I just put ... and Martin Armstrong into SCIgen and it produced for me a verbatim transcript of Anonymints posts as presented on Bitcointalk, postulating his Theory of Everything  . Hey fool, Martin Armstrong is always correct. http://armstrongeconomics.com/2014/03/02/the-cycles-of-war-model-why/QUESTION: Mr. Armstrong, I have followed you since your 1985 conference in Princeton. It was your advertisement in the Economist that caught my eye when you bluntly stated that the deflation was over and a major change in trend was at hand. I watched you forecast the takeover boom and I was shocked by your forecast that the Dow Jones would rally from 1000 to 6000 back then. The 1987 Crash was a real eye opener for the very day you pronounced the low was in place and new highs would be seen, the Elliot Wave people said a crash like 1929 was beginning. I watched in amazement your call on Japan, then the currency crisis of South East Asia. Your forecast for the fall of communism and then Russia in 1998 was shocking, however, I must confess, I was not entirely certain how you could do politics and markets. Then the rumors were Goldman Sachs and Buffet wanted you silenced. When it came to markets, I do not think there is anyone who can even come close to your track record. Now I have watched your Cycle of War and after all of these years I think the light has finally gone on. This is what you mean when you say it is all connected. You cannot be right on so many trends for so long unless you were correct about the structure. So do I now get a gold star?
Thanks for everything;
JCH Include his recent prediction that Gold & silver would top in 2011 and then decline to below $1200 into 2014 at least. Goldbugs were resisting all the way down, until they finally capitulated to $1150 recently. Edit: here is another list of amazing predictions he did correctly: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=160612.msg2864869#msg2864869Add: here is yet another list I compiled years ago and had forgotten about: http://goldwetrust.up-with.com/t11p30-stocks-vs-precious-metals-vs-bonds-vs-real-estate#4728
http://armstrongeconomics.com/2014/04/16/20305/A client has tweeted a picture of a slide from our 1998 World Economic Conference tour we did around the globe. In retrospect those forecasts were simply astonishing all based upon alignments with the ECM. I think if I had another whole lifetime, this whole thing would keep me occupied trying to figure out this amazing order masked by what people think is random chaos. The ECM is simply the frequency of life for everything seems to align with it no matter what the field. The mere fact there are the Four Blood Moons that line up to 2 days before the turning point 2015.75 when there was no input regarding planetary movement is just mind-bending.
This is not my theory – it was my discovery.  http://armstrongeconomics.com/2014/04/16/is-anything-really-random/ANSWER: It is impossible to create any system that is random. No matter what, in computing, a pattern will always emerge precisely as this pretend random image that quickly falls into a pattern. It is simply impossible to create a truly random number generator. In gambling, there are card counters that they make illegal. Look at a casino and you will notice that they rotate the dealers regularly moving them from table to table. WHY? Because they will end up in a pattern. Armstrong is correct. The more scientific way of stating is that the entropy of the universe is not infinite, rather it trends to maximum. Thus Bitcoin's proof-of-work is more randomized than proof-of-stake, because the entropy of spontaneous outcomes includes every computer in the network trying to guess the mathematical solution (for the nonce of the hash) to the next block in the block chain. How can you all continue to deny that NOTHING in the universe is random? The Second Law of Thermodynamics (which even Einstein said was more fundamental than his relativity) says entropy trends to maximum, not is infinite. Infinite entropy would be required for a truly random universe. If you want to explore more the meaning of infinity w.r.t. to our universe and the properties of our minds, see my two blog essays: http://unheresy.com/The%20Universe.html#Matter_as_a_continuumhttp://unheresy.com/Information%20Is%20Alive.html#Algorithm_!=_Entropy Rather the appearance of disorder (a.k.a. randomness) is an illusion of complexity of high entropy. Maximum entropy is obtained with the maximum number of potential equiprobable outcomes, i.e. maximum degrees-of-freedom which is same as saying maximum potential energy. I explain that and give citations at following posts: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=355212.msg3804256#msg3804256https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=355212.msg4576810#msg4576810https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=355212.msg3852724#msg3852724 |
|
|
|
Found a couple of explanations here, so just forwarding the quotes:
...
None of that addressed my questions. A lack of response to some technical questions raised a few pages back seems to be tanking confidence in DRK...
And what question might that be? Several points, which I disagree with, relating to darksend integration and anonymity protections. I'm satisfied from my own research, but I didn't see any response to the questions raised... Correct. Astute. Zerocoin is around the corner, which doesn't suffer from the issue of being able to track amounts using coinjoin which is what Darkcoin is using. So that already means there is going to be a superior anonymous coin out there.
It also doesn't suffer from the issue of having to have 2 or more transactions occur at the same time for a darksend transaction to go through(otherwise there will be delays).
Zerocoin doesn't provide IP anonymity either. Also subject to timing and pattern analysis. Can be honeypotted too, etc.. |
|
|
|
Being offended or jealous about the warning of highly intellectual content ahead, implies that you are not confident that you are in the category of highly intellectual.
No, being offended by the warning of highly intellectual content when said content is the opposite of highly intellectual actually implies that you're a dumbass who can't tell the difference between a rational argument and a bullshit rationalisation for blatant racism/sexism/other -isms I'm probably forgetting, and our comments were intended to be insults to that effect. 1. You've conflated ESR's highly intellectual taxonomy with the comment thread which ensued (below it) with the likes of the racist James A Donald. Conflation is a trait of those who are not highly intellectual. 2. You've conflated manisfestations of truth which conflict with your sense of fairness and conflate these with irrational -isms. For example, the statement that blacks on average have lower IQs than whites is a scientifically measured fact. Also some of James' statements about hypergamy are in fact true. However, he uses these correct facts ("Damned Facts") to further his racist political control agenda because average anything is not congruent with degrees-of-freedom and if you've read any of my intellectual writings then you know I how important I think degrees-of-freedom are to fitness. http://unheresy.com/Economic DevastationSorry Foxpuppy. http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=5238&cpage=1#comment-425074>I am afraid the Dark in DE does attract people with a longing to the brutal aspects of ancient times. On the other hand, sometimes it takes a werewolf to speak Damned Facts. Interesting to see the votes thus far. I expect most Bitcoiners will not vote "no".
Get used to disappointment. At least it is congruent. |
|
|
|
AnonyMint, how did you become a senior member here?
Dating back, March 14th 2013, when you first joined, your very first post was about a flaw in Bitcoin.
What gives?
Why do you fight Bitcoin so much?
Who is your employers?
You are spending too much time trying to get people away from Bitcoin so obviously there is something else behind it.
Wanna share with us?
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=493115.msg5463544#msg5463544
Incorrect. You had to transmit your public key to the sender who sent you BTC.
This guy claims a deep technical understanding and argues why Bitcoin is doomed to fail and yet demonstartes his total ignorance by clearly not understand the basics of Bitcoin... What a muppet... Ignored. Quoting me out-of-context by eliding much of the quoted post (and pretending not to read my post that followed it), and then using that liar-method to claim I didn't understand something, is the epitome of beta-male chest thumping. DooMAD, I like what is linked from your signature. One mistake is you seem to assume that Bitcoin is the certain solution. Okay it is quite clear now to me what is going on. If for example you study the linked website from DooMAD's signature and study his posts in that thread where he is debating me and factor in comments such as above, it is quite clear that the beta-males think they discovered the Holy Grail that can empower them to fight back (while getting rich at the same time!) and they are very butthurt when any one tries to tell them: "Wait, the concept of decentralized crypto is great, but Bitcoin has serious flaws which render it incapable of giving you that win that you think you are getting". I am here to make the decentralized cypto that will win. I am not here to hang out with beta-male losers who can't comprehend. Guys decide whether you want to follow the losers or the winners. Be astute. Signing off now. See ya at the winning coin. It will be up to you to find it in that sea of altcoin announcements. I won't be posting it here. |
|
|
|
Wow, someone has a lot of 'internet time' on their hands...
I think you are making one major assumption here: that your public address can be linked to your ip when you make a payment... what if you use tor? What if coins are tumbled, using tor... could you still trace them... beyond the shadow of a doubt?
Why don't you try reading the two threads more carefully, since I refuted that point at least 3 or 4 times already. Sigh  
Incorrect. You had to transmit your public key to the sender who sent you BTC.
This guy claims a deep technical understanding and argues why Bitcoin is doomed to fail and yet demonstartes his total ignorance by clearly not understand the basics of Bitcoin... What a muppet... Ignored. Quoting me out-of-context by eliding much of the quoted post (and pretending not to read my post that followed it), and then using that liar-method to claim I didn't understand something, is the epitome of beta-male chest thumping. |
|
|
|
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=491181.msg5463449#msg5463449I'm perfectly happy to have a serious debate about this. But before I do so you really do need to do some proper research. Until then, I think we're back to "ask your dad".
Stop playing hide&seek games and cite some case law. I've already provided a resource which says nemo dat quod non habet applies in tracing into mixed funds. Now it is your turn to cite something that refutes that. Otherwise you are just playing games. " the original payer will have an equitable proprietary interest in the monies so long as they are traceable into whomsoever's hands they come other than a purchaser for value of the legal interest without notice." Westdeutsche Landesbank Girozentrale v Islington LBC [1996] UKHL 12 (22 May 1996) at p. 26 per Lord Browne Wilkinson Your turn Hahaha. You misinterpreted the decision. So now I know you are not an attorney. Rather the decision reaffirms the equitable interest in mixed funds even if the recipient " had no knowledge at any relevant time that the contract was void". http://www.ucc.ie/law/restitution/archive/englcases/westdeutsche.htmHe held the money to be recoverable by the bank either as money had and received by the council to the use of the bank, or as money which in equity the bank was entitled to trace into the hands of the council and have repaid out of the council's assets. He decided that the bank's right to restitution at common law arose from the fact that the payment made by the bank to the council was made under a purported contract which, unknown to both parties, was ultra vires the council and so void, no consideration having been given for the making of the payment. The decision by the judge, which was affirmed by the Court of Appeal [1994] 1 W.L.R. 938, raised important questions in the law of restitution, which are of great interest to lawyers specialising in this field. Yet it is an extraordinary feature of the present appeal to your Lordships' House that the judge's decision on the substantive right of recovery at common law does not fall for consideration by your Lordships' House. The appeal of the council is confined to one point only - the question of interest. The breadth of the submission
Although the actual question in issue on the appeal is a narrow one, on the arguments presented it is necessary to consider fundamental principles of trust law. Does the recipient of money under a contract subsequently found to be void for mistake or as being ultra vires hold the moneys received on trust even where he had no knowledge at any relevant time that the contract was void? If he does hold on trust, such trust must arise at the date of receipt or, at the latest, at the date the legal title of the payer is extinguished by mixing moneys in a bank account: in the present case it does not matter at which of those dates the legal title was extinguished. If there is a trust two consequences follow: (a) the recipient will be personally liable, regardless of fault, for any subsequent payment away of the moneys to third parties even though, at the date of such payment, the "trustee" was still ignorant of the existence of any trust: see Burrows, "Swaps and the Friction between Common Law and Equity" [1995] R.L.R. 15; (b) as from the date of the establishment of the trust (i.e. receipt or mixing of the moneys by the "trustee") the original payer will have an equitable proprietary interest in the moneys so long as they are traceable into whomsoever's hands they come other than a purchaser for value of the legal interest without notice. Therefore, although in the present case the only question directly in issue is the personal liability of the local authority as a trustee, it is not possible to hold the local authority liable without imposing a trust which, in other cases, will create property rights affecting third parties because moneys received under a void contract are "trust property."
|
|
|
|
I'm perfectly happy to have a serious debate about this. But before I do so you really do need to do some proper research. Until then, I think we're back to "ask your dad".
Stop playing hide&seek games and cite some case law. I've already provided a resource which says nemo dat quod non habet applies in tracing into mixed funds. Now it is your turn to cite something that refutes that. Otherwise you are just playing games. " the original payer will have an equitable proprietary interest in the monies so long as they are traceable into whomsoever's hands they come other than a purchaser for value of the legal interest without notice." Westdeutsche Landesbank Girozentrale v Islington LBC [1996] UKHL 12 (22 May 1996) at p. 26 per Lord Browne Wilkinson Your turn Hahaha. You misinterpreted the decision. So now I know you are not an attorney. Rather the decision reaffirms the equitable interest in mixed funds even if the recipient " had no knowledge at any relevant time that the contract was void". http://www.ucc.ie/law/restitution/archive/englcases/westdeutsche.htmHe held the money to be recoverable by the bank either as money had and received by the council to the use of the bank, or as money which in equity the bank was entitled to trace into the hands of the council and have repaid out of the council's assets. He decided that the bank's right to restitution at common law arose from the fact that the payment made by the bank to the council was made under a purported contract which, unknown to both parties, was ultra vires the council and so void, no consideration having been given for the making of the payment. The decision by the judge, which was affirmed by the Court of Appeal [1994] 1 W.L.R. 938, raised important questions in the law of restitution, which are of great interest to lawyers specialising in this field. Yet it is an extraordinary feature of the present appeal to your Lordships' House that the judge's decision on the substantive right of recovery at common law does not fall for consideration by your Lordships' House. The appeal of the council is confined to one point only - the question of interest. The breadth of the submission
Although the actual question in issue on the appeal is a narrow one, on the arguments presented it is necessary to consider fundamental principles of trust law. Does the recipient of money under a contract subsequently found to be void for mistake or as being ultra vires hold the moneys received on trust even where he had no knowledge at any relevant time that the contract was void? If he does hold on trust, such trust must arise at the date of receipt or, at the latest, at the date the legal title of the payer is extinguished by mixing moneys in a bank account: in the present case it does not matter at which of those dates the legal title was extinguished. If there is a trust two consequences follow: (a) the recipient will be personally liable, regardless of fault, for any subsequent payment away of the moneys to third parties even though, at the date of such payment, the "trustee" was still ignorant of the existence of any trust: see Burrows, "Swaps and the Friction between Common Law and Equity" [1995] R.L.R. 15; (b) as from the date of the establishment of the trust (i.e. receipt or mixing of the moneys by the "trustee") the original payer will have an equitable proprietary interest in the moneys so long as they are traceable into whomsoever's hands they come other than a purchaser for value of the legal interest without notice. Therefore, although in the present case the only question directly in issue is the personal liability of the local authority as a trustee, it is not possible to hold the local authority liable without imposing a trust which, in other cases, will create property rights affecting third parties because moneys received under a void contract are "trust property." |
|
|
|
Zarathustra, you conflate orthogonal issues. DooMAD, I like what is linked from your signature. One mistake is you seem to assume that Bitcoin is the certain solution. |
|
|
|
|
Being offended or jealous about the warning of highly intellectual content ahead, implies that you are not confident that you are in the category of highly intellectual.
I'm game to explain why "capacity" is a more appropriate word than "capability" in this context, rather I think I will leave them to their Dunning-Kruger bliss.
Interesting to see the votes thus far. I expect most Bitcoiners will not vote "no".
|
|
|
|
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=491181.msg5461622#msg5461622a mad max-type collapse of the society on the actual level doesn't lead into the mother of all dark ages in the history of the societies (collectivism), but instead into a 10-20 years lasting interruption of a prospering society (collectivism) only. Really funny.
I must concede that the odds favor your outcome, but I am hoping the Knowledge Age cyberpunks can rejuvenate production. However, it is quite depressing to see how ignorant (tunnel vision, boiling frogs, zombies) most people are even here in these supposedly enlightened forums of libertarian white males. In either case, we need a more anonymous crypto-coin. Bitcoin won't suffice.
|
|
|
|
a mad max-type collapse of the society on the actual level doesn't lead into the mother of all dark ages in the history of the societies (collectivism), but instead into a 10-20 years lasting interruption of a prospering society (collectivism) only. Really funny.
I must concede that the odds favor your outcome, but I am hoping the Knowledge Age cyberpunks can rejuvenate production. However, it is quite depressing to see how ignorant (tunnel vision, boiling frogs, zombies) most people are even here in these supposedly enlightened forums of libertarian white males. In either case, we need a more anonymous crypto-coin. Bitcoin won't suffice. |
|
|
|
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=491181.msg5461032#msg5461032I'm perfectly happy to have a serious debate about this. But before I do so you really do need to do some proper research. Until then, I think we're back to "ask your dad".
Stop playing hide&seek games and cite some case law. I've already provided a resource which says nemo dat quod non habet applies in tracing into mixed funds. Now it is your turn to cite something that refutes that. Otherwise you are just playing games.
DooMAD and crazy_rabbit, I'm happy if you convince yourselves to make the biggest mistake of life. Please proceed. nemo dat quod non habet has been fundamental to Western civilization. You proceed in your Alice in Wonderland fantasy. Besides the USA has succeeded in forcing every major country to acquiese to our FATCA law, which is much more intrusive into sovereignty than nemo dat quod non habet norms in western civilization. DooMAD apparently you are in the UK and nemo dat quod non habet originates from your country. I think you guys have a few screws loose.
|
|
|
|
I'm perfectly happy to have a serious debate about this. But before I do so you really do need to do some proper research. Until then, I think we're back to "ask your dad".
Stop playing hide&seek games and cite some case law. I've already provided a resource which says nemo dat quod non habet applies in tracing into mixed funds. Now it is your turn to cite something that refutes that. Otherwise you are just playing games.
DooMAD and crazy_rabbit, I'm happy if you convince yourselves to make the biggest mistake of life. Please proceed. nemo dat quod non habet has been fundamental to Western civilization. You proceed in your Alice in Wonderland fantasy. Besides the USA has succeeded in forcing every major country to acquiese to our FATCA law, which is much more intrusive into sovereignty than nemo dat quod non habet norms in western civilization. DooMAD apparently you are in the UK and nemo dat quod non habet originates from your country. I think you guys have a few screws loose. |
|
|
|
The OP may be a very clever fellow but he is no lawyer and would be well advised not to opine upon subjects about which he is clearly ignorant.
My father (and I am age 48) is a very high-powered attorney. I do suggest you have several attorneys comment on this matter. I disagree with your assertion that I am ignorant and that I should not express my educated opinions. I have posted the Wikipedia link to the law that applies to stolen property. The biggest myopia of Bitards is they somehow think the government doesn't want to (or can't) control currency any more The government will not give up its power willingly. They will bend the rules to their favor. Only rock solid anonymity can fend off the government and Bitcoin can never have that. Disclaimer: I am not giving legal advice, please consult your own professional. I sharing my opinions. I am not responsible for what you do after reading my opinions. Then I suggest you ask your father if the victim of a theft has an equitable tracing remedy into a mixed fund where the new owner is a bona fide purchaser (hint - the answer is "no"). Cite case law. Otherwise you are just blowing out of your arse. Ask your Dad There is no case law that supercedes nemo dat quod non habet for something like Bitcoins. If you disagree, cite case law. The simple Nemo dat rule does not apply to mixed funds. Save us both some time and google "bona fide purchaser" or look up "tracing" on Wiki. Once you have done that we can talk. Incorrect. http://books.google.com.ph/books?id=0KHWrbVW1_EC&lpg=PR12&ots=FZqXLNpjSI&dq=nemo%20dat%20quod%20non%20habet%20mixed%20funds&pg=PA692#v=onepage&q=nemo%20dat%20quod%20non%20habet%20mixed%20funds&f=falseThe only exclusions from nemo dat are for bank accounts, checks, or anything pertaining to the official currency and financial system. Indeed as the case law above shows, you can't use nemo dat to trace through bank account balances that went negative. You are misapplying that to assert no tracing on mixed funds, which in fact the opposite is implied by the above resource. It clearly states that courts have used, "proportionate shares in any substitutable property". How much more clear of a slamdunk refutation could I possibly find.  |
|
|
|
You've been notified. The thefts are all over the mass media. |
|
|
|
The OP may be a very clever fellow but he is no lawyer and would be well advised not to opine upon subjects about which he is clearly ignorant.
My father (and I am age 48) is a very high-powered attorney. I do suggest you have several attorneys comment on this matter. I disagree with your assertion that I am ignorant and that I should not express my educated opinions. I have posted the Wikipedia link to the law that applies to stolen property. The biggest myopia of Bitards is they somehow think the government doesn't want to (or can't) control currency any more The government will not give up its power willingly. They will bend the rules to their favor. Only rock solid anonymity can fend off the government and Bitcoin can never have that. Disclaimer: I am not giving legal advice, please consult your own professional. I sharing my opinions. I am not responsible for what you do after reading my opinions. Then I suggest you ask your father if the victim of a theft has an equitable tracing remedy into a mixed fund where the new owner is a bona fide purchaser (hint - the answer is "no"). Cite case law. Otherwise you are just blowing out of your arse. Ask your Dad There is no case law that supercedes nemo dat quod non habet for something like Bitcoins. If you disagree, cite case law. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
