It's true that a single large player in a light market can screw up the predictive nature of Elliott, as it generally relies on herd mentality; Everyone reacting to everyone else, confirming or denying each other uncertainties. We are all looking at the chart and creating a model in our heads. We are all seeing similar patterns and will often react similarly. Those that see the most likely pattern first make the pattern occur.

If I can see that an up trend is developing and is likely, I will buy. If I was sympathetic to what others already saw (or will see as a result of my action) then a feedback is enforced, and the up trend is fulfilled.

We've often seen a long sideways flat correction and then an impulsive move (down was most common in the past few months) followed by another flat correction. The market learned to fear another drop and so it will happen. Eventually (third impulse) weak players have learned the trend and the strong will take advantage.

Heavy players react to the same information, but its less of a feedback loop if there are limited numbers of movers. I was not surprised by the drop down from $3. We could all see that the rally from late October had failed. We hoped that the price would rise from the flat correction, but we all feared it would drop. Very few wanted to make the first move. But once it happened our fears were confirmed.

Yesterday was different, we had already seen a steady incline and were prepared for more. Elliott told us to expect a five wave C wave (though not necessarily how high - I certainly failed that prediction, relying on a poor early November count). There are times when it seems a single player makes a move and we all look at it and just think, "he must have bumped into his keyboard". It doesn't fit any pattern and so the price comes back immediately.

You may be surprised by what mathematical tedium I will endure. In fact, only by doing RSA did I understand how to simplify the very large modulo exponents quickly and without running out of memory. I'd appreciate seeing the python code, if you don't mind (PM). So far, doesn't look too bad.

double:
        L = ( 3(x^2) + a) / 2y
        X = L^2 - 2x
        Y = L(x-X)-y (all ops modulo mo)

Re: fibonacci: I went on a serendipitous scavenger hunt through your references and somehow ended upon learning a bit of Haskell. I think it was something about simplified code beautification. My Latin is a bit rusty and didn't find much meat in English. I lost your train of thought from Fib to Gradus to Retracement.

I intend to go through my own charts and do some statistics on the previous fourth wave retracement; Wave 2 and 4 alternation; and longest of waves 3 and 5 (but my charts are already influenced by what I believe to be statistical likely). There are innumerable statistics to be obtained and it would be wonderful to remove the subjectivity. Swannell had many of these statistics but he went off to Fiji and died on us this summer. I've seen several pages of his results, but none of the raw data.

Anyway, yes, It's possible and would be very interesting to write an Elliott calculator. I can already imagine how it might work, though I'm sure there are many demons in the details. It's no simple weekend project.

You may note that Swannell added many new rules (beyond Elliott's three) to restrict the number of possible counts. I already think there's much too much variability in the corrective wave types. I'd rather say there are x impulsive types and y corrective types and when none or multiple fit, you'd have to say for example, it's 57% type a and 58% type b and only 12% type c. Whether the result would still be truly Elliott, I don't know, and perhaps I don't care, as long as it's predictive.

Re: Weierstrass: Yup, this is why I had to add some pathological parenthetical tap-dancing around my statement that sine waves were 'never' self-similar. But where are you going with that?

Google's not too helpful either. Going through some material I'm still at step one:

y^2 = x^3 + ax + b

x=4
a=5
b=20
y=11

Are x and y integers, real, or complex?

I didn't understand RSA nor D-H until I could draw them out on paper. This seems like the "Hello World" of cryptography, which is rarely available.

From another thread:


Please, I insist, can you come up with an example using small baby numbers?

I'd love to see a proof that it can be done (example) or a formal proof that it's impossible. I would have assumed Diffie-Hellman was impossible too before I studied it. Cryptography never ceases to amaze me. And if you clowns can pull this off, I'll eat my underwear.

Uh what? And where is the private key from which this added public key was generated?

Could someone show a mathematical proof of concept using 8 or fewer bit keys. I don't believe it is possible to generate a secret (an unknown) between two parties, then derive a public key from that which is unknown.

No. Then I wouldn't know who screwed me. At least I know where Mike C (Casc..us) lives.

...and furthermore I don't believe that is technically possible. A public elliptic key is derived from a private key. Two entities can not (according to my wildest imagination) produce a secret unknown to either of them and derive something else from that which they do not know. It's like Diffie-Hellman with a major step removed from the calculus.

My respect for Shuttleworth took a 180 this year.

I think the unstable packages were necessary for a 'modern' desktop experience three years ago, but today I'm much happier with my LTS machine than 11.10 -- in fact, I'm considering Mint 12 or perhaps an entirely different distro. I prefer apt, so Debian maybe what I seek. If we're supporting other people's computers, shouldn't we use stable for our own sanity.

Anyone using Arch?

While Keynes celebrated the abandonment of the Gold Standard in England, he did not invent paper nor fractional reserve. Before Keynes, governments just financed war through monetary inflation. Keynes suggested instead raising interest rates and taxes during booms and deficit spending during busts. Whether right or wrong, that is NOT what the United States and Europe have followed for the past forty years. They (Europe by treaty and law) set inflation targets and primed the economies continuously as if perpetual growth could be sustained indefinitely.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_9DH07MBG_w&t=4s

I'll bet 4 against 1 BTC that neither the USA nor Israel executes an overt Air Strike against Iran during 2011 or 2012.

http://www.intrade.com/v4/markets/contract/?contractId=750356

I think paper bitcoins fill a role somewhat like traveler cheques, but as a physical currency they offer very little protection against double spending. I could imagine printing out a few personal traveler cheques from my digital wallet and 'signing' them with the unlocking passphrase. The merchant could transfer them immediately, thus relieving me from needing a networked computer. He could optionally pass it on like cash with default risk.

Cas..us coins are novel, but I don't think it has much 'staying power'. If/when physical bitcoins become as ubiquitous as M&M's, I'd immediately rip each physical hologram off and transfer the cash digitally - I wouldn't trust a single one of them.

Nice. I've installed Ubuntu on the machines for many in my family, but Linux is not something you can just install for a newbie and walk away from. You have to be willing to be their personal maintainer, if only once a month or so.

I was surprised to hear that my girlfriend hated Unity, so I gave it an honest month's trial, and yeah, it's slow, buggy, and frustrating. Believe it or not, she's now wildly happy using Xmonad. I won't install Unity or Gnome 3 on anyone's machine next year. And I'm boycotting Ubuntu for their arrogance.

What is 'acting'? I prefer to see personal/private data clearly distinguished from public data by name.

Please challenge, ask questions, spit on the floor. Otherwise, I'm just talking to myself.

Right, I meant postdecessors. No, I meant descendants, those his ideas influenced.



That's what I'm specifically challenging. It was William Phillips' 1958 paper that codified the relationship between employment and inflation (wages actually). Friedman among others received the Nobel prize for crushing Philips with 70's stagflation data. Keynes just referred to these deltas as 'sticky'.

I don't want to be labeled as the great defender of Keynes. But to be fair, he recommended counter-cyclical policy, not deficit spending bubble pumping that has been enacted in his name since.

I don't believe people have to get it. What most people mean when they don't 'get it' is simply that they don't 'see it'. People don't get most things but seeing is believing.

Today's decisive spike up just shy of $3, invalidated the 30 October count upon crossing above $2.8 (the grey bar). This leaves the "Swannell wave" as the most likely count.

Though ugly, it has a few advantages in retrospect. Cyan 2 moves perfectly into the price territory of the previous black wave IV (cyan bar $2.8-$3.45). It validated my extended green count and didn't have the 'squeeze' problem (three waves between $2.6 and $2. of the 30 October count. Interestingly enough, the Swannell count is the only strictly valid count on the magenta hourly scale that I've drawn since 2 November. Perhaps there's a lesson there?

I don't think that Keynes was entirely wrong, though his predecessors have failed horribly. Most significantly central banks have applied his theories inappropriately (creating bubbles during booms, rather than smoothing out recession). And now that the central banks are trying to apply Keynes' remedies, they're going to find that they've already used up all the medicine getting high. That's not Keynes' fault.

Thanks. I'm looking through the API to get an overview of the separation of concerns/tiers. It'd be nice to see a schema:

==============
Generic Servers:
blockchain instance
==============
Interface:
address balance check --> any server
signed transactions --> any server
==============
Client:
private seed,
cache of private keys
public address/transaction labels
==============