He has such a poor record of predictions, I'm surprised that people still listen to him.

Thanks for nothing. There is no mention of the displacement of aether by anything.

Despite all the wishful thinking, there is no correlation between the halvings and the price.

Well, I would love to see the more technical explanation! How do I find it?

Numerology is not a science. It is a pseudo-science. Like astrology and technical analysis, it make non-falsifiable claims based on fantasy and myth, and it is not supported by empirical, reproducible, or verifiable evidence. It is dressed up and sold as if it were a science, but it is not.

Ok, fine. You are correct.

Now, I'm really more interested in the idea that air falls because it displaces aether. I think that you would support that idea, but you haven't stated one way or the other. You previously stated that objects fall in a vacuum because they displace aether. That implies that air would similarly fall in a vacuum unless air molecules are different in some way. Can't that explain how air could be next to a vacuum? After all, we observe that the air pressure drops as the height increases, and the pressure must be very close to 0 at the top of the dome over 3000 miles high.

I support your goal, which is to incorporate liquidity or volatility into the market cap value to achieve a more realistic value. It would be a much more helpful metric than the simple market cap.

However, calling that metric "market capitalization" would be a bad idea because there is already a common definition for that term, so I would like to suggest that you abandon your quixotic crusade. I suggest calling it (whatever "it" is) the "liquid market capitalization".

Here are my suggestions for such a value:

1. Given a money supply of N coins, the value is the average of the values of the last N coins traded, weighted exponentially by time.
2. Simply include a standard deviation with the market cap, which would indicate how confident someone could be that their trade would be at a similar price.

We're not going to get past vacuum pump equals infinite chamber, so let's drop it for now. I'm more interested in the idea that air falls because it displaces aether. I think that you would support that idea, but you haven't stated one way or the other. You previously stated that objects fall in a vacuum because they displace aether. That implies that air would similarly fall in a vacuum unless air molecules are different in some way. Can't that explain how air could be next to a vacuum? After all, we observe that the air pressure drops as the height increases, and the pressure must be close to 0 at the top of the dome over 3000 miles high.


Air molecules are mostly solitary. Other than gravity/buoyancy, they only interact and encounter forces when they collide with other molecules or the walls of the container. Note that I write "gravity/buoyancy" when I'm referring to the force that causes objects to fall and when being gravity or buoyancy doesn't change anything.

This is also a good resource:

https://bitcoin.org/en/developer-guide

The hash rate itself is not a measure of the security of the system. The correct measure is the cost of the hash rate.

In the video, you are confusing financial instruments with money. Money is not a financial instrument. Also, Bitcoin is not loan-created money, so your claim that Bitcoin makes no payments is irrelevant.

Also, Bitcoin cannot be a Ponzi scheme. There are no operators and it is 100% transparent. You either don't understand how Bitcoin works or you don't know what a Ponzi scheme is, or both.

The issue is that not only the first 1 must be handled differently, but all of the initial 1's. The problem can be clearly demonstrated with this sequence: "111111111111111111111". According to your formula, the number of possble addresses that start with "111111111111111111111" is 58^{27.3132 - 20} = 58^7.3132 = 7.88x10¹², but the correct answer is 1: 1111111111111111111114oLvT2.

Bitcoin's concept of PoW relies solely on valueless work. The design is such that any value derived from PoW results in an additional equivalent amount of valueless work being done. In other words, you can't reduce the waste of PoW by producing value. Any PoW system that reduces waste by producing value would have to be a complete departure from Bitcoin's PoW.

The reason for this conundrum is that miners are incentivized to increase their hash power until their costs approach their revenue. Thus, increasing their revenue by generating value simply causes miners to increase their hash power (and their waste) until their costs again approach their revenue.

I think the only way out is to produce a true public good, but that is not as easy as it might seem. It also introduces potential points of failure into the economics of mining, for example where the public good stops being a public good or the system that ensures that it is a public good undermines the incentives to mine.

Why do journalists continue to promote this myth? Anyway, this basic misunderstanding and misapplication of "supply and demand" is so popular (and so wrong) that it probably does have some effect on speculators.

Correlation does not imply causation. You could also use correlation to argue that the rise in Bitcoin's price somehow caused the outbreak. Anyway, nobody but the most die-hard sat-stacker considers Bitcoin to be a "safe haven".

Not even close. You even contradict yourself by noting that 80% of the central banks re looking at competing alternatives.

Perhaps you would explain why you believe that 2100000000000000 satoshis (that's 2100000000000000000 millisatoshis for those using the Lightning Network) is not enough.

You have to handle the initial '1's separately. In the base58check encoding scheme, initial groups of 8 0-bits are encoded as '1's, and base-58 encoding starts after those groups. The encoding for 0 is 21 '1's (8-bit prefix of 0 plus 160-bit value of 0), followed by the base-58 encoding of the checksum -- 1111111111111111111114oLvT2

You didn't mention that, and it changes some of my answers.

While no particular molecules will stay in the beaker, there will be on average more molecules in the beaker than above the beaker because of gravity/buoyancy. But since you are actively removing all of the air, that is only temporary. Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle? That is not even relevant.

Previously, the reason you gave for why things fall in a vacuum is because they displace the ether. Buoyancy therefore does come into play because the air displaces the ether.

I don't know what you mean. Each molecule moves until it collides with something, and then it bounces off. No force is necessary to keep it moving -- Newton's 1st law.

Well, you didn't say anything about a pump. Regardless, entropy is still increasing as the pump expends energy as heat while removing the air.

No, I didn't, but I have no problem accepting it as a convenient generalization, so let's move on.

It depends on the volume of the vacuum chamber, but even if the volume of the chamber is infinite, the answer is not 0 because of gravity/buoyancy.

None. I assume that we are assuming there are no forces other than gravity/buoyancy acting on the air molecules. The molecules leave the beaker because of Newton's first law of motion: an object remains in motion or at rest unless acted on by a force.

Entropy increases as the air escapes the beaker.

A spinning bucket of water demonstrates that true rotational motion cannot be defined relatively. Please note that it was devised by the person that formulated the Law of Universal Gravitation, which you don't accept.


I hope I passed your quiz. What's your point?

If you read that paper, you would see this:
The angular velocity of a globe Earth would only be 0.0007 RPM. They are hardly comparable.

As you noted, we observe that the air pressure decreases as the height increases. Isn't there some height at which the pressure is near 0? Wouldn't that be a vacuum? As you can see, whether the Earth is enclosed in a dome or not, their is a vacuum above the atmosphere. So then, what is the relevance of the container in that regard?

A bug running around on a basketball at 2.5 inches per second is subjected to the same force as someone on the Earth spinning at 1000 MPH. It's just math and physics. You say it would be a "mad spinning ride", but I have shown you that it wouldn't be.

I assume you want to keep a good relationship with your client. Although you have kept up your end of the bargain, I suggest:

1. Help them use an independent block explorer to verify that the address has received the bitcoins even though the wallet may disagree.
2. Help them make sure their wallet is connected and synced or otherwise fully up-to-date with the block chain.
3. Help them make sure they are looking at the correct currency (as @dothebeats pointed out).