The issue is the vast majority of the population will be perfectly happy with the new world order
Not necessarily. It depends. They are fattened and appeased right now because the "free" debt money spigot is open wide. On the backside of 2017, they are not going to like the pain, which will open opportunities to get them interested in online commerce so they can earn some income during the downturn coming. The elite know this and that is why will try to lock everything down with capital controls from 2017 to 2020 at least, so they can complete their global monetary reset. So the key is to work on projects which won't be in violation of any capital controls. Think small such as microtransactions. The government can't possible put capital controls on microtransactions. I have a specific plan now (which wasn't formulated when I spoke to you all in private) and it is doesn't involve air drops to n00bs. Also I have diversified my plan so that if the crypto currency aspect of my project fails, I will still have the social networking aspect which I can continue. ...if I can help to secure some VC funding for them. IMHO that's what you need as well: to formalize your operation and go with a serious VC or group of angel investors. I understand you can get some support here but the trouble which comes with the money from this platform simply does not worth the support. You have to explain all day long to speculators, young, inexperienced and uninformed "investors" every steps you do. I think you would be in a more desirable position, more productive and eventually more successful if you would work with VC investors instead of trying to get support on this platform.
I had enough offers for angel funding before ($100,000+) June that I tried to find a programmer to work with me. But it is very difficult to find programmers at my level who are willing to work for a smaller payscale and not also burden the coin with a huge premine. And to increase their pay means a larger angel investment which also could create a huge premine, depending on the terms. I find it very slow to conceive of stopping my coding now to try to go organize that. I am thinking I can get a rudimentary launch done within months and from there generate the funding necessary to refine it further with a small team of developers. When selecting a team of developers, I would much rather select from a larger pool than here on this forum. I want people who are smarter than me and who are easy to work with. Also I think it is easier to select such people once you have an code base so you can see how developers perform on the actual type of work needed. And how the communication load scales. Some pairings of people just aren't able to communicate efficiently to each other, or have misaligned outlooks. Company culture is critical to success. It should feel like a slumber party in order to be successful. |
|
|
|
The issue is the vast majority of the population will be perfectly happy with the new world order
Not necessarily. It depends. They are fattened and appeased right now because the "free" debt money spigot is open wide. On the backside of 2017, they are not going to like the pain, which will open opportunities to get them interested in online commerce so they can earn some income during the downturn coming. The elite know this and that is why will try to lock everything down with capital controls from 2017 to 2020 at least, so they can complete their global monetary reset. So the key is to work on projects which won't be in violation of any capital controls. Think small such as microtransactions. The government can't possible put capital controls on microtransactions. I have a specific plan now (which wasn't formulated when I spoke to you all in private) and it is doesn't involve air drops to n00bs. Also I have diversified my plan so that if the crypto currency aspect of my project fails, I will still have the social networking aspect which I can continue. ...if I can help to secure some VC funding for them. IMHO that's what you need as well: to formalize your operation and go with a serious VC or group of angel investors. I understand you can get some support here but the trouble which comes with the money from this platform simply does not worth the support. You have to explain all day long to speculators, young, inexperienced and uninformed "investors" every steps you do. I think you would be in a more desirable position, more productive and eventually more successful if you would work with VC investors instead of trying to get support on this platform.
I had enough offers for angel funding before ($100,000+) June that I tried to find a programmer to work with me. But it is very difficult to find programmers at my level who are willing to work for a smaller payscale and not also burden the coin with a huge premine. And to increase their pay means a larger angel investment which also could create a huge premine, depending on the terms. I find it very slow to conceive of stopping my coding now to try to go organize that. I am thinking I can get a rudimentary launch done within months and from there generate the funding necessary to refine it further with a small team of developers. When selecting a team of developers, I would much rather select from a larger pool than here on this forum. I want people who are smarter than me and who are easy to work with. Also I think it is easier to select such people once you have an code base so you can see how developers perform on the actual type of work needed. And how the communication load scales. Some pairings of people just aren't able to communicate efficiently to each other, or have misaligned outlooks. Company culture is critical to success. It should feel like a slumber party in order to be successful. |
|
|
|
[...]
Monero has solved nothing and has the same insoluble “scalepocalypse” Tragedy of the Commons collapse economics as Bitcoin.
Btw, I know how to solve this problem and the solution will be in my coin. Iota appears to have solved this problem as well, but my analysis concludes Iota will fail to converge without centralization of the system as well. The only distinction of what I am proposing to do in my coin is that the verification cost centralization is under the control of decentralized payers. Iota can't do this because if the payers don't stay with the same centralization, the convergence is lost. Whereas, in my coin design the payers can move their PoW shares at any time, because my design has a longest chain rule.
|
|
|
|
Let me take a stab at explaining for laymen, my debate with ArticMine. Monero has a feature that charges a penalty deducted from the coinbase block reward (e.g. analogous to the 25 BTC per block reward in Bitcoin). The Monero penalty is calculated based on how much larger the block is relative to the median of the preceding N blocks. The intended effect of this feature is that block size will scale to market demand without any Tragedy of the Commons collapse into dysfunctional/degenerate outcomes. Note miners also earn income from transaction fees, so we have to analyze the complex interplay (i.e. game theory and any Nash equilibrium) between Monero's penalty algorithm, block size, block reward, and transaction fees, as well as any costs (see next paragraph). Bitcoin has “ scalepocalypse” Tragedy of the Commons collapse into dysfunctional/degenerate outcomes as transaction volumes scale up, because either: - There is a block size limit and thus transaction fees will rise to the level of transaction values as transaction volumes far exceed that limit, in order to prioritize which transactions don't fit in the limited sized blocks.
- Or block size would be allowed to have no limit, in which case transaction fees will decline to the cost of verification (the cost for the miner with the most hashrate!) since in the absence of a block size limit the miners have no incentive to not include transactions which provide some more income per block (regardless how small that income per transaction is for as long as it exceeds costs). Note the bandwidth/propagation delay cost argument is moot because again the miners with most hashrate have the lowest bandwidth/propagation delay cost and they set the lowest transaction fees since they have the lowest costs[1] (readers thus note these issues are very complex and requires to have many variables in one's head at the same time to give a correct holistic analysis). The unbounded block size case leads to an oligarchy of the monopoly on hashrate so those in the mining cartel can have pricing power and also because (as I explained in the prior sentences) those who have more hashrate also have lower costs, thus they over time aggregate more hash rate than other miners (because they are more profitable).
The simplest rebuttal to ArticMine is that if the penalty feature of Monero works as intended so as to allow the block size to expand to the market demand for transaction volume, then the “ scalepocalypse” Tragedy of the Commons collapse economics that I explained in the prior paragraph for the case of unbounded block size also applies to Monero. Monero's penalty feature only prevents a miner from bloating the blocks with fake transactions paying to themself (because the miner would have to pay the penalty for exceeding the median block size, but is receiving no transaction fees to pay for the cost of the penalty from fake transactions); and Monero's penalty feature is intended to scale block size to actual market demand. Thus I have explained there is no Nash equilibrium in Monero's penalty feature (unlike for Satoshi's longest chain rule where there is indeed a Nash equilibrium because if miners don't converge on the longest chain then all their chains are invalid/orphans and worthless without consensus). ArticMine is probably thinking that since miners have different costs, the equilibrium point for transaction fees will be the weighted average but I have explained the holistic economics by which this weighted average is driven by the costs of the largest hashrate miners until they control all the hashrate[1]. If one instead assumed that ALL (or nearly all) payers will choose to wait for the lowest cost miner to win a block (and include their transactions, i.e. queueing up in a line that grows longer and longer) and thus set their transaction fees accordingly, then Monero's penalty feature would force the block size to trend to 0. I of course don't think payers will do this, thus I stated that either the block size trends to 0, or the block size scales to market demand. But per the prior paragraph, when the block size scales to market demand, then the transaction fees decline to the lowest cost miners over time (which is essentially trending to ~0), and thus the largest hash rate miners will be incentivized to form an alliance so they can have some pricing power over transaction fees. Monero has solved nothing and has the same insoluble “ scalepocalypse” Tragedy of the Commons collapse economics as Bitcoin. Btw, I know how to solve this problem and the solution will be in my coin. Iota appears to have solved this problem as well, but my analysis concludes Iota will fail to converge without centralization of the system as well. The only distinction of what I am proposing to do in my coin is that the verification cost centralization is under the control of decentralized payers. Iota can't do this because if the payers don't stay with the same centralization, the convergence is lost. Whereas, in my coin design the payers can move their PoW shares at any time, because my design has a longest chain rule. | [1] | This is mathematically unarguable for payers willing to wait for their transaction to be confirmed until the largest hashrate miner wins a block. It is also true in that the transaction fees are set by a weighted average of frequency of block wins by miners according to hashrate. And since I explained that miners with more hashrate aggregate more hashrate over time due to having lower costs, then the long game centralization/domination of transaction fee weighted average trend is unarguable as well. |
This response starts with the correct assumption that decentralization alone can't have a solution to the Byzantine Generals Problem (the failure of proof of stake), and then proceeds to make little sense on the unrelated problem of scaling the blocksize in POW coins. The latter problem Monero solves. Keep in mind that an equilibrium between fees per block, base reward and blocksize without a collapse to zero or "infinite" fees, the problem Monero solves, does not by itself speak to the miner centralization issue.
Whether proof of work introduces enough external entropy into the system to solve Byzantine Generals Problem is far from clear because there are a host of centralizing and de-centralizing factors interacting with each other the majority of which have not been taken into consideration in the previous discussion.
The underlined portion was refuted above. Now I will address your abstract theoretical errors in the non-underlined portions quoted above... The Nash equilibrium failures of PoS are caused by the fact that the centralization is in the stake. What I showed abstractly in this thread is that every BGP solution will have some element of centralization, because BGP can't be solved without a reference point because otherwise there is no objective reality. The longest chain rule employing external entropy from PoW provides no reference point other than the longest chain. As I explained to smooth and monsterer, so any attributes that can't be detected from the LCR, e.g. whether the coin is under 51% attack doing double-spends or censoring transactions, thus can't be objectively known/proved so that all observers agree (i.e. these attributes are undecidable). Thus Satoshi's LCR employing PoW does not solve BGP and can't solve it without some centralization. Period! The key insight is to control how and where the centralization will be in the system. The error Bitcoin and Monero have made is the centralization is out-of-control of the payers. I have fixed that. Thus the abstract BGP analysis does apply to the conclusion that Monero (and Ethereum) have deluded themselves into thinking they can avoid centralization and instead gets centralization in a way they did not want. Sorry you were wrong on every single point you wrote. Edit: PoW LCR is necessary to enforce the following conditions assumed by BGP that don't exist in a decentralized network otherwise (but again there is no objectivity other than the Nash equilibrium of the longest chain): Afaics the paper has an important omission which is that when the disloyal generals (traitors) are not colluding (i.e. can't trust each other) then they have no reliable means to disrupt the loyal consensus. So my analysis will focus on the case where the disloyal generals are colluding.
[...]
(note also that the definition of oral messages assumes conditions A1, A2, and A3 which can't exist in a decentralized network where Sybil attacks are possible)
PS: By the way, classical BGP mentions somewhere that traitors collude AFAIK.
|
|
|
|
|
I am writing a layman's post now. I will try to explain the debate between ArticMine and myself in a way that hopefully more people can understand.
|
|
|
|
And btw, this is why I suggested to Zcash, they hedge their bets and also focus some of their efforts on the corporate applications of zk-snarks to privacy for public block chains with an optional viewkey for the government. This is absolutely needed by corporations if they are going to use block chain technology to interopt more efficiently. Zcash is sitting on a gold mine technology if they get some clarity into their strategy. I think perhaps they should have hired me. Any way, I am off on other project/work now.
That was the reason I started to support the Gadgetcoin developers, because they identified businesses need a private implementation of the blockchain, businesses simply can't operate with public blockchains. Such public blockchain exposes all their trading and transaction information to the public, which is simply not an option for business operations (now the GDC devs are unhappy with me because of my IOTA fight, but that is an other matter). I think you are quite right if you see there is a business case and your project can be successful in that area. I am saddened to hear that the GDC affiliation turned slightly sour because of your questioning the ethics of Iota. I would guess what they would be upset about is being associated with any strife, because it might turn off corporations. I don't think you can do anything about speculation in coins. You have nothing to gain from fighting such a war. Instead be laserbeam focused on investing correctly. And trying to find any serious and capable development that you want to invest in. One of the problems that GDC and I face is economies-of-scale. We simply don't have enough full-time developers and I am also ill. But I am going to redouble my efforts on both my health treatment and on my resolve to not post in forums and be focused on coding. The key in my mind is reaching a point where others invest in the ecosystem, then economies-of-scale become easy. So I am just trying to devise the clever way to jumpstart to that pole position with the resources I have (i.e. myself and enough cash to support my living expenses for several more months). Let me add to both of your points, that the global government is also taking form but not entirely organized yet. For example, the G20 has just recently pledged to share information and work together on tax cheating. It takes a while to get all these 100+ nations to cooperate, but realize the leverage the G20 has over international banking (e.g. they threatened to shut off the Philippines' OFW remittances if the Philippines didn't comply with the wished for the USA such as ending the bank secrecy law in the Philippines) and over the internet trunk lines (undersea) and other geopolitical leverage.
It always amaze me how powerless we are when it comes to money, and how quick government and the money lobby can act. You remember, not long time ago the Greeks voted and said no to austerity. The vote was on a Sunday. The following week their prime minister sat down with the Troika and by Friday the prime minister implemented more severe measures that was declined by the voters just a few days before. I think the Chinese, Europe and all others will implement those money control measures in a heartbeat when they feel the Status Quo needs to be defended. That is why I want to work on the problem insidiously. The people should taste freedom in the things they do normally on the internet, e.g. social networking. From there, the people are astute at finding all the opportunities and fighting for them. Enable the masses to get what they REALLY want. That is the key. |
|
|
|
Governments would be pro Bitcoin because everything is being recorded in the blockchain
Correct. That's why Bitcoin is a God given gift to the the government and tax man. That's why there are conspiracy theories - which I don't subscribe to - that Sathosi is an NSA creation. Non-sequitor. (plz don't be offended) If Bitcoin is a God given gift to the government, then it does not logically follow that Satoshi wouldn't be a DEEP STATE (global elite/NSA/CIA) operation. On the other hand, I don't agree with conspiracy theories that government will make Bitcoin big just to have this centralized place for tax collection i.e. intentionally make Bitcoin very big as some theory advocates it. Government don't have to do that - they implement the electronic FIAT system anyway, in Europe very-very quickly so they don't need Bitcoin, the electronic FIAT system is their central store of information. That's why I said if for some miraculous reason BTC get bigger then the government will step in, but not before.
I years ago figured out why the global elite planted Bitcoin. It undermines the nation-states, central banks, and existing banking systems. They could not accomplish that in a hidden way if they did it top-down as you claim. (yet another reason that Zcash should take my advice and make sure they focus also on corporate applications of their technology) The plan all along has been to discredit the existing nation-state system to move towards a world government system. On the note of electronic FIAT - and it indicates IMHO how intelligent Armstrong is and he sees the big picture - on the other day he said that yes, all nations will implement the electronic FIAT system, but the US, because the role of US dollars in world economy won't be able to that. Therefore, it will be a very messy situation. Now, that is very interesting. Electronic FIAT will be a big change around the world with its consequence on society and economy. The sheep of Europe - like we are in the UK and all others in the EU - move to electronic FIAT. In the meantime the physical US dollar will be still in place. How that does work, everyone will just buy US $ as Armstrong predicts it (please note he predicts it for mainly different reasons)? But Armstrong also says after 2020 the money flow to Asia. Why would it flow if US dollar still the safe heaven? Indeed a complicated issue.
He also stated the USA has the least chance of cancelling the dollar (not just cash) because the Bible Belt might secede from the USA, but Europe, Japan, etc have done it very often. What Armstrong is saying is the same as I have long stated, which is that the rest of the world will implode and then blame the strong dollar. It is this contagion of blame that will lead to a new Breton Woods where a global government can be initiated. The point of Bitcoin and the sovereign debt crisis is force the nation-states to their knees to beg for a globalized monetary union. |
|
|
|
Very astute. Btw, Bubble is sort of headed in the right direction, but I am thinking you lack marketing experience. I mean you lack the experience to be able to analyze the difference between an idea and a market (unless your marketing is to speculators and not to an adoption market, in which case I see the cleverness of your approach). If you want to succeed in adoption markets, you might consider partnering with someone like me who has that experience. But then again, I am not that interested in partnering. I am more interested in interopting where each developer owns their own project in a mutual ecosystem. I don't like being responsible for someone else's coding/code. I prefer modules and economically separated as well. Finding a well matched partner for co-founding a project is very difficult for me, because I am not socializing in real life with coders. I am far away on an island. |
|
|
|
...I want him to go to the safecoin forums and try to argue with david irvine...
Send David Irvine over here so he can prove his is not afraid to debate me. I will not debate him in his own forum where he has moderation control. I will slaughter his arguments if he comes here, so you can expect he will not. I am not at all afraid of him. Bring it on! Instead he will stay in his controlled spinmaster ecochamber where he can preach to the faithful. I have watched him on video. I know what I am dealing with in him. Let him try to debate about that nonsense about anonymity in MaidSafe (or has he abandoned that claim by now?). But you are the one making such claims, you should be the one that has to defend them and prove the developers wrong. I don't think they would shut your thread down if you are respectful about it, but if you have a show off stance they might, but I have seen other people make criticism on the forum and no one has deleted the threads. It's not the same creating a thread saying "I think Maidsafe has X flaws" than saying "Maidsafe is doomed!!!". It is his choice whether he wants to come here to debate me or not. No one is paying me. I only post here and rarely in Reddit (and recently in the Zcash forum only because I am formerly AnonyMint so I have a historical obligation on the anonymity issue). I am actually trying to stop posting. So I think what I have stated upthread is already sufficient. If anyone wants to debate me on the facts, then do it. I am reading. |
|
|
|
...I want him to go to the safecoin forums and try to argue with david irvine...
Send David Irvine over here so he can prove his is not afraid to debate me. I will not debate him in his own forum where he has moderation control. I will slaughter his arguments if he comes here, so you can expect he will not. I am not at all afraid of him. Bring it on! Instead he will stay in his controlled spinmaster ecochamber where he can preach to the faithful. I have watched him on video. I know what I am dealing with in him. Let him try to debate about that nonsense about anonymity in MaidSafe (or has he abandoned that claim by now?). |
|
|
|
This response starts with the correct assumption that decentralization alone can't have a solution to the Byzantine Generals Problem (the failure of proof of stake), and then proceeds to make little sense on the unrelated problem of scaling the blocksize in POW coins. The latter problem Monero solves. Keep in mind that an equilibrium between fees per block, base reward and blocksize without a collapse to zero or "infinite" fees, the problem Monero solves, does not by itself speak to the miner centralization issue.
Whether proof of work introduces enough external entropy into the system to solve Byzantine Generals Problem is far from clear because there are a host of centralizing and de-centralizing factors interacting with each other the majority of which have not been taken into consideration in the previous discussion.
Your conceptualization is so egregiously incorrect on so many levels, I am mentally challenged as to how I can respond to both illuminate and untangle all your errors. When someone as you have done here twists their thinking into such a convoluted state of wrong conceptualization on top of wrong conceptualization, it becomes arduous to even continue the discussion. Sorry if that sounds like an ad hominem response, but I am really flabberghast+exasperated that you are apparently incapable of comprehending what I have tried to explain (again presuming you are supposed to be an expert on this issue given you display that you are intimately involved with Monero's penalty algorithm). I guess I just assume that extremely intelligent people are capable of comprehending, but apparently this is not true and I need to work harder to elucidate my point. But I am also trying to discipline myself to stop posting in this forum, so I can't continue to untangle the twisted thoughts of others. This has to stop at some point very soon. Let me reflect for a while on how I can elucidate this issue to you. |
|
|
|
I think this is relevant to my project: I have great respect for Martin Armstrong's work.
However, when it comes to the topic of Bitcoin, he seem to be a little too pessimistic, saying the government can shut it down anytime it wants.
I wrote him an email asking who he would think the government could do this, but received no reply until today.
Anyone with more info?
He says very little about Bitcoin, but he sees the matter from a pragmatic viewpoint: crypto currencies - that allow hiding the money from the tax man - will be stopped by the government. Government will collude with the Bitcoin foundation or just simply direct them to do it and the protocol will be modified to implement features to enable more efficiently track of the money (but even in its current form BTC is a god given gift for the tax man as by definition everything is in the blockchain and traceable.) The miners will cooperate too. In case the developers and miners don't comply - which is extremely unlikely - measures will be exposed on different levels such as ISP and OS (in the case of proprietary OS like Windows and iOs) to crack down on Bitcoin. (Of course all naive libertarian attempts like Dash and zerocash that try to implement privacy will be cracked down too). Please note, there is no reason for government to intervene at this moment in time. Bitcoin is minuscule and insignificant terms of market capitalization and volume, used by very few users (the active 1 million users are lot less than a mediocre porn site has) so the government will step in when for some reason it will be actually popular, but at the time the government will act quickly and forcefully. MA is pessimistic of private money surviving long term, it usually appears during a crisis and withers away or ends up being taxed anyway, there's nothing new under the sun so the saying goes.
He doesn't believe bitcoin will be any different.
"The idea that Bitcoin can circumvent government currencies and taxes I just do not buy. I suspect these people are licking their chops to rush in. That is my only concern. You cannot withdraw $3,000 in cash without them freaking out. They will an underground economy exist? I seriously doubt it."
Agreed on your and trollercoaster's response. And btw, this is why I suggested to Zcash, they hedge their bets and also focus some of their efforts on the corporate applications of zk-snarks to privacy for public block chains with an optional viewkey for the government. This is absolutely needed by corporations if they are going to use block chain technology to interopt more efficiently. Zcash is sitting on a gold mine technology if they get some clarity into their strategy. I think perhaps they should have hired me. Any way, I am off on other project/work now. Let me add to both of your points, that the global government is also taking form but not entirely organized yet. For example, the G20 has just recently pledged to share information and work together on tax cheating. It takes a while to get all these 100+ nations to cooperate, but realize the leverage the G20 has over international banking (e.g. they threatened to shut off the Philippines' OFW remittances if the Philippines didn't comply with the wished for the USA such as ending the bank secrecy law in the Philippines) and over the internet trunk lines (undersea) and other geopolitical leverage. The government will be able to shut down Bitcoin for the reasons AltcoinUK has explained. Bitcoin is becoming centralized and controlled by a few people. For example, the Chinese mining cartel controls 67% of the hashrate and recently did a 51% attack on Bitcoin. I have pretty much given up on the anarchistic, ideological aspect of crypto currency. I am focused on a smarter "anarchistic" ideology of making crypto currency popular and enabling netizens to express themselves more freely. Ultimately the battle with be political so I am better off to use my technological expertise to enable more popular freedoms in decentralized social networking than to focus on some impossible dream. I have also recently shown that no decentralized crypto currency can ever exist. Sorry there are lots of uninformed soundbite-mastery "experts" who persistently say otherwise, but they are wrong.
Governments would be pro Bitcoin because everything is being recorded in the blockchain
Correct. That's why Bitcoin is a God given gift to the the government and tax man. That's why there are conspiracy theories - which I don't subscribe to - that Sathosi is an NSA creation. Non-sequitor. (plz don't be offended) If Bitcoin is a God given gift to the government, then it does not logically follow that Satoshi wouldn't be a DEEP STATE (global elite/NSA/CIA) operation. On the other hand, I don't agree with conspiracy theories that government will make Bitcoin big just to have this centralized place for tax collection i.e. intentionally make Bitcoin very big as some theory advocates it. Government don't have to do that - they implement the electronic FIAT system anyway, in Europe very-very quickly so they don't need Bitcoin, the electronic FIAT system is their central store of information. That's why I said if for some miraculous reason BTC get bigger then the government will step in, but not before.
I years ago figured out why the global elite planted Bitcoin. It undermines the nation-states, central banks, and existing banking systems. They could not accomplish that in a hidden way if they did it top-down as you claim. (yet another reason that Zcash should take my advice and make sure they focus also on corporate applications of their technology) The plan all along has been to discredit the existing nation-state system to move towards a world government system. On the note of electronic FIAT - and it indicates IMHO how intelligent Armstrong is and he sees the big picture - on the other day he said that yes, all nations will implement the electronic FIAT system, but the US, because the role of US dollars in world economy won't be able to that. Therefore, it will be a very messy situation. Now, that is very interesting. Electronic FIAT will be a big change around the world with its consequence on society and economy. The sheep of Europe - like we are in the UK and all others in the EU - move to electronic FIAT. In the meantime the physical US dollar will be still in place. How that does work, everyone will just buy US $ as Armstrong predicts it (please note he predicts it for mainly different reasons)? But Armstrong also says after 2020 the money flow to Asia. Why would it flow if US dollar still the safe heaven? Indeed a complicated issue.
He also stated the USA has the least chance of cancelling the dollar (not just cash) because the Bible Belt might secede from the USA, but Europe, Japan, etc have done it very often. What Armstrong is saying is the same as I have long stated, which is that the rest of the world will implode and then blame the strong dollar. It is this contagion of blame that will lead to a new Breton Woods where a global government can be initiated. The point of Bitcoin and the sovereign debt crisis is force the nation-states to their knees to beg for a globalized monetary union.
And btw, this is why I suggested to Zcash, they hedge their bets and also focus some of their efforts on the corporate applications of zk-snarks to privacy for public block chains with an optional viewkey for the government. This is absolutely needed by corporations if they are going to use block chain technology to interopt more efficiently. Zcash is sitting on a gold mine technology if they get some clarity into their strategy. I think perhaps they should have hired me. Any way, I am off on other project/work now.
That was the reason I started to support the Gadgetcoin developers, because they identified businesses need a private implementation of the blockchain, businesses simply can't operate with public blockchains. Such public blockchain exposes all their trading and transaction information to the public, which is simply not an option for business operations (now the GDC devs are unhappy with me because of my IOTA fight, but that is an other matter). I think you are quite right if you see there is a business case and your project can be successful in that area. I am saddened to hear that the GDC affiliation turned slightly sour because of your questioning the ethics of Iota. I would guess what they would be upset about is being associated with any strife, because it might turn off corporations. I don't think you can do anything about speculation in coins. You have nothing to gain from fighting such a war. Instead be laserbeam focused on investing correctly. And trying to find any serious and capable development that you want to invest in. One of the problems that GDC and I face is economies-of-scale. We simply don't have enough full-time developers and I am also ill. But I am going to redouble my efforts on both my health treatment and on my resolve to not post in forums and be focused on coding. The key in my mind is reaching a point where others invest in the ecosystem, then economies-of-scale become easy. So I am just trying to devise the clever way to jumpstart to that pole position with the resources I have (i.e. myself and enough cash to support my living expenses for several more months). Let me add to both of your points, that the global government is also taking form but not entirely organized yet. For example, the G20 has just recently pledged to share information and work together on tax cheating. It takes a while to get all these 100+ nations to cooperate, but realize the leverage the G20 has over international banking (e.g. they threatened to shut off the Philippines' OFW remittances if the Philippines didn't comply with the wished for the USA such as ending the bank secrecy law in the Philippines) and over the internet trunk lines (undersea) and other geopolitical leverage.
It always amaze me how powerless we are when it comes to money, and how quick government and the money lobby can act. You remember, not long time ago the Greeks voted and said no to austerity. The vote was on a Sunday. The following week their prime minister sat down with the Troika and by Friday the prime minister implemented more severe measures that was declined by the voters just a few days before. I think the Chinese, Europe and all others will implement those money control measures in a heartbeat when they feel the Status Quo needs to be defended. That is why I want to work on the problem insidiously. The people should taste freedom in the things they do normally on the internet, e.g. social networking. From there, the people are astute at finding all the opportunities and fighting for them. Enable the masses to get what they REALLY want. That is the key.
Very astute. Btw, Bubble is sort of headed in the right direction, but I am thinking you lack marketing experience. I mean you lack the experience to be able to analyze the difference between an idea and a market (unless your marketing is to speculators and not to an adoption market, in which case I see the cleverness of your approach). If you want to succeed in adoption markets, you might consider partnering with someone like me who has that experience. But then again, I am not that interested in partnering. I am more interested in interopting where each developer owns their own project in a mutual ecosystem. I don't like being responsible for someone else's coding/code. I prefer modules and economically separated as well. Finding a well matched partner for co-founding a project is very difficult for me, because I am not socializing in real life with coders. I am far away on an island. |
|
|
|
As a side note, to be fair, the scepticism of the critics of Armstrong is supported by the human side of Armstrong. His human side what he often demonstrates in his blog, namely that the latest market directional change very much influences your opinion. When the market is seriously dipping then he start to talk about DJIA 13K and when there is a recovery the he start mentioning the slingshot move. All I am trying to say, he could be right about his cycle theory, but when it comes to day trading he is as much clueless as all of us are.
MA has always said the short-term is much more noisy than the long-term. And the predicting the long-term major trends is much easier than predicting the short-term. His trading models use extra dimensions of correlations to provide better odds, but you need to be a paid client so Socrates can provide specific advice to your portfolio. No serious day trader would use MA's blog to trade on. That sloanf would even suggest such just confirms that he is an amateur that has no clue about professional trading. |
|
|
|
I have great respect for Martin Armstrong's work.
However, when it comes to the topic of Bitcoin, he seem to be a little too pessimistic, saying the government can shut it down anytime it wants.
I wrote him an email asking who he would think the government could do this, but received no reply until today.
Anyone with more info?
He says very little about Bitcoin, but he sees the matter from a pragmatic viewpoint: crypto currencies - that allow hiding the money from the tax man - will be stopped by the government. Government will collude with the Bitcoin foundation or just simply direct them to do it and the protocol will be modified to implement features to enable more efficiently track of the money (but even in its current form BTC is a god given gift for the tax man as by definition everything is in the blockchain and traceable.) The miners will cooperate too. In case the developers and miners don't comply - which is extremely unlikely - measures will be exposed on different levels such as ISP and OS (in the case of proprietary OS like Windows and iOs) to crack down on Bitcoin. (Of course all naive libertarian attempts like Dash and zerocash that try to implement privacy will be cracked down too). Please note, there is no reason for government to intervene at this moment in time. Bitcoin is minuscule and insignificant terms of market capitalization and volume, used by very few users (the active 1 million users are lot less than a mediocre porn site has) so the government will step in when for some reason it will be actually popular, but at the time the government will act quickly and forcefully. MA is pessimistic of private money surviving long term, it usually appears during a crisis and withers away or ends up being taxed anyway, there's nothing new under the sun so the saying goes.
He doesn't believe bitcoin will be any different.
"The idea that Bitcoin can circumvent government currencies and taxes I just do not buy. I suspect these people are licking their chops to rush in. That is my only concern. You cannot withdraw $3,000 in cash without them freaking out. They will an underground economy exist? I seriously doubt it."
Agreed on your and trollercoaster's response. And btw, this is why I suggested to Zcash, they hedge their bets and also focus some of their efforts on the corporate applications of zk-snarks to privacy for public block chains with an optional viewkey for the government. This is absolutely needed by corporations if they are going to use block chain technology to interopt more efficiently. Zcash is sitting on a gold mine technology if they get some clarity into their strategy. I think perhaps they should have hired me. Any way, I am off on other project/work now. Let me add to both of your points, that the global government is also taking form but not entirely organized yet. For example, the G20 has just recently pledged to share information and work together on tax cheating. It takes a while to get all these 100+ nations to cooperate, but realize the leverage the G20 has over international banking (e.g. they threatened to shut off the Philippines' OFW remittances if the Philippines didn't comply with the wished for the USA such as ending the bank secrecy law in the Philippines) and over the internet trunk lines (undersea) and other geopolitical leverage. The government will be able to shut down Bitcoin for the reasons AltcoinUK has explained. Bitcoin is becoming centralized and controlled by a few people. For example, the Chinese mining cartel controls 67% of the hashrate and recently did a 51% attack on Bitcoin. I have pretty much given up on the anarchistic, ideological aspect of crypto currency. I am focused on a smarter "anarchistic" ideology of making crypto currency popular and enabling netizens to express themselves more freely. Ultimately the battle with be political so I am better off to use my technological expertise to enable more popular freedoms in decentralized social networking than to focus on some impossible dream. I have also recently shown that no decentralized crypto currency can ever exist. Sorry there are lots of uninformed soundbite-mastery "experts" who persistently say otherwise, but they are wrong. |
|
|
|
One final post to Zcash and this really needs to be my last one: But you and Matthew Greene in my opinion has brought to the project more...
Maybe I'm wrong. And I don't want to offend Zooko!!! Just as I and my friends don't understand what's going on with the project. We waited for about 2 years. Every day reading tape Matthew Greene and you and... I think that you just had to ask for community money to develop. As an example, in the CIS about you know a lot of people and collect money for you(Even 1 000 000$) was not a problem.
And most uzhastnoe what piucture fear that community will not accept a good idea from those 20% will go to investors. If these 20% went to the team of developers.
zooko & ian, I hope as astute marketers you will understand for every person who makes the effort to complain there may be 100 others who agree with vlad and Trashman but don't make the effort to give you feedback. And I hope you understand that (despite ostensibly English not being vlad's native language) he is communicating to you that the ideology in the market of Bitcoin is that it is a community investment in bettering our world and that there shall not exist centralized parasites, not the Federal Reserve central bank nor investors. Again Zooko, I advise you give your investors a % of the corporation and you can raise funding for the corporation and service corporate needs for your technology. Simultaneously you could launch a general use Zcash that is targeted to the Bitcoin market and that community's ideological sentiments, which can be orthogonal to your efforts to apply your technologies to corporate markets (or even somewhat integrated but not integrated from the funding perspective), and such could also serve to demonstrate that your company is the expert on this technology which can drive the funding of the corporation by venture capital investment (probably coming from the corporations that want you to invest in applying your technology to OpenLedger or other projects applicable to corporate needs). I think Ethereum has shown that the Bitcoin community stands ready to buy into an ICO to the tune of $millions if you can demonstrate a superstar team of developers and clearly communicate your strategy for the Zcash ecosystem, so that speculators are enthused about the potential ROI. And then these speculators become cheerleaders for Zcash doing your PR for you at a viral scale that you can't do otherwise. For as long as the speculators can see the lion's share of the ICO money is going to fund the develpoers, then the community that supported Ethereum will not likely complain (even though there will be some others who will complain if the launch isn't a "fair" launch of debasement, but I've explained that it is silly to give that $ away to the electric and hardware companies who have no vested interested in Zcash's development). Also it seems to me that if you can show ICO funds have been stored in specific BTC addresses which are then maintained for the duration that the funds have not yet been spent on development, then you can effectively show that the funds were not used to purchase Zcash coins and thus the community will know your group is not controlling a large share of the coins. An ICO presents some legal issues w.r.t. to the SEC regulations if you allow US investors to purchase. For this, you really need to consult an attorney. IANAL. Edit: and if you are going to do an ICO, I urge you to do asap, because one theory is we are going into another liquidity contagion downturn worse than 2008 which may start as soon as May or maybe as late as 2017. It is quite possible that the altcoin market will go comatose. You would thus be advised to get funding now asap and not take coins from mining over an extended period of time. To be stable developers, you should not also be speculators. Remember that! I learned that the hard way in the past. |
|
|
|
Is there a rough timeline of your project?
I'll try to respond to this approximately next week. First step is stop posting on the forum, so I can get my head back into coding. I need to do some analysis of the implementation issues for the broader scope of that the project has transitioned to. I am no longer just creating a crypto coin, but I am also creating a social networking site. So this appears to be an immense amount of implementation effort. Note I did code up a more than just rudimentary dating site (with roughly a few 1000s LOC of client side Javascript) in roughly 2 months in March/April 2015 which I shut down due to not having a microtransactions funding model available to make the site scale economically. I am not going back into the dating site direction, but that should provide some indication that when I am feeling healthy my production is quite high for one coder. The other problem I have been dealing with (besides the recent addiction to posting too much in the forum which has to stop!), is that from roughly July forward my chronic illness worsened to the point where I became let's say almost entirely unproductive as a coder. I think this was due to overeating meat (since I originally thought a carb-free diet might be the solution to my 3+ year chronic illness), which now in hindsight was the worst thing I could have done, because I am now speculating that my illness is some issue with the pancreas, gall bladder, and/or colon (which then fucks up the entire body causing horrible symptoms that mimic Multiple Sclerosis or neurological auto immune disease). So as of past 3 weeks, I have been taking 30+ grams of curcumin extract+piperine (in coconut oil/milk) daily. And just this past week, I have decided to eat broccoli with every meal (bcz I read together with the curcumin is necessary to be most effective) and greatly reduce my meat consumption as well. I have had some better days where I felt very alert and mostly healthy, but I have also had some days where I still feel horrible and can't code effectively. The result is thus far inconclusive. I have noticed my jogging (although still very painful in my gut and my legs often ache and feel weak) has improved such that I can regularly run twice daily (2 x 2.5 kms) and make it to the end of the run without my abdomen hurting so bad that I have to stop. I have noticed that appears I'm experiencing more constant pain now in my abdomen but the pain has changed from being near the bottom of my rib cage to a lower position and the pain feels less like something I can't understand/describe and more like an injury. And I notice now when I run I can fight the pain (and that physical fighting with my body is also causing me to become like tiger or gruffy/ornery attitude). My hope is this is a sign of healing. I have seen clinical studies where huge pancreatic cancer masses were eliminated with high dose curcumin treatment. So I am hoping that what is going on now inside my body is that there are open wounds inside as a tumor is being shrunk. Any way I really have no solid, clinical diagnosis. So my point is that if my health isn't normal, my productivity isn't normal. The reason is because when we code like we did when we were age 20, 30, and 40, we feel a rush of inspiration and we get very deeply engrossed in what we are doing. But when one has a headache, body that wants to collapse in the bed, and yucky feeling all over the body and can't concentrate, then there is no inspiration and there is no way to get engrossed. I can try to explain it with an analogy. Imagine you were faced with the opportunity of fucking a Penthouse model but her vagina was lined with course grit sandpaper. Or for those with a less vivid imagination, imagine you had to code during the worst flu you ever had where you had a raging fever, were vomiting or sitting on the toilet every 15 minutes with diarrhoea, etc.. You simply were too distracted by your gut and throbbing head to accomplish any productive work. I'll get back to you with a response next week or so if I can get my daily work regimen organized/disciplined and if my health (latest treatment regimen) continues on more or less an upturn. Thanks. |
|
|
|
My private message: And this should be relevant to me why? I just want you to know that I am not spamming Ethereum. That I am explaining technological information that many people do not know. Since I am the only person who is making this effort (at great cost to myself in terms of time lost from more productive activities that might more directly benefit myself), it is necessary that I post more than others, because there are so many others who are posting who do not understand the technological issues. Please do not misconstrue my effort as selfish, harmful, or against forum policy. I also wanted you to know that my posting in the past that you might have construed to be offensive and spamming to the community (large red font, consternated tone, etc) was factual. I have no idea really if the Ethereum folks are sincere or corrupt. I just know they are not open/honest about the reality of the technological constraints. They talk technobabble but never really come out and state in terms that people can grasp what they have solved and not solved. They misdirect the community in hype. Apologies to all of you for the noise level. I am also frustrated with the level of communication that has been necessary to convey important points to the community and make those points be accepted rather than dismissed as "loony". One thought sticks in my mind that my former boss (a co-founder) told me in 1995, "if you are so smart then why are you working here and not for your own company". (this was the one and last time I tried to express my thoughts about priorities for new features for Painter, even if he was probably correct about my knowledge being inferior to the founders) I left in 1995 and proceeded to make CoolPage by 1998 (while working from a Nipa Hut in squalor because my savings was depleted) which attained approximately near to 0.33% market share of the entire internet. I think the same applies now. I just wanted you to understand what I tried to do and why. Which was to promote the level of awareness of the facts. |
|
|
|
|
Spinmasters are short on facts and long on spin.
|
|
|
|
... the entire point of my rebuttal to your math is what your penalty algorithm does not reach equilibrium...
And this is because there is no reference point (i.e. the lack of objective reality other than the LCR which I was referring to in this thread in general). And this is known already abstractly from the fact that the BGP can't be solved in a decentralized context. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
