Does anyone know of any proof which says that convergence can be guaranteed without a block reward? I would like to hear more detail because it's my gut feeling that it cannot.
I am working on it for a white paper. Details are upthread. |
|
|
|
This is what I have been trying to teach to sloanf, that if you don't use international pricing then analysis is entirely wrong:
Oh, you are trying to teach me after we have established this:
Since you:
1. have been buying bs from MA, a convicted fraudster and an extremely terrible forecaster, for years
2. even brag by this fact (1) in front of everybody as if it was an achievement
3. did not do even a basic fact-checking because of your inability to do so due to lack of common sense and any form of critical and independent thinking
4. deny all the facts and evidence collected, brought and very carefully explained to you by many others
5. keep spreading MA bs promoting his scam all over the place for free despite (4)
you embrace the very definition of stupidity. And since you have been stupid for so long, it must be your normal and pretty comfortable state and therefore cannot be an insult for you. And the reason I have written the above is not to humiliate you or make you feel bad. As I said, I don’t care about you because it’s not important because it’s not the purpose of this thread. My only intention was to prove my claims about your stupidity and that’s what I have done.
Speak those (erroneous, liar) words in front of my face and you'll get a lesson about who is stupid. Anyhow, what is the point of your posts?
Given that question admits you are oblivious to reading comprehension, you are refuting your own words above. 1. Gold 5K-12K by 2015\2016. The opposite happened.
MA never made such a prediction. I have explained this to you upthread yet you continue trolling the thread with lies. 2. Collapse of the USD after 2011. The opposite happened.
That is entirely opposite of what MA predicted. 3. Gold below 1K since 2013. Never happened since then.
MA never made such a prediction. The target date of the gold low was in his paid report which I had access to indirectly and is for 2016. 4. RE will not recover after the 2008 crash. The opposite happened.
His real estate cycle chart (from his Pi model and historic data archive) has been around since the 1980s and has always shown a bounce from 2007 to 2012 then a renewed decline. It is based on international dollar value, not domestic. This was explained to you in a longish post I made within the past couple of pages of this thread which even included a copy of the Real Estate cycle chart. 5. Oil rally after mid-2014 into 2017. The opposite happened.
It was already explained to you that he prediction was for oil to decline from $100+ to $57 for 2014 closing. And for a rise off of eventual lows ($25 - $35) by 2017, but that does not mean rising between 2014 and 2017. It means finding the low first and then rising as the hot wars start in 2017. 6. Dow 32K-40K by 2015 then by 2017 and now by 2020. Never happened.
The TIME was always orthogonal to the price. And he was writing in blog posts I read in 2012 that it could extend out as far as 2020 and we would have to wait for the year end closing in 2014 to know for sure. 7. Big Bang on 2015.75, the US government shutdown, government debt collapse, shift from bonds to equities. The opposite happens.
That was the directional change and yes it is underway with the post I showed yesterday that the Fed may try to keep rates low and this will force money from bonds to stocks. And the ingress to the USD will happen anyway (as MA predicted) because the rest of the world is collapsing. Dude you are wrong on every point. Hahaha.  Do you enjoy making a fool of yourself. Come on sloanf, give it up. You are out of your league against me. You picked a fight with the wrong person. It is also really asinine to pick a fight over an issue where you are wrong. The truth always wins in the end. |
|
|
|
No one knows the correct balance or the amount of change that effectively tips the scales, but it seems likely that the current migration is too much, too fast and there is bound to be a massive amount of friction. The crux of my point is that this flood of people did not happen in isolation; it comes as a result of sustained, decades long, conflict in the region (physical, geopolitical and economic). Do you agree?
Yes, but it is not only due geo-political conflict but the root problem is socialism. I am all for the free movement of people without passports and borders, but not when the government will offer free welfare to every migrant (USA has this problem also, except luckily the Latinos are reasonably hard working). If the migrants weren't coddled by the State, they wouldn't have the incentive to invade. If the people had the right to bear arms and privately funded security forces (not provided by the State), the migrants wouldn't misbehave. But it goes much deeper than that. Include the Western governments propping up puppet regimes in the Middle East which created all kinds of imbalances. Note the position of (most of) the Middle East countries on this chart (the corrupt State powers-that-be have been propping up failure with winks and handshakes): Excellent and I like how he speaks very quickly so I don't get bored. The chart at 20:20 is amazing. The Middle East and Australia need to tumble economically. [...] Readers make sure you view the aforementioned chart (in the video at 20:20, not the chart below), as it explains why India and China will rise after 2020 and lead the world. Hildago's academic research validates Martin Armstrong's long-standing prediction about this and MA's famous chart: [...] |
|
|
|
It's a completely different culture which has only grown stronger despite globalist efforts to water it down.
And no, we have not been disarmed the majority of firearms surrendered in 1997 were not black semi auto death machines..
Interesting. I like to learn more at the appropriate time when I can visit Australia again. |
|
|
|
Roving gangs of ficki ficki rapists would be stopped by average males, I have no doubts about that, you guys must have estrogen in the water..
No they wouldn't. I know what the modern American male is like. Guess what? The guys in the former East Germany are actually physically tougher than you. Dude you never played American football at the local playground. I broke my nose so bad playing without a helmet it was flat on my cheek and continued to play for another 2 hours before heading over to the ER at the hospital. Youtube will serve up some videos for you of average males in the USA kicking ass on some erring criminals, even when they are the police. Obviously there are pussies every where, but please don't assume there aren't some tough motherfuckers in the USA. I have no doubt there are some badass Eastern Europeans and note they are the ones who are not allowing the invasion. The Serbs, etc have put up barricades of razor wire blocking the migrants. The main point is Western Europeans gave up their right to bear arms. And so now they can be run over by Putin or ISIS like a hot knife through warm butter. It seems the invasion has already been seeded and will erupt internally. eh, americans just kill each other everyday, anyway.
That is not true in white, middle class regions where the murder rate is on par with Western Europe. It is the negros/latinos in the inner cities who have a very high murder rate. They also have the largest average penis sizes too (yes South America has roughly the same penis sizes as Africa...probably because of negro mix). Lots of male testosterone but lower IQs. These are statistical facts, not racism. |
|
|
|
Now moving on to analyze Stellar as promised in my prior post (before the noise from CfB): Stellar's SCP consensus algorithm is a complex propagation algorithm (i.e. not a LCR) design to achieve certain properties of Byzantine fault tolerance. This design clearly originates from David Mazières work on the decentralized Kademlia DHT[1]. Although it claims to guarantee "safety" (i.e. will not diverge and it is the first decentralized propagation design that I've seen which can make that guarantee), but it can't guarantee that convergence will ever be obtained and this is due to Sybil attacks on the honest nodes (again we expect this because it consumes no resource as PoW for LCR does). David explains this fact as follows: SCP can suffer perpetual preemption as discussed in Section 6.3. An open question is
whether, without randomness, a different protocol could guarantee termination assum-
ing bounded communication latency but tolerating Byzantine nodes that continuously
to inject bad messages at exactly the point where timeouts fire. Such a protocol is not
ruled out by the FLP impossibility result [Fischer et al. 1985]. However, the two main
techniques to guarantee termination assuming synchrony do not directly apply in the
FBA model: PBFT [Castro and Liskov 1999] chooses a leader in round-robin fashion,
which is not directly applicable when nodes do not agree on membership. (Possibly
something along the lines of priority in Section 6.1 could be adapted.) The Byzan-
tine Generals protocol [Lamport et al. 1982] relays messages so as to compensate for
ill-behaved nodes saying different things to different honest nodes, an approach that
cannot help when nodes depend on distinct ill-behaved nodes in their slices
What David is saying below ("transient") is that preemption doesn't cause permanent failure and the Sybil attack must be maintained in order to maintain preemption (preventing consensus from forming), but this isn't divergence because no decisions are made at all until the preemption ceases. But again the salient point is that preemption can go on indefinitely, because Sybil attacks have nearly no cost. This is the problem that PoW and LCR solve. Note David's comment about using latency to force convergence and override preemption is incorrect for the similar reasons that I explained to monsterer about ambiguity around any specific time window. Nodes can't reach consistency about latency because propagation isn't proof. So David achieved nothing! It is a long white paper of (correct theorems that achieve a result which is) bullshit. Perpetual preemption is inevitable
in a purely asynchronous, deterministic system that survives node failure [Fischer
et al. 1985]. Fortunately, preemption is transient. It does not indicate node failure, be-
cause the system can recover at any time. Protocols can mitigate the problem through
randomness (if nodes keep choosing random candidate values until enough happen to
pick the same one [Ben-Or 1983; Bracha and Toueg 1985]) or through realistic assump-
tions about message latency [Dwork et al. 1988]. The latter is more practical when one
would like to limit execution time. Of course, only termination and not safety should
depend on message timing.
David is obviously a very smart guy. I am not stating anything that he doesn't already admit above. His design is not entirely without merit as a research exploration, but in terms of a reliable design for consensus in a crypto currency, it seems to be selling junk to speculators. Note the conspicuous disclaimer to protect his reputation: Disclaimer
Professor Mazières’s contribution to this publication was as a paid consultant, and was
not part of his Stanford University duties or responsibilities.
Interestingly Stellar diverged when it was formely using Ripple's consensus protocol, as I stated upthread would be the case: Stellar’s original system was modeled on one developed at the startup Ripple Labs, which is using it to help banks and other financial organizations move money faster (see “50 Smartest Companies 2014: Ripple Labs”).
Last year Stellar’s Ripple-consensus system unexpectedly “forked” into two networks that disagreed on which transactions were valid, and several hours’ worth of transactions got rolled back. Mazières says his new system avoids the part of the design that caused that problem.
And again the solution to Sybil attacks is to use trust. Thus Stellar new SCP consensus protocol is not a trustless design. And trust/reputation always devolves to centralization (do I need to explain why...think about what happens when trust fails, so trust migrates to those who are trusted by others longer/more ... remember we trust our government and we trust our central bank): The new SCP system also relies on people running software that communicates over the Internet, but trust is not enforced through mining. Instead, each person running the software must identify a few other trusted participants to correctly apply the cryptographic rules used to validate transactions. Each instance of the software will recognize transactions only once a certain majority fraction of its trusted partners have also signed off. And the trust relationships are all public.
Mazières says the math shows that those rules will allow his system to reliably verify transactions much more quickly and with less energy.
Dan Boneh, a Stanford professor who did not work on Mazières’s system but has reviewed it, says that SCP avoids some security limitations of Bitcoin. “The security proposition of Bitcoin is that the people who invested in mining infrastructure can be trusted, but that may not be true,” he says. “Here I can choose for myself who to trust.”
[...]
Emin Gün Sirer, an associate professor at Cornell University, agrees that SCP seems to have advantages over Bitcoin. He says it also seems to resolve what he considers a gap in the Ripple protocol that led to Stellar’s “forking” problem last year. “The protocol looks sound,” says Sirer.
It is, however, theoretically possible for SCP to break down if participants choose trusted partners in such a way that there aren’t enough overlaps to tie the network into one whole—or if an attacker orchestrates that situation, says Sirer. Just how unlikely that is will depend on the actions of the people who adopt SCP. “This is a social thing, not a technical thing,” says Sirer.
Mazières acknowledges that possibility but says it’s unlikely. He imagines that certain large organizations, perhaps banks, will emerge to anchor the SCP network. Still, he acknowledges, “people are always a weak point.”
| [1] | P. Maymounkov and D. Mazieres. Kademlia: A
peer-to-peer information system based on the xor
metric. In Peer-to-Peer Systems, pages 53–65.
Springer, 2002. |
P.S. Come-from-Beyond has been put on Ignore for spamming the thread. Afair, he is only the second or third person I have ever put in my forum Ignore list in my 3 years at this forum. He continued even after he was asked "please" numerous times to stop. Since he can't respect the desire to keep the S/N of the thread high, he must be ignored. If I had moderated the thread, I would be deleting his noise. But since I didn't, then my only recourse is to put him on ignore for his obnoxious and illogical behavior recently. |
|
|
|
Lack of criticism about Iota makes me feel uncomfortable, you would do me a favor by "attack[ing] Iota in every thread".
The criticism is in this thread. Why are you spamming the thread! Fuck! Will you please stop this offtopic noise? |
|
|
|
Adding more pages of repeating the prior pages just adds more pages to 33 burying also the repetition in more repetition (is 1000 pages your goal to mimic the Monero Speculation thread), thus you've made no point.
My point is that you use "I don't want to repeat" too often. Now it looks as a trick to evade criticism. I think we all should wait until you post everything that comes to your mind. Post "Dixi" after that and lock the thread. Reply was posted before you posted: Please only post to add new information/refutation to this thread. You've now succeeding in burying my important post (made less than an hour ago) upthread about Tendermint's flaws (my new research). Appears you are trying to bury the facts about Iota by spamming the thread. I've warned you don't give me motivation to go on the offensive, because I can attack Iota in every thread. I haven't done that out of respect for you (and I have absolutely 0 fear of your partner's legal threats against me...rather I said I respected the attempt and the technical effort put into Iota, but that doesn't change the facts about it). Please be cordial and respect the desire to keep this thread S/N high. It may be the case that no crypto currency can be decentralized. Keep that in mind. |
|
|
|
Please I don't want to rehash the upthread discussion. We don't need to repeat ourselves again.
You expect people to read prior 33 pages? Hm, so you write all these texts just for the sake of writing? Ok. Adding more pages of repeating the prior pages just adds more pages to 33 burying also the repetition in more repetition (is 1000 pages your goal to mimic the Monero Speculation thread), thus you've made no point. Please only post to add new information/refutation to this thread. You've now succeeding in burying my important post (made less than an hour ago) upthread about Tendermint's flaws (my new research). |
|
|
|
Again I maintain the Iota/DAG will only remain convergent with a centralization to enforce the trust math model.
It's hard to (dis)agree with this because your definition of "centralization" is not clear. I was very clear upthread. I said you would need centralized control sufficient to enforce the math models that payers and acceptance of transactions conform to. Please I don't want to rehash the upthread discussion. We don't need to repeat ourselves again.
AltcoinUK, the problem is that most readers do not understand the CAP theorem conceptualization of consensus problem nor will most users understand that Iota is based on a mathematical model that has to be enforced on all payers on their choices of which branch to attach their txns and on recipients in terms of what recipients compute is a probabilistically confirmed txn. If the Monte Carlo math can be enforced then consensus should converge, but there is no way to force decentralized actors to follow one math model when the system can't enforce it without centralization. Thus I stated Iota/DAG only converges if the system centralizes. As opposed to Satoshi's PoW which always converges because of the longest chain rule.
So it is extremely difficult to take an aggressive position when most readers won't even comprehend. Why is a speculator going to trust my assessment when they can't understand or don't have the attention span to digest my 33 page thread on Decentralization. Also I haven't written a white paper yet, so all that is not well formalized.
|
|
|
|
[...]Furthermore there is nowhere even close to the massive corporate overhead in Dash as there is in Ethereum, This shows in the CoinGrecko Developer rankings.
Thanks. I see only the number of closed issues is much higher for Ethereum. Are you referring to something else? The only viable long term funding methods for crypto currency are Free Libre Open Source Software development methods that are based on a combination of in kind and monetary donations to software development.
Be careful with that assumption. Even open source requires a utility in a market to sustain interest. There are other potential funding models similar to the ones Eric Raymond enumerated. |
|
|
|
8. Conclusion
Tendermint is awesome. The future is now.
Incorrect! Tendermint is flawed and is a divergent non-consensus design that will crash and burn in the real world. There are a lot of things that can work in the real world but not in the ideal one. For example, Ripple. Following is written by David Mazières a PhD professor at Stanford who is the Chief Scientist at Stellar: Still another approach to consensus is Byzantine agreement [Pease et al. 1980; Lam-
port et al. 1982], the best known variant of which is PBFT [Castro and Liskov 1999].
Byzantine agreement ensures consensus despite arbitrary (including non-rational) be-
havior on the part of some fraction of participants. This approach has two appealing
properties. First, consensus can be fast and efficient. Second, trust is entirely decou-
pled from resource ownership, which makes it possible for a small non-profit to help
keep more powerful organizations, such as banks or CAs, honest. Complicating mat-
ters, however, all parties must agree on the the exact list of participants. Moreover,
attackers must be prevented from joining multiple times and exceeding the system’s
failure tolerance, a so-called Sybil attack [Douceur 2002]. BFT-CUP [Alchieri et al.
2008] accommodates unknown participants, but still presupposes a Sybil-proof cen-
tralized admission-control mechanism.
Generally, membership in Byzantine agreement systems is set by a central authority
or closed negotiation. Prior attempts to decentralize admission have given up some of
the benefits. One approach, taken by Ripple, is to publish a “starter” membership list
that participants can edit for themselves, hoping people’s edits are either inconsequen-
tial or reproduced by an overwhelming fraction of participants. Unfortunately, because
divergent lists invalidate safety guarantees [Schwartz et al. 2014], users are reluctant
to edit the list in practice and a great deal of power ends up concentrated in the main-
tainer of the starter list[i.e. centralized!]. Another approach, taken by Tendermint [Kwon 2014], is to
base membership on proof of stake. However, doing so once again ties trust to resource
ownership.
Again I maintain the Iota/DAG will only remain convergent with a centralization to enforce the trust math model. Btw, I will soon argue the same about Stellar as well.  |
|
|
|
Added the following to the post on the first page of this thread that enumerates the flaws of PoS (proof-of-stake). Even smooth had mentioned (in my vaporcoin thread) that PoS devolves to effectively PoW in order to defeat the nothing-at-stake flaw. Following is written by David Mazières a PhD professor at Stanford who is the Chief Scientist at Stellar. An alternative to proof of work is proof of stake [King and Nadal 2012], in which
consensus depends on parties that have posted collateral. Like proof of work, rewards
encourage rational participants to obey the protocol; some designs additionally penal-
ize bad behavior [Buterin 2014; Davarpanah et al. 2015]. Proof of stake opens the pos-
sibility of so-called “nothing at stake” attacks, in which parties that previously posted
collateral but later cashed it in and spent the money can go back and rewrite history
from a point where they still had stake. To mitigate such attacks, systems effectively
combine proof of stake with proof of work—scaling down the required work in pro-
portion to stake—or delay refunding collateral long enough for some other (sometimes
informal) consensus mechanism to establish an irreversible checkpoint.
|
|
|
|
There are some other attempts to solve crypto currency consensus without using the longest chain rule (LCR). I will quote from Tendermint's white paper (authored by Jae Kwon) and annotate with my analysis. 5. Validators
Validators are users with accounts that have coins locked in a bond deposit
by posting a bond transaction. These validators participate in the consensus pro-
tocol by broadcasting cryptographic signatures, or votes, to agree upon the next
block. We say that a validator has voting power equal to the amount of the bonded
coins. The validator can later unlock its coins by posting an unbonding transaction.
Afterwards the coins remain locked for a predetermined period of time called the
unbonding period , after which the validator is free to transfer or spend those coins
to other accounts. A set of validators with at least 2/3 of total voting power is also
called a 2/3 majority of validators. Similarly, a set of validators with at least 1/3 of
total voting power is called a 1/3 majority of validators.
A block is considered committed when a 2/3 majority of validators sign com-
mit votes for that block. A fork occurs when two blocks at the same height are
each signed by a 2/3 majority of validators. By simple arithmetic, a fork can only
happen when at least a 1/3 majority of validators signs duplicitously.
When a validator signs duplicitously, a short evidence transaction can be
generated by anyone with the two conflicting commit-vote signatures. This ev-
idence is committed into the blockchain which destroys the bonded coins of the
guilty validator(s). As long as the evidence is committed before the guilty valida-
tor’s coins are spent (that is, before the unbonding period is over), the validator
can be duly punished. Note that this does not preclude a 2/3 majority of validators
from publishing a blockchain fork after they had unbonded and sold their coins to
an unsuspecting party. This is called a long-range double-spend attack. A user can
avoid long-range attacks by syncing their blockchain periodically within the bounds
of the unbonding period.A double-spend attack implies a fork in the blockchain.
A short-range double-spend attack occurs when a fork happens at a recent height: recent enough
that the guilty validators still have their coins locked in bond. Since a fork re-
quires at least a 1/3 majority of validators to have signed duplicitously, the penalty
for a short-range double-spend attack is a significant proportion (1/3) of the total
amount of bonded coins. Thus we can adjust the minimum cost of launching a
double-spend attack by tuning the incentive to become a validator. For example,
the cryptocurrency can be inflationary by way of block rewards divided amongst the
validators in proportion to their voting power. The inflation rate need not be fixed,
but can depend on the past average weighted transaction volume of the network as
measured by coin-days-destroyed [8]. If the marginal cost of securing a validator
node is negligible, the reward scheme need not be inflationary; the transaction fees
paid by users may be sufficient.
Upthread monsterer and I discussed some of the flaws in such a voting design for consensus. 1. Note that voting power is by proof-of-stake (i.e. bonded stake) and each validator can vote on each block that is added to the block chain. Thus it has the same economic flaws as PoS given that the resource (bonded stake) is stake only once and is not consumed, thus an ongoing 33 - 51% attack can be sustained without additional costs to the attacker, unlike in PoW. 2. Also the nothing-at-stake flaw exists because (especially unarguable in a 33 - 51% attack) validators can vote on multiple forks. In the 33 - 51% attack scenario, the attacker can always override any evidence of duplicity by only voting on forks that ignore (don't acknowledge, i.e. don't record) the evidence. Even without the 33 - 51% attack scenario, there are numerous other attacks due to the fact that propagation is not proof. Offline nodes have no way to know what the vote was, and they can't rely on any node to tell them. With PoW, an offline node can verify the LCR and decide objectively which fork (chain) is the longest. But with voting, there is only ambiguity and thus divergent chaos as newly online nodes have to choose one of the ambiguous relative orderings and as soon as some double-spends conflicts occur between forks (with the derivative spaghetti of transactions in the forks downstream from those double-spends) then it is impossible to remerge these forks thus impossible to converge to consensus. The quote from the Tendermint white paper above argues that long-range attacks can be prevented by "syncing offline nodes within the unbonding period", but that is incorrect because syncing doesn't resolve the ambiguity over propagation, e.g. if the newly online nodes are shown a long-range attack chain that wasn't formerly propagated. Upthread I explained to monsterer why it is not possible to use evidence of cheating to create a winning fork which unambiguously overrides the 51% attackers' fork (and thus for Tendermint can't confiscate the 33 - 51% attackers' bonded stake). The white paper argues that short-term ambiguity about propagation can be resolved by waiting until 2/3 of the validators' votes have been received before accepting that a block is confirmed and to make the penalty (bonding amount) large enough to disincentivize attacking the coin. But due to #1 above and the ability to externalize the profit gained from attacking (e.g. shorting the coin), there may not be any level of bonding which is a disincentive. 6. Consensus
6.1 On Byzantine Consensus
Fischer et al have shown in a seminal paper [9] that in an asynchronous
system (where no assumptions are made about time) of deterministic processes,
no protocol can guarantee consensus even with one faulty process. This is called
the FLP impossibility result. Much research has gone into understanding ways
to circumvent the FLP impossibility result by slightly modifying the problem do-
main, e.g. by sacrificing determinism, adding time, adding oracles etc [10]. Bitcoin
circumvents the FLP impossibility result by making some assumptions about the
synchrony of the network (i.e. nodes soon sync up with the network) and time (i.e.
miners dedicate limited time and resources to the best blockchain).
Our algorithm is based on algorithm 2’ from section 4 of [4] (Dwork et al).
It assumes that the network is partially synchronous; there is assumed to be some
unknown upper bound on the time of messages to be delivered. Intuitively, there
may be arbitrary but finite latency in the network. We also assume that all non-
byzantine nodes have access to an internal clock that can stay sufficiently accurate
for a short duration of time until consensus on the next block is achieved. The
clocks do not need to agree on a global time and may drift at some bounded rate
relative to global time. The algorithm is adapted to work with blockchains on a
gossip network. As in the algorithm proposed by Dwork et al, it can tolerate of up
to 1/3 byzantine voting power.
I explained upthread that synchrony can't exist due to the fact that speed-of-light is not infinite. The quote above is incorrect. Bitcoin doesn't depend on synchrony! Even nodes which don't sync up can unambiguously verify (via independent computation) the longest chain rule. Some nodes might waste effort mining on an orphaned chain if they don't sync up, but this doesn't weaken the fact that the LCR is not ambiguous nor divergent regardless of propagation/latency (although it is probabilistic and never 100% absolute, but the odds of getting hit by lightning are usually good enough or wait for more confirmations if you need better odds with LCR). The key aspect is that PoW requires ongoing consumption of a resource (e.g. electricity) which is not self-referential (e.g. not burning stake) to the block chain. 8. Conclusion
Tendermint is awesome. The future is now.
Incorrect! Tendermint is flawed and is a divergent non-consensus design that will crash and burn in the real world. |
|
|
|
Zika virus is a poor pandemic candidate. Its a potential nightmare for women in some areas who are planning to conceive but in everyone else it appears to mostly cause a self limited infection. It is a blood born pathogen that requires mosquitoes to spread.
The bubonic plague was a bacterial infection spread by fleas and rats. The developing world can't avoid mosquitos, because their bamboo or wooden homes have cracks in the walls. The Zika virus may possibly spread via sex: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/who-concerned-by-report-of-sexual-spread-of-zika-virus/article28531722/ |
|
|
|
Another excellent piece, trollerc. Thanks for posting it. Europe is on the edge of becoming a neutered country, incapable of maintaining its society along the norms of "The West". 5 - 10 years after, they will become Islamicized. It's already starting to happen, yet the Socialist Retards running EVERYTHING over there are hypnotized... I wonder, trollerc, if the USA and/or Australia will allow their women to be harassed like that. My guess is "no", but who knows. At least in the West or South in the USA the Musloids would get an immediate ticket to their heaven, where their 72 goats await them. What do you mean by 'their women?' I'm not into communism therefore my obvious allegiance is to my wife and females in my family, nobody else. That's the whole point of being anti-collectivism. In Germany and Sweden, the criminal elements travel in packs - and a lot of the females they attack probably vote for left-wing parties, or actively implement these policies in their employment at a government agency or NGO. After generations of social engineering, the men are looking at jail or even death at the hands of the police if they retaliate. They are looking at being stuck on a life support machine for protecting their own political opponents. In other words, it's very easy being a keyboard warrior in the US, especially if you live somewhere like Nowheresville, Idaho. Incidentally, I don't see American males going after the likes of Soros and the people who work for him. What's your personal excuse for that? What's the point having all those weapons if you refuse to defend yourselves from domestic enemies? Or is that just a job for ex-Marines (if so, it looks like they are totally failing also)? Therefore I am going to have call BS on the idea that Americans and Aussies are toughguys here. Badmouth European men all you want, but you're all heading for the same fate eventually. Don't fool yourselves about that.
Whereas, in the rural areas of (and Bible Belt of the USA for example) there is still some significant percentage who hate socialism. trollercoaster claims a similar effect in rural areas of Australia.
The Bundy incidents have shown that the ex-marines and militias will stand up for women and other rights. They even put the women and children at the front with the men on horses with guns behind then and the Feds backed down.
Too many Americans have bought into socialism for the minority of the population to take control politically. Instead they await the fight locally with their guns locked and loaded.Gold will be driven underground. If you have too much gold jewelry on, they will pull you over and weight it at the airport. So, this guy would be in trouble.
In all cases where a currency has been cancelled or the confidence in government collapses to any extent, from Russia to a Zimbabwe event, the people use the currency of a neighboring country. The best thing for Europeans to do right now is to hoard U.S. dollars in cash — not euros, and not even Swiss francs. The Swiss will surrender to the demands of the EU, so I would not count on those 1,000 Swiss franc notes remaining valid for long either. The USA would find it extremely difficult to move to electronic currency. The USD remains the legal tender since 1792. It has never been cancelled and it might even spark a breakup of the USA with the Bible Belt whom is moving to secede.
The future course of the United States will follow the same pattern. Pre-Revolution, you had separate states. That became the UNITED states in 1789. We will see a breakup of the states most likely banding together in regions because of the difference in cultural views such as the Bible Belt. The fight over Obamacare illustrates the stark differences and this is fundamentally wrong for it is forcing one groups interests upon another. There is no such thing as equal rights but money is the exception. We are all treated the same even in law (no exception for politicians and bankers) or we are not a nation of equal rights. You can’t be just a little be pregnant! The US will break up, but it should not go into a MADMAX event as long as we reach resistance from the people. If the people keep just watching their sports and never notice what the governments are doing to their future until it is too late, then it can go too far and that in the MADMAX event the ended the Roman Empire.
As for the break-up of the USA, the computer has been warning for decades now that the 2016 election will see a sharp rise in third-party activity. The Republican Party may split again. We see the internal civil war with the Tea Party people. This is the core of the break-up for what lies behind that is culture and religion. Once the economy turns down, this will accelerate.
It appears that Hillary will be the Democratic candidate and that will merely solidify the Republic split. By 2032, the other side of this 51.6 year wave looks to be a starkly different world. The USA will split and China will become the Financial Capital of the World.
Do you know what happened on 2013.308? That was when Edward Snowden made his final move (no turning back any more) to release documents about the NSA. Yet people claim Martin Armstrong's cycles don't predict anything.   There are two types of waves on the 224 Year Cycle – the Collapsing Wave and the Protracted Wave. It appears that the USA is in the Collapsing Wave formation meaning that the 224 year runs from the birth to the peak with the total duration running minimum 296 years with the optimum being 309.6 years meaning the society splits and does not remain intact. A Protracted Wave is a society view where the wave is measured peak to peak totaling 224 years. The second Protracted Wave formation is where governments come and go, but society survives and reforms remaining intact. In the Collapsing Wave structure where it is 224 year from birth to peak, the overall duration appears to be is 296-309 years. for the conclusion whereby society breaks apart and fragmentation emerges..In the case of Rome, 309 years from the assassination of Julius Caesar in 44BC is 265AD where Rome broke apart and the Gallic Empire emerged under Postumus (259-268AD). This Collapsing Wave structure that the United States appears to be in means it is a one-time-wonder and that the United States will break-up and the there will be no more “united” union. This is becoming self-evidence in the polarization of politics with tremendous differences in culture on a regional basis. The Obamacare is just one aspect revealing the undercurrent whereby one segment of society believes it has a right to force their views upon another group. So unfortunately, the USA does not appear to be destined to remain intact otherwise we would have seen and overall structured wave of 224 years. We seem to be in the Collapsing Wave with the 224 years was from birth to peak with an overall duration of 309.6 years at best. This appears to be like the Collapsing Wave in Imperial Rome itself whereas from the assassination of Julius Caesar in 44BC to the peak in the glory of Rome and population in the city took place under Marcus Aurelius that was 224 years later in 180AD. The decline that followed brought total chaos, sovereign debt crisis, massive government seizure of capital, fragmentation of the Empire, and in the end, Rome was no longer the Capitol and that became Constantinople followed by the split of East and West. We are much more akin to the this type of Collapsing Wave formation whereby society collapses and breaks apart. Now we have the Cycle of War turning in 2014 that appears to be focused within civil unrest at least initially. |
|
|
|
Another excellent piece, trollerc. Thanks for posting it. Europe is on the edge of becoming a neutered country, incapable of maintaining its society along the norms of "The West". 5 - 10 years after, they will become Islamicized. It's already starting to happen, yet the Socialist Retards running EVERYTHING over there are hypnotized... I wonder, trollerc, if the USA and/or Australia will allow their women to be harassed like that. My guess is "no", but who knows. At least in the West or South in the USA the Musloids would get an immediate ticket to their heaven, where their 72 goats await them. What do you mean by 'their women?' I'm not into communism therefore my obvious allegiance is to my wife and females in my family, nobody else. That's the whole point of being anti-collectivism. In Germany and Sweden, the criminal elements travel in packs - and a lot of the females they attack probably vote for left-wing parties, or actively implement these policies in their employment at a government agency or NGO. After generations of social engineering, the men are looking at jail or even death at the hands of the police if they retaliate. They are looking at being stuck on a life support machine for protecting their own political opponents. In other words, it's very easy being a keyboard warrior in the US, especially if you live somewhere like Nowheresville, Idaho. Incidentally, I don't see American males going after the likes of Soros and the people who work for him. What's your personal excuse for that? What's the point having all those weapons if you refuse to defend yourselves from domestic enemies? Or is that just a job for ex-Marines (if so, it looks like they are totally failing also)? Therefore I am going to have call BS on the idea that Americans and Aussies are toughguys here. Badmouth European men all you want, but you're all heading for the same fate eventually. Don't fool yourselves about that.
Whereas, in the rural areas of (and Bible Belt of the USA for example) there is still some significant percentage who hate socialism. trollercoaster claims a similar effect in rural areas of Australia.
The Bundy incidents have shown that the ex-marines and militias will stand up for women and other rights. They even put the women and children at the front with the men on horses with guns behind then and the Feds backed down.
Too many Americans have bought into socialism for the minority of the population to take control politically. Instead they await the fight locally with their guns locked and loaded.Gold will be driven underground. If you have too much gold jewelry on, they will pull you over and weight it at the airport. So, this guy would be in trouble.
In all cases where a currency has been cancelled or the confidence in government collapses to any extent, from Russia to a Zimbabwe event, the people use the currency of a neighboring country. The best thing for Europeans to do right now is to hoard U.S. dollars in cash — not euros, and not even Swiss francs. The Swiss will surrender to the demands of the EU, so I would not count on those 1,000 Swiss franc notes remaining valid for long either. The USA would find it extremely difficult to move to electronic currency. The USD remains the legal tender since 1792. It has never been cancelled and it might even spark a breakup of the USA with the Bible Belt whom is moving to secede.
The future course of the United States will follow the same pattern. Pre-Revolution, you had separate states. That became the UNITED states in 1789. We will see a breakup of the states most likely banding together in regions because of the difference in cultural views such as the Bible Belt. The fight over Obamacare illustrates the stark differences and this is fundamentally wrong for it is forcing one groups interests upon another. There is no such thing as equal rights but money is the exception. We are all treated the same even in law (no exception for politicians and bankers) or we are not a nation of equal rights. You can’t be just a little be pregnant! The US will break up, but it should not go into a MADMAX event as long as we reach resistance from the people. If the people keep just watching their sports and never notice what the governments are doing to their future until it is too late, then it can go too far and that in the MADMAX event the ended the Roman Empire.
As for the break-up of the USA, the computer has been warning for decades now that the 2016 election will see a sharp rise in third-party activity. The Republican Party may split again. We see the internal civil war with the Tea Party people. This is the core of the break-up for what lies behind that is culture and religion. Once the economy turns down, this will accelerate.
It appears that Hillary will be the Democratic candidate and that will merely solidify the Republic split. By 2032, the other side of this 51.6 year wave looks to be a starkly different world. The USA will split and China will become the Financial Capital of the World.
Do you know what happened on 2013.308? That was when Edward Snowden made his final move (no turning back any more) to release documents about the NSA. Yet people claim Martin Armstrong's cycles don't predict anything. There are two types of waves on the 224 Year Cycle – the Collapsing Wave and the Protracted Wave. It appears that the USA is in the Collapsing Wave formation meaning that the 224 year runs from the birth to the peak with the total duration running minimum 296 years with the optimum being 309.6 years meaning the society splits and does not remain intact. A Protracted Wave is a society view where the wave is measured peak to peak totaling 224 years. The second Protracted Wave formation is where governments come and go, but society survives and reforms remaining intact. In the Collapsing Wave structure where it is 224 year from birth to peak, the overall duration appears to be is 296-309 years. for the conclusion whereby society breaks apart and fragmentation emerges..In the case of Rome, 309 years from the assassination of Julius Caesar in 44BC is 265AD where Rome broke apart and the Gallic Empire emerged under Postumus (259-268AD). This Collapsing Wave structure that the United States appears to be in means it is a one-time-wonder and that the United States will break-up and the there will be no more “united” union. This is becoming self-evidence in the polarization of politics with tremendous differences in culture on a regional basis. The Obamacare is just one aspect revealing the undercurrent whereby one segment of society believes it has a right to force their views upon another group. So unfortunately, the USA does not appear to be destined to remain intact otherwise we would have seen and overall structured wave of 224 years. We seem to be in the Collapsing Wave with the 224 years was from birth to peak with an overall duration of 309.6 years at best. This appears to be like the Collapsing Wave in Imperial Rome itself whereas from the assassination of Julius Caesar in 44BC to the peak in the glory of Rome and population in the city took place under Marcus Aurelius that was 224 years later in 180AD. The decline that followed brought total chaos, sovereign debt crisis, massive government seizure of capital, fragmentation of the Empire, and in the end, Rome was no longer the Capitol and that became Constantinople followed by the split of East and West. We are much more akin to the this type of Collapsing Wave formation whereby society collapses and breaks apart. Now we have the Cycle of War turning in 2014 that appears to be focused within civil unrest at least initially. |
|
|
|
[...] Gold will be driven underground. If you have too much gold jewelry on, they will pull you over and weight it at the airport. So, this guy would be in trouble.
In all cases where a currency has been cancelled or the confidence in government collapses to any extent, from Russia to a Zimbabwe event, the people use the currency of a neighboring country. The best thing for Europeans to do right now is to hoard U.S. dollars in cash — not euros, and not even Swiss francs. The Swiss will surrender to the demands of the EU, so I would not count on those 1,000 Swiss franc notes remaining valid for long either. The USA would find it extremely difficult to move to electronic currency. The USD remains the legal tender since 1792. It has never been cancelled and it might even spark a breakup of the USA with the Bible Belt whom is moving to secede.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
