA is soluble. When you have one, alert me so I can show you why you failed. The reason you can't solve it is because it is impossible to know that a particular algorithm is full optimized. That is a fundamental mathematical restriction in the analysis of computation complexity. That is why the only way we can define computation complexity classes is by nebulous rules. Even Bitcoin's SHA256 is not proven to be fully optimized, but at least we only have one well studied hash function that controls the proof-of-work security. Whereas, you want to introduce unbounded number of new algorithms, and there is no means of forcing any particular level of peer review on them in a decentralized environment. Really what you pumpers and scammers want is to be able to write some technobabble that n00bs can't comprehend and present insoluble problems as solved, so that you can sell tokens and make a profit on hype. If you were a real career oriented software developer, you would work on things that have real world practical adoption baked in, and not be some 20 year old college dropout like Vitalik who has never accomplished any adoption in his life and waste $18 million on technobabble nonsense. When I hear you talking, I think about someone saying "no, its 100% impossible to reliably transmit something over an unreliable channel" prior to the invention of TCP. Also, someone also predicted that decentralized payment systems just cannot work and argumented with some fancy byzantine generals ... then Bitcoin came.
Satoshi did not solve the Byzantine Generals problem, and Bitcoin is failing because Satoshi's design is forced to centralize economally: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1388887.0https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1388887.msg14144978#msg14144978https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1183043.msg13823607#msg13823607 |
|
|
|
Perhaps he really believes he can solve the insoluble FAA problem.
I guess he doesn't like it that I know with 100% certainty he can not.
I am really interested in the formal proof, that shows that the FAA is insoluble. Furthermore, as Dazza already pointed out, some fault-tolerance might be the way to go. I'd like a formal proof that FAA is soluble. When you have one, alert me so I can show you why you failed. The reason you can't solve it is because it is impossible to know that a particular algorithm is full optimized. That is a fundamental mathematical restriction in the analysis of computation complexity. That is why the only way we can define computation complexity classes is by nebulous rules. Even Bitcoin's SHA256 is not proven to be fully optimized, but at least we only have one well studied hash function that controls the proof-of-work security. Whereas, you want to introduce unbounded number of new algorithms, and there is no means of forcing any particular level of peer review on them in a decentralized environment. Really what you pumpers and scammers want is to be able to write some technobabble that n00bs can't comprehend and present insoluble problems as solved, so that you can sell tokens and make a profit on hype. If you were a real career oriented software developer, you would work on things that have real world practical adoption baked in, and not be some 20 year old college dropout like Vitalik who has never accomplished any adoption in his life and waste $18 million on technobabble nonsense. When I hear you talking, I think about someone saying "no, its 100% impossible to reliably transmit something over an unreliable channel" prior to the invention of TCP. Also, someone also predicted that decentralized payment systems just cannot work and argumented with some fancy byzantine generals ... then Bitcoin came.
Satoshi did not solve the Byzantine Generals problem, and Bitcoin is failing because Satoshi's design is forced to centralize economally: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1388887.0https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1388887.msg14144978#msg14144978https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1183043.msg13823607#msg13823607 |
|
|
|
I said they are highly correlated if a smoothing filter is applied. Gold does a dead-cat pump, then BTC does, repeat. And the overall trend of the two is down since start of 2014 (gold's decent started 2011 but BTC hadn't yet matured and was in the early adopter phase).
The mistake of the above chart is the same reason that Armstrong's computer can detect patterns that humans miss. The above chart only considers one-dimension for the time axis. Whereas, my explanation has 2 dimensions for the time-axis.
Any chance you can post a link to a decent chart with filter? The mathematical point I am making is that the correlation can be quite strong when the time axis of gold or BTC is shifted such that they align better. Just slide gold along the time axis, and you see the correlation is much stronger. This sliding variable is another dimension. Armstrong's computer model does this automatically and not just over 2 dimensions, but unbounded dimensional search which is why it requires a supercomputer. If two things are correlated by only a constant time-shifted, then they are correlated. If something always goes up with the other goes down, that is correlated and if the former always goes down again after going up thus predicting that the other will go up after it goes down. Then the longer-term downtrend since 2014 is dominant and mutually correlated. |
|
|
|
I said they are highly correlated if a smoothing filter is applied. Gold does a dead-cat pump, then BTC does, repeat. And the overall trend of the two is down since start of 2014 (gold's decent started 2011 but BTC hadn't yet matured and was in the early adopter phase).
The mistake of the above chart is the same reason that Armstrong's computer can detect patterns that humans miss. The above chart only considers one-dimension for the time axis. Whereas, my explanation has 2 dimensions for the time-axis.
Any chance you can post a link to a decent chart with filter? The mathematical point I am making is that the correlation can be quite strong when the time axis of gold or BTC is shifted such that they align better. Just slide gold along the time axis, and you see the correlation is much stronger. This sliding variable is another dimension. Armstrong's computer model does this automatically and not just over 2 dimensions, but unbounded dimensional search which is why it requires a supercomputer. If two things are correlated by only a constant time-shifted, then they are correlated. If something always goes up with the other goes down, that is correlated and if the former always goes down again after going up thus predicting that the other will go up after it goes down. Then the longer-term downtrend since 2014 is dominant and mutually correlated. |
|
|
|
It's easy to see that Synereo is going to be very successful with their decentralized, blockchain-oriented social network. Refuted: |
|
|
|
It's easy to see that Synereo is going to be very successful with their decentralized, blockchain-oriented social network. Refuted: |
|
|
|
It is a useful obfuscation technique when a technical refutation is unavailable. Not really. It is, however, a very human response to what one perceives to be unfair criticism. Perhaps he really believes he can solve the insoluble FAA problem. I guess he doesn't like it that I know with 100% certainty he can not. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
