The name of the thread since inception has been rpietila Wall Observer - the Quality TA Thread where the smiley in the end is very relevant. It was founded after the Adam's Wall Observer occasionally turned into pages after pages of hatespeech towards me. I also remember forecasting $400 when it was unthinkable in early 2014 and promised to only come back in the thread after the prediction materialized, and needed to have another thread to continue discussion meanwhile.

So yes, this one is a lounge where Bitcoin TA is allowed but at the same time it is both an imitation and a parody of the "original" thread.

Sorry, I thought the "quote" feature (used above with author=XX) is to be used when indicating the source, the use of quotation marks may indicate quoting anyone or for making a point, as was the case here.


The thing never was a scenario analysis, and I needed to compose a reply in the original thread already for outlining this very point. I am one of the people here doing scenario analyses, and they are easily distinguishable. The crux of the "OP" was to bring into attention that in practice it is not needed to get the approval of all BTC holders to migrate to a new coin. If enough of them do it, they destroy the value of the ones left behind, and create an equivalent value to themselves as the wealth effect in the new blockchain.

Now you are bringing into attention that it is not necessarily equivalent. Of course it may not be exactly the same, but it is anyway higher than the value they left behind, meaning that they benefit of the migration regardless of how sad the others are or whether they quit entirely or not. The (bulk of the) value already migrated so it's no use to cry. (Cf. no matter what the LTC bagholders think now, they are not getting their value back, and it does not matter much in the grand scheme of things what they decide to do or not.)



We might hope that BTC stays alive, because that would be good for us and good for everyone. Doing even a small investment decision based on hope is, however, foolish. If there is doubt if BTC can make it with regards to the impaired fungibility and regulation, the hopers will be left holding the bag, based on the mathematical fact that only 10-25% need to leave in order to complete the value transfer of 75-90% of the value.

Similarly, it would be nice if the coins stayed the same, but hoping as such does not affect reality. In this case I believe that other factors will take care of it though.


I did the math, and there is no scenario that would make Monero the dominant coin, yet cause an individual XMR-holder to suffer a loss. For this to happen, XMR purchasing power would need to decrease, which is not compatible with the premise. I left this without mention as I have the feeling that I am spoonfeeding enough already, anyway it's nice to hear that it's not the case here

I think I calculated that there will never be even 1 million people with 1 whole bitcoin (unless the bitcoins forcibly are collected and redistributed to achieve this exact distribution, which of course theoretically is possible).

So yeah, if you go for the long term, buying 30 bitcoins makes much sense, you can sell one here and there and still make sure that you own the precious one in the end, making you in the 1 million jetset.

If you are willing to give them, I can arrange them to be hosted as well. Pls PM since I'm not active in this thread.

Definitely, I also enjoyed greatly of my accidental week-long vacation without the 'net. Short term without Internet is good for everyone, even life without Internet is not probably unpleasant.

My assertion was just that the financial value of having the option to use Internet versus the (hypothetical) case of not having it. In my case at least, as a knowledge-age businessman, the value of Internet access is probably about worth my total marketable assets. Without the Internet, I would not have the assets in the first place. With the Internet, I can rebuild them. Without, I could hardly get any satisfying job. And I also value the social aspect a lot, since in this faraway country where I live, it is hard to find company to talk with  

Especially as they have day jobs..  

What stuff do people need for their living?
- food
- shelter
- transportation
- physical things
- immaterial things
- services

Physical things have already become unbelievably cheaper compared to 300 years ago, so that ordinary people own infinitely more possessions than people then did, yet the resale value of a typical estate is near zero.

Immaterial things are free to duplicate, so they are often free and without IPR's the rest would become even cheaper as well.

Food is problematic, because TPTB has a grip on the production, causing bad quality and hindering subsistence farming. I envision a world where the number of manhours spent on farming would somewhat increase from the current, and food would be much better quality than before. Exact ways how to achieve this are more detailed than the scope here. To get high-quality food, human labor is likely irreplaceable, but then again gardening is fun.

Transportation is dependent on energy. So as energy becomes cheaper, transportation will as well. It can get more automated as well. Also the communications and 3-D printing reduce the need of physical transportation of people and goods.

Shelter has become the most expensive need to satisfy, due to the vast improvement in living standards, and also suffocating regulations. There is much to improve in efficiency and variety in housing conditions, regardless of the standard of luxury and convenience.

Services are the balance item. All production in excess of satisfying the physical needs and wants (including the immaterial things) is naturally attracted to services, which are upper-bounded by the number of people, and whose productivity can only moderately be increased by advances in technology. (This is a circular definition, because I define "services" to include the activity that fulfills this criterion, and other production being the domain where progress can increase efficiency by leaps and bounds.)

If we accept that the concentration of both financial and knowledge capital leads to the "dystopian" state of affairs that all other production except services was owned by very few, and employing almost nobody, this will not lead to the outcome that everyone else would live in abject poverty and misery.

Why would they? The production of everything that people need has increased per capita, and people have a limit how much they can rationally use. For the owner class to further increase their standard of living, they want to employ the "rest of us" in the service sector, and the wages they need to competitively offer, will be spent by the people to acquire the basic needs of living that the owner class is producing. Without this exchange, the owner class would be bereft of their services, and would have nobody to buy their goods, clearly an illogical outcome.

I posit that the state is currently consuming most of the resources that could be used for production of services, for their myopic attempts of maintaining "full employment" by employing people in sectors that don't produce anything of value (or even negative value) - in the west the main ones are government bureaucracy, "welfare", "education", "healthcare" and war industry. If we got rid of these, up to 80% of the people would not need to work, yet the production would increase as the monopolies, regulations, etc. would be dissolved. The rich and the knowledgeable would get richer and enjoy life much more, but also the vast majority would see their living standard and especially quality of life improved greatly, after a transition period of course (it is not realistic to assume that a change of this magnitude could happen instantly and learnign to live in freedom will certainly be an inconvenient or even painful experience to many who are not used to it).

TL; DR: There is nothing new under the sun. What the luddites of today fear, has been proved wrong every time there was any advance in efficiency since the dawn of mankind. Now we even have a huge reserve of pent-up production capacity, because most of the people of today are just working in the system doing nothing of value. With the release of these people, the future looks brighter than most of us can even imagine.


Further reading: Henry Hazlitt, Economics in One Lesson (1946), ISBN 978-193355021-3

All production is consumed by humans. The robots don't eat. If we make the robots produce stuff with a 10 times higher efficiency, it must mean that either humans are enjoying 10 times more stuff, or doing 9/10ths less work (or combination). The equation does not have other roots.

Many are concerned about the distribution problem. A short answer is that when making 10 times more stuff with the same resources, it is easy to make everyone better off: even if some enjoy ultimate opulence, the rest also do better than the kings of early ages. Without working necessarily at all.

The current system seems to be trying to hinder the progression to this nirvanatic condition, by imposing an incalculable number of rules and regulations to thwart freedom in relations and businesses, and seems to be ready to unleash death and destruction to hinder it further. This is somewhat of a shame, but I don't think they will be any more able to resist advance than all the previous systems.

When wages go down, it makes sense to employ humans in place of machines.

=> Automatization can only happen in the environment of rising wages.

-------------------------------------------------

It's important to remember that we are talking about real wages here. If you can buy more with your earnings, your wages have risen. Even if you make nothing, you can get many services (WIFI, for example) for free almost everywhere, which means that you are better off than a person earning nothing 20 years ago This is the increase in real wages even as nominal wages are stagnant. (Yes, I am aware that acquiring the same quality of food as was commonplace 50 years ago is really difficult and expensive today, so not all is good.)

The number of people holding the coin is largely irrelevant, as long as the coin is not manipulatable by preminers, and its market cap therefore reflects the current market perception of its value by at least some degree.

Why?

If the marketcap of the coin is constant, then more people holding just means that the average holding is smaller. What matter to the coin's future the most, are the people who have their skin in the game, ie. the larger holders. Nothing is easier than distribute a coin evenly to all people in Iceland, and claim huge number of holders, but this approach does not lead to many enough people appreciating the coin, or a high marketcap, or any success.

XMR mcap is about $4 million. If we accept the higher end of the distribution, it means that $2.7 million in value of this is held by 1,000 people, leaving $1.3 million for the rest.

If we had 50,000 holders which was suggested, the average holding in this smallholder group would be $27, hardly an amount that indicates much trust or skin-in-the-game.

It is therefore probably more likely that the # of people at any one time holding a balance of XMR is 7k, which also was suggested. This would mean that their average is $217, a more likely figure. Or somewhere in between, as per my suggestion.

No matter what the truth is - for it's not knowable - I believe it indicates more strength for the coin to have a healthy number of reasonably large holders than a large number of small ones.

My last visit as the prisoner of the system predates Monero by 1 year and your account by 1/2 a year so consider shutting the fuck up  

1) Crypto is still in the stealth phase, or in the quantum-foam phase, where you cannot really say if it is black or white until you look, and I can change the marketcap of Bitcoin by 10% without sweating my brow, creating or destroying $500 million if I so wish.

2) As long as this persists, short term events do have their effects, but you cannot evaluate the effect just by looking at the current numbers.

3) Every change is perceived progress. So if some Bitcoin holders decide to move their value to an alt, and consequently the value of Bitcoin crashes, the culprit is Bitcoin, which was perceived inferior to the alt. If the alt was never invented, of course there would not have been the change, but it is incredulous to think that this outcome would be better for the society. Proof: Soviet Union also collapsed.

4) It is unlikely, or in every case not long-term credible, to say that a change to the better in crypto value storage alternatives would lead to a decrease of people's willingness to store value in crypto. Cryptos are competing with other asset classes, so an improvement in crypto leads to an increase in interest to store value there, and the increase in the total crypto marketcap.

5) In all due respect, sir, towards your long-term membership here in the forum, and many valuable contributions, but the idea that we should have a moral responsibility to upheld Bitcoin because "otherwise people would not know whom to trust and the whole industry would collapse" is equivalent to the cry from the ludicruously overbloated monopolized taxi racket against Uber and liberalization in general. I mean if you could secure your livelihood by pleading it from the government (as the taxi people could over 50+ years), go for it. But in a free market such fallacy is costly for your self.

Ah, could you try to start using a word apart from "authorities" when you refer to banksters and their tools. As a Christian, I have a reverend feeling toward 'authority', actually to the point where I repented to God in tears that I could not submit to the banksters and their tools as they are 1) evil, 2) liars, and 3) usurpers of the power (despite that they are 4) commonly regarded as the government authority, and 5) coordinate the public functions, etc., obviously possessing the power that determines the de facto authority). God's eventual response (note, this struggle took about 6 years of my active adult life), was:

"You don't need to submit to them."

I understood this much more vividly and in detail, but dare not quote God ( ) in any more detail than I can be sure that he appreciates. I have take the liberty to mention this to people in the same position as me, if they could feel freedom in their conscience from the idea of being liberated from submitting to the earthly institutions usurped by the bankster mafia. Most people do not feel the freedom, evidenced by the vigor in their attacking me of being a lawless person whose end is terrible. Well, whether anyone's end is terrible is always a subject to interpretation: our Lord Jesus Christ as regarded by some was ended quite miserably, but others regard him living ever more and still having some quite nice stuff happening in the future.

But actually I wanted to write about private capital. Don't underestimate that in the Knowledge Age, immaterial (human, virtual) capital has become more prominent. When pundits lament on the destruction of physical capital caused by the government gone mad, expropriating, misallocating and destroying everything that moves (or especially does not move) - the value of the Internet, communication, networks, stores of immaterial knowledge (Wikipedia) and tools (software libraries, 3D-printing instructions), has grown astronomically with no proper accounting.

To illustrate this, I again ran the thought process whether all my material wealth is more valuable than all my immaterial. Naturally, the material wealth did not have a chance, as the market value of my crypto alone trumped it.

The next test was whether the value of every marketable piece of wealth that I possessed (my net worth) was more or less valuable than the lifetime access to the Internet (thinking the somewhat stretched scenario that Internet could be disabled for me, or in general, for the rest of my life). Even though I am very little fan of being penniless, with Internet and all it enables, I can probably not only make a decent income quite instantly, even make back all I had in a few years at most. The alternative, living without Internet with a decent amount of money that is enough for the lifetime, is not appealing (in this age at least  ).

So, the physical capital is deteriorating. But the total capital in the world is imo still growing, and at a very nice pace. The depression of some classes of people is (imo) not that much caused by their tightening material situation, but because they are unable to offset it with increasing their immaterial capital (and by "spending" that capital = enjoying the satisfying virtual experiences (don't mean TV here..)). Also if they were capable of harnessing the massive growth of knowledge, they could easily better their material need as well, even to my claimed level where the access to Internet is more valuable than the nice total of all my different physical and virtual assets.

I have even left some of my physical assets badly protected. Gametheoretically, it does not make sense to spend time protecting something that you can more easily reacquire if it is lost. If the bankster tools get pissed off with me - if they have any logic - they don't even care to expropriate my wealth. They already tried in 2008, which was such a miserable failure that I actually multiplied my new worth as a result. They would go directly after my communication, which they also did with Martin Armstrong when he attained a high enough level of clarity of thought. The cruel and unusual treatment of forced total communication blockade (also imposed on me in 2013 for a few weeks) has a twofold aim of 1) making you mad (the deficient diet contributes as well), and 2) destroying your level of knowledge = your capital, the important part, not the physical part which rusts and gets stolen, and can anyway be bought anew if you have enough knowledge capital.

No, I am not scared of going to prison and be denied communication. I feel it is an eventuality, because it is currently the only way for the banksters to contain me. I cannot in good conscience shut up, because - and this is bold - I feel that God himself amended Bible by telling me that these guys in power are not the authorities that in general case we should obey (see Romans 13 for the general case). If I am not convincing enough to become an actual threat to them, then I am wasting my time and must pray more and try harder. They are standing on the wrong ground, and their end is terrible - it is told in the Bible.

And there is not much I can do to escape going to prison when they so decide. Hiding does not accomplish anything if the whole point is to be a public person. Whether to commit 'crimes' or not is a total nonissue; never have I wronged anybody, but that has in the past not hindered me of being convicted by the state tribunals of various made-up charges, according to, and sometimes even contradicting, the manmade laws, allegedly committing victimless crimes.

Of course my conscience does not allow me to commit any crimes, but the combination that the bankster tools can both make regulations at their pleasure and they own the courts and can therefore convict people regardless of their even breaking the regulation or not, and that all this has happened to me personally already, in a country not generally known to be among the most corrupted in the world (being #1 in the least corrupted instead  ), it is just futile to even try to please them in the small when they correctly fear for the very existence of their system in the large, and are not morally hindered to isolate you, torture you or kill you, to maintain their temporary grip over the God-created earth.

So enjoy while I am still with you!

I think maximum 10%, maybe as little as 2% of Bitcoins-in-holding need to migrate to the new coin.

So the question is not whether the new coin needs to be better in everybody's opinion, just that enough people think it's better.

I haven't converted all my BTC to Monero (far from it) but if I did, it alone would make Monero quite much more expensive.

The decision is not communist, it is individual. And gradual. You can hedge. More likely both coins win than just one. Most likely both go bust.


There is no hype (or at least no froth ). Do the numbers. XMR marketcap is <$4M. It doubles if $200-400k is invested. We are talking about one guy selling his house and completely turning the tables for the currency. It is ridiculous to even talk about it, and everyone with money or even without, scorns it for the small marketcap.

Yet I focus on the underlying facts, and like it a lot.

I would venture to believe that it's possible to use your existing account.

We have had such a long period of moderate prices and accumulation opportunities that I find it possible that one entity has up to 1 million XMR. After all it has been possible to buy it for about $1 million, which is peanuts.

However, acquiring such a stake from the market does not serve any logical purpose. Manipulating the price for trading gains can be done with 100k. Becoming filthy rich is Monero succeeds also happens at 100k (or much less). Supporting the coin by buying at dips and thus amassing a fortune that does not make any difference in the positive case, and can never be sold in the negative case, is not rational. Aiming to be the biggest holder for the sake of it, nah. Buying a shitload for the future nefarious purposes is implausible, as the very act of buying a million coins would have been the thing that kept Monero alive (imagine the price without the million coins buying pressure over the months!)

My belief is that the holdings distribution table quoted above is rather well indicative concerning the largest holdings. The bottom tranches depend heavily on the number of XMR holders, which was assumed to be 25,000, but can as well be 10,000 or only 5,000.

I am coming to the Berlin meetup in 23.-24. May with a small delegation. Accepting invitations to events

Don't get me wrong. I did not say it is probable that an alt ever reaches 20% of BTC.

What I did say is that if it happens, it does not require that all BTC holders decide in favor of this alt. As little as 2% of the BTC value may be enough to reach it, causing an educated stampede, and when 10-25% of the value has migrated, there is practically no value left in Bitcoin, because the rest of the value has made an invisible transition by the alt price increasing and BTC decreasing. Most of the BTCers can never exit with their wealth intact. If ever the situation presents itself, you got to be among the first ones.

Just that you know. It is not intuitive that it is so. Protecting yourself now costs essentially nothing.

Well to the extent that 2-way communication is required, yes.

Much can be gained from 1-way transmit of information as well, and I for one don't hesitate to call me a guru in a field where I obviously am one, and a disciple in another.

Communication between peers might be pleasant but in the end does not acquire that much. The change happens when the communication crosses borders of classes.

^ I fully agree that this is one, and very possible scenario.

(while asserting that it's good to watch the 20% line since it will trigger the scenario I outlined.. )

Monetary conditions in the Realm after the launch of V.4: Reconstruction

The monetary architects are busy keeping the jurisdiction of external influence in the Kingdom at minimum. For this reason the Game does not accept anything except XMR in return for the ingame moneretos (1 XMR = 1,000,000 moneretos). The XMR is stored in 100% hard reserve, although at present we are not accepting redemptions. The future plan is to integrate XMR to be used in the game directly (perhaps via a game-wallet construction) and get rid of moneretos ie. redeem them from the reserve XMR.

CKG will start trading in Poloniex, with a 2-way port between the exchange and the game. This makes it likely that most of the value to the game arrives via that gateway. The Game is not part of the transactions, the gold holders need to be vigilant to supply enough to be sold there, so that the new players can take it to the game and exchange for items of need (land, buildings, items, moneretos). If the players feel they are under external jurisdiction concerning these trades and incur tax liability, they are instructed to follow their conscience.

The ingame King's Coinshop will continue operating, because in this arrangement there is still obviously a need for a swift ingame CKG/XMR conversion. Because the volumes are growing, and arbitrage opportunities emerge, more ingame institutional players are welcome to the arena. The King's Coinshop will retain a high-ish spread of 13% and be the last-resort option. (The King's Coinshop also "emits" more CKG to free circulation from HM holdings when prices rise, and "sweeps" it back when they slump, acting as an automated balance.)

There is no automated mechanism that would keep the CKG/XMR rate in Poloniex the same as CKG/m rate is ingame. Theoretically the utility of XMR outside the game is higher than the inconvertible m utility ingame, and m price should therefore experience a discount. This will be balanced by the expected much larger inflow of value to the game, compared to the outflow, as it is more likely that the release of V.4 will lead to increase of player activity than the contrary. (It is not likely that m will go to a sustained premium relative to XMR, for the simple reason that deposit of XMR yields a fixed quantity of m.)

When (not if), however, in the future, the game economy experiences a boom-bust cycle, it is likely that short-term the cash wants to flow out of the game. This period will be marked by declining asset values probably affecting all assets, and also a possible disconnect of m price from XMR price.

There is no other method to prevent this than by keeping the markets open for arbitraging speculators who gladly offset the exiting capital (by buying m at a discount to XMR) and spend this discounted m by acquiring assets at an additional discount. This is the standard way of market cycles, which allocates capital from weak, frothy hands, to the strong and stable ones.

We have already experienced business cycles in the game, one of them cost me the CEOship and ownership in the Grand Hotel Next time I promise to act more shrewdly