And now, once millions of people are trying to leave the bombed out wrecks of their countries (not an 'invasion' btw TPTB)

To all intends and purposes on modeling economic activity the Concept of Invisible Hand as a stabilizing force is dead. In other domains where actors do not have awareness of such a force it can still be Invisible. The fact however that we found out about the Invisible Hand actually negates it's power. The moment we saw it, the economic Universe had instantly disappeared and be was replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable.

Think of it this way, the moment we understood Newtonian dynamics not long after they were rendered obsolete and unable to meet our needs, Heck you cannot deploy GPS without taking into account of Relativity.

Ethereum won't get any where near the adoption and network effects of Bitcoin any time soon. Will take years, e.g. no localbitcoins.com for Ethereum.

Meanwhile yours truly will usurp all of this shit and deliver a coin with > 1 million users before the end of 2016 (or at least the coin will be launched in 2016 and million(s) users will be attained soon thereafter). But I won't be telling you about it here on Bitcointalk.org. You'll have to find it or hear about it (which of course you eventually will if I succeed in my plans, but you will need to digg if you want to get in earlier).


See below for why I think perhaps Blockstream's Segregated Witness appears to be Trojan Horse designed to fork Bitcoin to support Sidechains and allow Blockstream to take control:

Apparently you don't understand that you are talking to someone who is much more astute than you and more so than most of the guys on this forum.


You have a reading comprehension handicap. Try again:

The ad has been brought to you by a Vanillacoin (the plagiarist, anonymous developer "JohnConner" coin) shill.

What am I advertising? There is nothing for speculators to buy from me.

Except that it is neato technobabble that doesn't speak to the fundamental design flaws and Sybil attacked (given the insiders own most of the coins) masternode economics in Dash-o-scam.

If you want to compare design and meager career accomplishments of myself to Evan, my LinkedIn is public. (photo was taken January 2015 at age 49.5)

As for your opinion of my skills, I blithely don't care and I recommend to myself a proactive stance of not giving a rat's ass of caring about your opinion of me. Because your opinion is irrelevant to the tasks and goals in front of me. I only have to care about my health and my production.

Should I bother to state that you come across as a person who has an attachment to a scam that has piss poor design fundamentals, and thus you lack discernment. So why should I care what you discern about me. Clearly your appraisals are consistently incorrect.

Note I am not even saying that all the programmers of Dash are incapable. I am saying it is all allegedly based around a scam, so if the allegations are true (and some convincing evidence has been presented) then it is impossible for them to make the design such that it would destroy the scam aspects such as we can presume the insiders continue to collect ROI from running most of the masternodes since they stole most of the coins in the instamine they tried to hide from the public or blame on a programming error and subsequent elimination of the future emission that was originally promised (so the insiders wouldn't be diluted and control the float buying from themselves on the exchanges to artificially inflate the price and market cap fooling speculators into putting their money into Dash which the insiders take out of Dash).

If that was even a model that could scale and help the world, I might even look the other way regarding the alleged insider manipulations. The issue for me is Dash-o-scam hasn't a snowballs chance in hell of ever attaining any real usership, so that for me is a failure for our goals for crypto currency. I am particularly perturbed by the audacity of Evan to prepromote Evolution as some phenomenal technological breakthrough when he can't change the underlying masternode scam. And he doesn't share any of his research in public for peer review (as I do!) so he can't possibly get his design correct without our peer review. I pointed out a high school error in his math in the InstantX white paper.

You Dash shills (insiders) will continue to make nonsense rebuttals and I don't have time for it. Go ahead, but your days are numbered.

Yep he built an instamine scam with presumably ongoing scam via controlling most of the coin supply, masternodes, and float.

Yep he is more of an authority than me on scams that work.

I was writing about design and marketing skills for scaling adoption, which clearly my resume is INFINITELY (any number divided by 0) superior to Evan's (the dude has absolutely 0 experience in scaling internet s/w to the masses). My CoolPage s/w (one man company!) scaled to 335,000 websites created as verified by altavista. And over 1+ million downloads (probably much higher in the realm of 5 million but I never tried to estimate it) when the internet population was 1/10 of its current size.

Segregated Witness is overviewed here:

https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/segregated-witness-part-how-a-clever-hack-could-significantly-increase-bitcoin-s-potential-1450553618

https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/segregated-witness-part-why-you-should-care-about-a-nitty-gritty-technical-trick-1450827675

Old nodes have no way to know if they are including a fraudulent transaction in their blocks, thus everyone will upgrade to new node else they can be attacked with fraudulent transactions which cause their block rewards to be ignored by the new nodes. Thus Segregated Witness is effectively a hard fork.

Thus this does nothing to solve the Tragedy of the Commons which is driving PoW mining towards (an oligarchy) centralization in order to scale transaction volume. It is a gimick used to increase the block chain by some factor, while sneaking in the ability for Blockstream to add new scripting versions so they can later soft fork (version) the block chain to support Sidechains. Clever but not clever enough to hide from Sherlock Holmes (me)!

Upthread I have rough sketched a design for a solution that conceptually scales and maintains decentralized, permissionless control over mining.

[...]

Diaspora (now defunct):

---

---

[...]

[...]

Btw, if you follow the link in my prior reply to you, you will find a post where I summarized the things my 26 year old Asian gf (we live in Mindanao) doesn't like about Facebook, and sure sounds like she would prefer a decentralized social network with freedom to customize if she wouldn't lose the things she likes about Facebook (mainly all her contacts and slick UI/content). She is often installing new apps from Google Playstore to customize her photos and compose them into silly videos and others of her interests. So being able to customize her social network will fit right in with what her generation wants.

It's now 2016.08. Something begun in 2015.75?

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.

However good Evan is I tend to think all the suspect looking stuff will come back to haunt Dash if it ever tries to go mainstream

For each altcoin, DOACC attempts to record:

• premine - the amount of any premine

First of all, Evan is a genius.

...

Armstrong talking at an independent Tedx event:

http://tedxtalks.ted.com/video/Vigilante-of-Democracy-Martin-A;search%3Ax%20martin%20ar

The main thrust of this talk is invasive & corrupt government mixed in with some economic and political history.

This has been in the plans for a while now as the following handshake between Blockchain.info/com's CEO and David Cameron exempifies:


This is one of the reasons I am suggesting to Zcash that they focus their plans on corporations who will need privacy on public block chains and who must comply with a viewkey or global back door for national security agencies (the other main reason is because corporations have the incentive and means to actually understand the difference between for example Dash or Cryptonote/Monero and Zcash's zk-snarks, and they have an incentive to adopt privacy on public block chains, whereas outside of our small libertarian echo chamber, the mainstream demographics of individuals do not care). That way Zcash will have legal uses and a significant target market that has money to spend on funding its further development (the Linux open source model where corporations fund a mutual need).

This will also enable the technology to be available for individual uses. And we can then see how the politics plays out over time. Probably society will go through a rough phase 2017 - 2020 at least but eventually individual rights will win and so the long-term focus has to be differentiated between a shorter-term realistic model for profit (and I argue that is targeting corporate uses of privacy on the public block chain). As well individuals may find uses for zk-snarks for smart contracts in the future for their own privacy inspite of some need to give government a decryption key.

I am also investigating opportunities in (decentralized?) social networking as way to foster the DIY culture and self-publishing, as it seems the long fight will be political-economic. And this is the most likely direction for me and my block chain technology. I am also possibly interested in working on Zcash and throwing my endorsement to it, if they go the ICO route (and thus I can be paid consumerately to my opportunity cost) and if I agree with their marketing strategy and focus. I am trying now to steer them or suggest to them, and see where the synergies might be. I haven't spoken privately yet with anyone at Zcash and they may not at all be interested in my help given the discord I have with Maxwell and others they may value. Which ever way the ball bounces is fine by me. My skills will carry me forward.

P.S. Starting several days ago, I have been taking high dose Curcumim extract (> 10 grams per day) mixed with black pepper+coconut milk/oil for maximum absorption/efficacy and I think it is working! My chronic health issue (probably bile duct obstruction related, probably involving the gall bladder and/or pancreas, maybe even the colon) seems to be diminishing, but I don't want to claim this for sure until a month has transpired. I may still relapse. As you all may know, my chronic health ailment has been limiting my effective coding capability for the past 3 years (and even somewhat before that starting from around 2006 or for sure 2010 when one of my symptoms peripheral neuropathy started).

Edit: I was explaining this post to my gf because she asked who are the guys in the above photo. I explained all of that above in terms she could understand, but I also made the point that the masses are blithely unfocused on the implications of ubiquitous government surveillance because they are not impacted by it now and they are focused on what they want and need. Thus I think a focus on DIY culture and decentralized social networking might be the most effective means for the long-term political-economic fight ahead because the end game is determined by the awareness of the people about what they are prevented from doing by top-down centralized structures. Once people taste freedom, they don't give up those freedoms that they use and need on a daily basis. Then they can demand encryption and anonymity, because they will see features they need and want that require it. We have to think wisely in terms of not putting the cart before the horse in our marketing strategies.

Now that I have basically digested the Synereo white paper (not all the math formalisms are understood in minute detail which will require some more time for study, but I get the overall concept), I want to write down some of my thoughts about Synereo's design and in the context of how I am thinking about priorities for any major paradigmatic shift in social networks.

1. Per the post upthread where I elaborated, I do not think the attention model of a social network can be tied to Synereo's crypto currency AMPs, nor should it, nor will that be compatible with allowing each user to choose their own attention model. There may be a use for crypto currency in social networking but it is not to hard code an attention model for what is supposed to be an individual user choice paradigm for a social network. I suppose instead Synereo could offer their attention model as one of the variants users can choose, but I think it will be a failure for the reasons I stated upthread. I think we will need free market competition between attention models in order to find out what works well and what doesn't. Also I think this means we can't assume nodes obey some global process calculus.

2. Users will not run a social network hosted from their own decentralized home computers ephemerally connected by asymmetric bandwidth ISPs as is the initial planned focus on Synereo. Fugetaboutit. They will signup quickly (and/or download the mobile app) just like Facebook or any other mainstream social network. Thus they will have their data and nodes hosted and thus just fugetaboutit this nonsense about censorship resistance in the white paper, except perhaps in terms of encrypted sharing (but later the government will demand a global decryption key as they have for streaming encrypted voice and video communications in the USA, Uk and rest of the 5 Eyes countries). See my prior post upthread for where I think this political-economic battle over private rights is headed.

3. The advantages that matter most to users which can only be gained from a decentralized structure (i.e. not the way existing social networks are structured) are the ability to control their own data and to choose their GUIs, apps, configuations, and even attention models. In other words, each user should be able to independently choose their own social network design, store the user's data independently of other users' data, and these user nodes should interact to exchange data, which each user node filters and stores locally the relevant bits to that user. Ideally, the entire platform should be programmable on top of some maximally generalized decentralized protocol layer.

4. The details about how to implement a maximally generalized decentralized protocol layer and define the potential motivation (economics) for all participants (users, service providers, cloud storage providers, developers) such that there isn't chaos and lack of focus so as to insure the end product converges to easy-to-use and compelling for all participants, seems to be at least on first contemplation mindbogglingly complex to distill, because there are competing/conflicting priorities in such a design. For example, a streaming music download provider must invest development resources to develop all the stop/start/pause/forward/rewind interactive functionality between the server and the client player, but then needs to somehow monetize both the bandwidth costs and the development investment, as well as attain an ROI that compensates for opportunity cost (not just a return of investment). Typically the streaming provider (e.g. SoundCloud, Spotify, etc.) would want to create a walled garden around the musicians who are uploading, the app developers who are calling their API, and the fans who are listening (e.g. through the provider's player and even embedded into provider's mobile app), so that it can extract some revenues on this ecosystem such as through a combination of advertising and/or music sales. One might propose microtransaction payments to the service provider for each song played, but this requires standardized APIs for all integration with the rest of the social network so that service providers become fungible (i.e. substitutable with each other) and in which case the service providers are reduced to competing on costs and thus can't attain a ROI to compensate opportunity costs for investing in innovation. Even if we say that users can use different service providers with their proprietary players (all fungibility embeddable in the social network Timeline), this doesn't resolve the issue of needing a standardized API for these providers to communicate fungible attributes (between all service providers) that users need in order to make an attention model more fine grained, e.g. for the music the genre and sub-genre of each track played/shared.

Thus it seems that any decentralized protocol will need to be too general and that interoption standards will emerge initially adhoc and then probably go through standardization via organizations such as the W3C.org. Similar to the browser wars of yore, we would repeat another wild west of adhoc experimentation and competing corporate offerings with the community settling eventually on the defacto standards that work best for all.

In other words, we would be creating a new decentralized protocol for the internet which would foster competition and participation instead of the walled gardens of Facebook, Twitter, Apple, etc...

Sounds exciting! Where do I sign up to create this?

Note I was listed as a contributor on the W3C standard for CSS2.1. I contributed to the either the multi-column or table specification (I contributed on both but I was only recognized on one afaik), given my past history at the dawn of deskstop publishing in the 1980s.

Any business plans which aim monetize secure, encrypted communication or anonymity is a fantasy. Due to the incoming laws such secure, encrypted communication that hides the content from law enforcement won't be tolerated by the government.

Very difficult to understand what Martin Armstrong is saying for the first minute or so, then the audio improves somewhat.

I liked his point about the reason the 99% have no networth because their savings was invested in Social Security (via the FICA tax) and not invested in the DJIA when it was 1000 (now ~16,000).

He explains the plan that elite have been implementing
[...]

These things you bring up are not even conspiracy there just basic economic cycles, it only seems distorted because of social engineering and mainstream propaganda.

Let's be honest here the only real investments in investing is never 100%, anything 99% and below is just based on *faith/luck/etc* and can never be proven that is unless you are an insider.

I'm just disappointed instead of spending your time here you just don't short the S&P and get rich based on the information you possess, then network and mentor down with systems invested with that money instead of doing it alone.

Nevertheless, let me once again show everybody how stupid you are. Here http://www.armstrongeconomics.com/archives/22328 already after the YTD-peak he said oil would rise into 2017 (the opposite to what happened).

The USA is amazingly going to produce more oil that Saudi Arabia and Russia making it the largest producer in the world according to all the data so far with just Four years into the shale revolution.

[...]

Nevertheless, oil peaked intraday in 2009 but the highest yearly close came in 2011. It is poised to rally into 2017 and it appears this is lining up with our war models. We will be looking at this market and other in the near future. The patterns are interesting and the fundamentals may speak of increased supply in the USA, but the price may be driven by other events especially when we have people like Lindsey Graham willing to kill everyone’s children for his personal hatred of the US constitution and the world

Here in September when oil was at 90 he still did not see the upcoming collapse http://www.armstrongeconomics.com/archives/23450 and even thought it might have been a plot against Russia. Here in November, oil at 80, he still does not get it http://www.armstrongeconomics.com/archives/24733. And only here http://www.armstrongeconomics.com/archives/25545 in December when oil collapsed below 65 he started to acknowledge ”a serious trend change is potentially on the horizon”. Notice, below 65, and not at 100+ as you claim.

The oil price has fallen in the past week for the first time since one and a half years under the $ 100 mark dropping to test the $90 level. On our models, the critical support lies at $92 and $82 going into 2015. A year-end closing below $92 will shift oil into a neutral position whereas a 2014 closing below $82 will warn of a sharp decline cannot be ruled out.

Crude oil has fallen to the $80 area and a monthly closing below $78 will signal a sharp drop into the $60 zone is likely. The long-term support actually begins at $57 and the major support which held previously is still there at the $32-31 zone. While we have the intraday high in 2008, the actual highest yearly closing was 2011 with the intraday high in gold. Here too we do not see any reversal in trend to the upside before 2016.

The panic cycle was due this week. I have warned that a year-end closing below $75 will signal a serious trend change is potentially on the horizon. However, the critical support lies at $57. A year-end closing below this will signal a massive collapse a deflationary cycle will impact the oil producing regions.

How many times do we have to go through this?

Thanks ArticMine.

Yes I am aware that the proposed legislation in the UK (also afaik similar legislation proposed in the USA, UK, Canada, and Australia) only applies to service providers who offer encrypted services, not to open source code which users independently obtain, compile, and run on their own initiative. I was vaguely aware of this pending legislation and then I became more focused on it during my private discussions last month with the GadgetCoin team who have a P2P streaming technology named Streemo. The governments are not stupid to try to ban activity they can't possibly enforce (thus making the government look impotent), i.e. the government can't monitor/enforce against what each private citizen does in their home.

But I argue effectively the direction is to ban end-to-end encryption in general that does not provide a back door to national security agencies. The government can regulate the ISPs (internet service providers) and ban end-to-end encryption protocols that do not include a decryption key for national security agencies. I have also explained that using home computers as servers over asymmetric upload bandwidth home ISPs is a Communist economic plan (as I warned Bittorrent back in 2008 and offered them an economic solution for their tit-for-tat algorithm but they ignored me). And that protocols which allow illegal activities from unregulated home servers will be banned by ISPs and hosting providers. If you know of any technology to hide a protocol's patterns such that ISPs can't identify it, please enlighten me. There is some discussion of "Censorship resistance" in section 2.4 of Synereo's white paper, but that still seems to be inadequate.

Simply put, it is impossible to fight the government when there are choke points in the system which the government can effectively regulate. This is just common sense.

I added the following to that question for Zooko:

[...]

Unfortunately I explained a dilemma:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1340057.msg13670558#msg13670558

If the users store their files on their own computer, then there is no way to enforce legal orders, thus the Synereo protocol will be banned by (centralized gateway) hosts. And if Synereo doesn't allow users to host content from their computers, then user's can't resist government regulation of their activities. Besides serving files from user computers over ISPs that have asymmetrically low upload (relative to download) bandwidth is a Tragedy of the Commons as some ISPs effectively pay for other ISPs' lower upload allowances (which is why Bittorrent is throttled/banned by many ISPs, which thus helps drive the Net Neutrality politics that will enslave us in internet taxation ... which btw I pointed out to Bittorrent in 2008, I offered a solution, and they apparently ignored me...click link above to read more).

So the point is that hosting illegal content is a non-starter. And thus hosting (at least high-bandwidth or copyrightable) content on user computers is a non-starter.

If we are going to find utility in Synereo, it has to come from gains in user's sense of value from the attention model, which is what I will be analyzing.

[...]

[...]

Yes I am aware that the proposed legislation in the UK (also afaik similar legislation proposed in the USA, UK, Canada, and Australia) only applies to service providers who offer encrypted services, not to open source code which users independently obtain, compile, and run on their own initiative. I was vaguely aware of this pending legislation and then I became more focused on it during my private discussions last month with the GadgetCoin team who have a P2P streaming technology named Streemo. The governments are not stupid to try to ban activity they can't possibly enforce (thus making the government look impotent), i.e. the government can't monitor/enforce against what each private citizen does in their home.

But I argue effectively the direction is to ban end-to-end encryption in general that does not provide a back door to national security agencies. The government can regulate the ISPs (internet service providers) and ban end-to-end encryption protocols that do not include a decryption key for national security agencies. I have also explained that using home computers as servers over asymmetric upload bandwidth home ISPs is a Communist economic plan (as I warned Bittorrent back in 2008 and offered them an economic solution for their tit-for-tat algorithm but they ignored me). And that protocols which allow illegal activities from unregulated home servers will be banned by ISPs and hosting providers. If you know of any technology to hide a protocol's patterns such that ISPs can't identify it, please enlighten me. There is some discussion of "Censorship resistance" in section 2.4 of Synereo's white paper, but that still seems to be inadequate.

Simply put, it is impossible to fight the government when there are choke points in the system which the government can effectively regulate. This is just common sense.

[...]

Edit: I was explaining this post to my gf because she asked who are the guys in the above photo. I explained all of that above in terms she could understand, but I also made the point that the masses are blithely unfocused on the implications of ubiquitous government surveillance because they are not impacted by it now and they are focused on what they want and need. Thus I think a focus on DIY culture and decentralized social networking might be the most effective means for the long-term political-economic fight ahead because the end game is determined by the awareness of the people about what they are prevented from doing by top-down centralized structures. Once people taste freedom, they don't give up those freedoms that they use and need on a daily basis. Then they can demand encryption and anonymity, because they will see features they need and want that require it. We have to think wisely in terms of not putting the cart before the horse in our marketing strategies.