Frankly I'm amazed nobody has deleted my comments yet since they aren't in lockstep with the agenda.
Here the deletion is based on being off topic. (It's smooth's thread, not mine  ) |
|
|
|
The "forming" only means that the existing forces of EU countries would be under (pseudo-)unified European command, instead of the NATO command. Russia would very much appreciate getting the buffer zone from the maniacs behind the Atlantic.
For, as all are aware, if they're unified, there's just nothing the U.S. government could do to move them - nothing.  Yes it's exactly that mindset that I find disgusting in you guys. We get quite well along with each other and with the Russians, and do not really need you. That pisses you off so much that you send your young men to die for - tell me what exactly?  |
|
|
|
The EU army is actually not a bad thing. Russia is not threatened, it has been able to defend against every attack from the west since 1700s (and is now in a relatively good shape to do it against the combined EU forces, which are in a laughable attack readiness). The EU policy is also not directed to subdue Russia.
Someone raising a club over your head is threatening. Forming a new army will be interpreted as having some relevance to defence which could imply to neighbors (e.g., Russia) that the E.U. intends to aggress against them. The "forming" only means that the existing forces of EU countries would be under (pseudo-)unified European command, instead of the NATO command. Russia would very much appreciate getting the buffer zone from the maniacs behind the Atlantic. |
|
|
|
As it was in 2003/2004, being totally out of favor, it was a very good time to buy gold, and so it is now. |
|
|
|
The EU army is actually not a bad thing. Russia is not threatened, it has been able to defend against every attack from the west since 1700s (and is now in a relatively good shape to do it against the combined EU forces, which are in a laughable attack readiness). The EU policy is also not directed to subdue Russia. Who is threatened is NATO ( = USA, lead by zionists), who also control the media in all the EU. The make the EU integration without USA/NATO appear unrealistic in the media, and try hard to obfuscate the scenario universe that such a thing is even possible. They try to polarize that EUrope needs to ally with the "west" (USA/Israel/NATO) or the "east" (Russia) and since "east" is obviously evil and completely unrealistic, "west" is the only viable option. In reality, the options include also dropping the baggage of USA/NATO (they are not really in the economic/military position to conquer the united Europe by force, they prefer the psyop foreign-led color revolutions with completely distorted media coverage, but this would be of no avail in EU - someone might be brainwashed enough to believe that some Kiev people want to join the USA-lead slavery but no eg. French people would credibly want it). The country-level independence movement in the EU countries has been played by NATO to appear as the alternative to the NATO/TTIP/NWO/GMO, to make people accept the latter as the former is too radical. The "center" (endorsing EU federalism to some degree at least, but kick out the U.S. influence) has been downplayed in the media. To understand what I am talking you need to know the following things: - Europe is made of different peoples - There peoples want no harm to others - They don't want to be bossied by the other EU peoples nor the USA - They see that NATO is a tool of zionists, the only threat to world peace, and (perhaps intentionally) destroys every place where it attacks to - They are mostly members in the NATO, but do not have much credible military forces, so must rely on the NATO to defend against Russia - Russia has no intention to attack and the EU people know it, so the raison d'etre for NATO in Europe has ended - The media all over EU (as well as USA) is owned by zionists and they distort the popular perception whether something is good or possible. As a European do you see such an army being used to stomp out civil unrest and to assist tptb in wealth appropriation? I could see them using such tactics ie. placing greek troops in germany, vice versa. I imagine the same with U.N "peace keepers" They would be less likely to feel sympathy towards a foreign people and lay down their guns in solidarity. EU member state armies or EU member state police are not even close in the mindset and brutality as the USA counterparts IN GENERAL. But in both cases, there invariably is found a subset of uniformed people willing to do the dirty jobs (large factions in U.S. forces are positively patriotic and willing to upheld the real American values but their supreme command is un-American). Since media continues to be commanded by the zionists even in this scenario, and people are quite deeply brainwashed, there is a probability of riots, and the "new European leadership" despite its (possible) good intentions towards the people, will need to react somehow. In the most positive scenario I would see a EU-wide peaceful military coup, which is de facto accepted by the NATO, and a reasonable assertion of member state rights and some federalism. This would lead to USA pulling the plug economically (it will anyway happen soon as the current state of negative yields cannot be maintained), which will hurt the EU a lot. If this leadership is anti-TPTB, it may be able to keep the European wealth in European hands, but the need to restart the economy after decades of TPTB-led gluttony, regulation, and torture of the price mechanism will be a tough call. The example of Putin in Russia shows that it can be done - economy 15 times up in 15 years is not too shabby. No wonder TPTB is furious and NATO shitting in'em pants. Compared to Russia then, Europe has enormous financial, industrial and nonfinancial (knowledge) capital. The lack of unison is the issue that Zio has been fomenting and utilizing for centuries up until now. |
|
|
|
The EU army is actually not a bad thing. Russia is not threatened, it has been able to defend against every attack from the west since 1700s (and is now in a relatively good shape to do it against the combined EU forces, which are in a laughable attack readiness). The EU policy is also not directed to subdue Russia. Who is threatened is NATO ( = USA, lead by zionists), who also control the media in all the EU. The make the EU integration without USA/NATO appear unrealistic in the media, and try hard to obfuscate the scenario universe that such a thing is even possible. They try to polarize that EUrope needs to ally with the "west" (USA/Israel/NATO) or the "east" (Russia) and since "east" is obviously evil and completely unrealistic, "west" is the only viable option. In reality, the options include also dropping the baggage of USA/NATO (they are not really in the economic/military position to conquer the united Europe by force, they prefer the psyop foreign-led color revolutions with completely distorted media coverage, but this would be of no avail in EU - someone might be brainwashed enough to believe that some Kiev people want to join the USA-lead slavery but no eg. French people would credibly want it). The country-level independence movement in the EU countries has been played by NATO to appear as the alternative to the NATO/TTIP/NWO/GMO, to make people accept the latter as the former is too radical. The "center" (endorsing EU federalism to some degree at least, but kick out the U.S. influence) has been downplayed in the media. To understand what I am talking you need to know the following things: - Europe is made of different peoples - There peoples want no harm to others - They don't want to be bossied by the other EU peoples nor the USA - They see that NATO is a tool of zionists, the only threat to world peace, and (perhaps intentionally) destroys every place where it attacks to - They are mostly members in the NATO, but do not have much credible military forces, so must rely on the NATO to defend against Russia - Russia has no intention to attack and the EU people know it, so the raison d'etre for NATO in Europe has ended - The media all over EU (as well as USA) is owned by zionists and they distort the popular perception whether something is good or possible. |
|
|
|
Note I am presuming the NSA can obtain the records from your ISP to ascertain it was you on shared IP address and not another user of the same ISP.
It is irrelevant. They do not gain the popular acceptance to collect information and enforce stuff based on it on such a high level without a civil war. And if you are not careful, they will round you up in the early stage, just as they did in Russia starting 1917 (see, 100 years!). So they either have the technology but not the means to legally use it against you, and you are safe. Or there is a war and you are dead. Or you move away and don't care shit. Sorry to bother the other readers but it really gets on my nerves that an intelligent guy bothers himself with the government so much. It is their job to bother you, not yours to bother yourself with them. The battle is not technical (although it helps). If the aim is that people forsake government, it is accomplished by forsaking government, not by developing stuff while caring about government. |
|
|
|
I am wondering why gamers need anonymity and would fight the government.
Well, I don't want to go deeper here (people in general rightfully feel that CK has very little to do with gold collapsing - especially as CKgold is doing well - sorry I had to..), so let's stop this topic please. There is no fighting the government here: I told about the shit - if you fight it, your hand gets dirty. If you ignore it and continue walking, it wears off gradually. Gamers are just people, and it's just normal to prefer keeping stuff to you. Also we have to remember that CK is not a standalone business idea, it was purposefully designed to increase and strengthen Monero economy and adoption, so they cannot be separated. Most games also are not valued at $5k per player. So yes there is something special in CK, which I am not telling you here. Thank you for interest, and welcome to join  |
|
|
|
Sorry but I see nothing innovative or unique here.
Take your time. It took months from my initial monero purchase to start getting it, why it stands out from all the other coins. There is no place anywhere that succinctly presents the investor case of Monero, so it is hard to grok. Soon will be, as I mentioned. We are not in it for a quick buck, nor for a quick btc. |
|
|
|
Not sure if game players want to pick an unnecessary fight with the government.
Sometimes I feel you should have some acid to relieve yourself of the irrational fear of government (it helps). You are the most government-fearing person that I know, and that is not fitting for an alpha-male. You should conduct your life such that the government anticipates how much they lose if they try to harass you, and leave you alone. The game is not associated with any government, jurisdiction or law. It is just a game. Like playing Monopoly. It is your problem if you feel that the government has the right to infringe your playing a game. I don't give them such a right concerning mine. The distasteful voice is because I have a distaste for government, and would rather not speak about it. I also seldom speak about shit that sticks to the sole of my shoe. And I don't lift my hand to remove it, same as I don't lift my hand to remove the government. But I don't touch it either. |
|
|
|
I don't disagree, but I have assumed the context here is basically Bitcoin investors "branching out" into some altcoins. One could make a somewhat valid criticism that this context is changing to small degree, the best examples being Ripple and Ethereum and maybe Dogecoin, where they are actively trying to source users and investors from outside the Bitcoin community (BitShares to an extent as well).
There'll be a new monero investments website soon as well, which presents the investment case in XMR without basing it on BTC, and also lists the options to buy it directly with fiat. |
|
|
|
And this is a critical point. If you can move the worlds CPUs into your coin decentralized, you can beat Bitcoin because you can move more hardware value into your coin. Especially if you can give the mined morsels to be so small that no one sells and they instead circulate those morsels on a use-case that Bitcoin can't do.
+1 The monetization of the great masses is both intriguing and important for me. CKG PoP emission is one try. That fulfills the condition that the value received is too small to be sold, yet big enough to have ingame transactional value, and games (as all MMO social networks) can quickly achieve network effects which are very valuable. The value of CK is $5,000 per player, which is more than the value of BTC per owner. Some MMO have more players than Bitcoin has owners. Combining these 2 would result in a virtual economy larger than Bitcoin, and having Monero as the ingame currency, with CKG, CKS, land and a host of other things as assets. |
|
|
|
I really don't feel like I owe any answers to people who have done less work than I to improve economic understanding and financial privacy.
Yeah, you have a very small bunch of people you owe answers to  Even I have a few less messages in BCT than you, and bought my coins a few months later a few dollars higher. Whether you only refuse to answer or also close yourself to new information from others, is certainly up to you. I am nevertheless grateful for your contributions so far. |
|
|
|
Everyone who exits the old chain, obtains some value in the new chain, and the wealth effect as calculated from the actual net new capital flows, is 4x-10x. I'm not sure how you're using the term "wealth effect" here. In CKG case, there was $50k new money wanting in, which ended up raising the marketcap to $500k, making the wealth effect coefficient of 10x. I'm actually not talking about spinoffs here. I just used the word "ledger" because that's one of my preferred terms for "coin" or "altcoin." I meant that the 90% will sell their allocations in the altcoin and buy more BTC, for the reasons mentioned above, and that I think this negates the small float effect.
Yes, you are talking about spinoffs, because in an exit situation to a new ledger, the 90% does not have any allocations in the new ledger that they could sell unless they buy them first, negating your point instead. we can say the effect should be mitigated/eliminated by arbitrageurs - as long as fairly basic market infrastructure is there.
I agree that if the old chain survives the initial crash without it causing a descent to abyss (BTC has many examples of survival!), then in the long term the valuations of the chains adjust to represent market perceptions. Yet as the science of determining a correct valuation for a cryptocoin is completely unestablished even in the best minds, not only in the markets, it may well be that in a "successful" 10% exit, the end state is much different than 90/10. I don't claim any reasonable powers to forecast, even after more research on the subject than most. There is however the case that the old chain is destroyed by the initial exodus of capital and market crash, and the general loss of confidence that results. Just see what has happened to shitcoins. |
|
|
|
Anything else subverts the entire basis of money. I think you just identified the motive. Hey guys - you are in my TOP-20 bitcoin theorists. Both. Considering this, the latest replies have been lame. I have presented a mechanism that may dethrone Bitcoin without asking the majority, the exact same way as it has always happened during monetary transformations in the history (leaving the majority holding the bag), and the same way as Bitcoin gained its valuation, which you and I are not ashamed to enjoy. I am interested in hearing analytical criticism that could invalidate the theory. What I hear instead is moral criticism that the entire basis of money is subverted if such happens. Fiat subverted the entire basis of gold. Bitcoin subverted the entire basis of fiat. Resisting the change caused losses among the slow adopters, and heaped riches among the early ones. That's the way it goes, and Bitcoin is the archetype of that. You wish that the world would freeze just because you got it right once and feel entitled to enjoy it forever. I also wished the same up until a year ago, but it is possible to wake up before it is too late. Moral indignation that the entire basis of my wealth-effect gotten wealth would evaporate the same way it came. Sheesh. |
|
|
|
Instead of dwelling in misery after the inevitability, how about thinking theoretically, how the private exchange can continue? What ways to arrange a functional marketplace are available? - Decentralized exchange - Decentralized and trustless blockchain exchange between cryptos - Exchange in a freer jurisdiction - Bulleting board with a thought-out trust/escrow system - Market-making exchange ( Silverbank) - Decentralized network of individual market makers (Localbitcoins) - Services that make markets on intermediary financial goods (gift cards, miles, credits in paypal) - Using Crypto Kingdom social exchange platform to conduct trades (exchange moving inside a non-jurisdiction) If I can think of 8 ways, surely you can add another 8 basic alternatives, and then the community needs to form a taskgroup to pursue the selected one(s) of them. I liked the busoni/poloniex solution something similar can be found on doooglus and just-dice. basically a trusted yet personally unknow person running a business - the door is open to you  You - singular? Yeah, market making on silver, gold, BTC, etc has been my main business since 2006, so at least no need to learn everything the hard way.. |
|
|
|
This affords an opportunity to distill my investment strategy more: - Regard every investment such that you assume your understanding concerning it is totally incorrect. (Typically a total loss is a good approximation, though in some you increase your chances of going to jail as well.) - Find out the greatest intercorrelation of total loss (which event would cause you to be totally incorrect in the largest number of investments at the same time) - Make sure you are OK even in the case when you have been as incorrect as logically is possible. - Invest all the remainder as profitably as possible (Expected Value analysis) with no regard to conventional guidance. You are free to do whatever you want as you are covered against the highest theoretical negative scenario already. Here it helps to be correct in your analysis of course, because that determines the upside |
|
|
|
Everytime you get a pump the bears will short it to death. This revolution may not be cheap.
Correct. For the bears. You are too new to remember |
|
|
|
Instead of dwelling in misery after the inevitability, how about thinking theoretically, how the private exchange can continue? What ways to arrange a functional marketplace are available? - Decentralized exchange - Decentralized and trustless blockchain exchange between cryptos - Exchange in a freer jurisdiction - Bulleting board with a thought-out trust/escrow system - Market-making exchange ( Silverbank) - Decentralized network of individual market makers (Localbitcoins) - Services that make markets on intermediary financial goods (gift cards, miles, credits in paypal) - Using Crypto Kingdom social exchange platform to conduct trades (exchange moving inside a non-jurisdiction) If I can think of 8 ways, surely you can add another 8 basic alternatives, and then the community needs to form a taskgroup to pursue the selected one(s) of them. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
