4. Can't say for sure, but Counterparty ... is a valid project. At least in my views.
You do not understand technology: Im waiting for Rootstock to see if it can replace ETH, but for now I would stay cautious with smart contracts stuff.
RootStock is technologically flawed, because Sidechains can't be secure. Review the following linked posts for the details: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1518508.msg15284907#msg15284907https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1518508.msg15286570#msg15286570CounterParty is technologically flawed, because Bitcoin's block chain can't secure what it doesn't validate. Review the following linked post for the details: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1518508.msg15283868#msg15283868Someone please ask Andreas if he wants to continue promoting scams: apparently this isn't something to argue. for if one of these token get to be on the market with high value. it wouldn't be scam anymore.
You think ETH is not a scam any more as the insiders allegedly continue to pump it using margin traded creation of demand out-of-thin-air so that at the end bag holders will be holding empty bags worth 0 and the insiders will have siphoned off all the BTC you all invested. With sufficient ignorance of you speculators, our crypto ecosystem will become nothing but a criminal enterprise. Thank you. Edit: another confirmation of my stance on CounterParty and RootStock: Counterparty and RootStock are two smart-contract projects building on top of bitcoin this way. But, Counterparty bundles its state (how much the guest owes you, etc) into bitcoin transactions, which weren’t designed for this purpose.
This also limits Counterparty transactions to bitcoin’s 10-minute block time, rather than ethereum’s 15-second one. Meanwhile, RootStock is far behind ethereum in development, arguably falling further behind every day, and involves some technical challenges (how to reliably transfer coins between the bitcoin blockchain and RootStock blockchain) that don’t appear to be fully worked out yet.
In both cases, you’re now dependent on two separate networks and technologies: bitcoin, and Counterparty or RootStock.
XCP is not the only smart contract for bitcoin
rootstock and i think maidsafe
I explained a few posts above that XCP is a flawed. RootStock doesn't have that same flaw, because it is its own side-chain and can verify every transaction. But side-chains have other problems and I expect them to be a clusterfuck. |
|
|
|
apparently this isn't something to argue. for if one of these token get to be on the market with high value. it wouldn't be scam anymore.
You think ETH is not a scam any more as the insiders allegedly continue to pump it using margin traded creation of demand out-of-thin-air so that at the end bag holders will be holding empty bags worth 0 and the insiders will have siphoned off all the BTC you all invested. With sufficient ignorance of you speculators, our crypto ecosystem will become nothing but a criminal enterprise. Thank you. There are no rules: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1413819.msg15400907#msg15400907 |
|
|
|
NEM is for the masses, not just those who roam in these boards.
Please explain how NEM can scale to 1000s or millions of transactions per second? What features does NEM have which make it the coin for the masses? 1. NEM doesn't have any new technology. It is a rehash of same old technology.
2. NEM's price is being manipulated to the upside as of this moment by someone with control over most of the float.
1 was wrong 2 was uncertain 1. I was correct. 2. I'm certain. See the 16,000 BTC daily volume on a $123m mcap, versus say for example 276 BTC for Monero on a $17m mcap. That is the manipulator buying from himself. |
|
|
|
I never told marketcap was due the unique features of Nem.
Yes we agree. It is not. Just pointing out your wrong words.
So what is wrong in my words  |
|
|
|
How do we know they aren't Sybils for the same entity? How do we know they didn't sell cheap to the manipulator? See I think the bottom line value will be the actual technology of the project. The price will rise high and then crash to the true value in the project. |
|
|
|
Request for comments? I do not exactly know what goes on behind the scenes when a coin/token gets listed but you'll know that a team behind a platform knows what their doing because the maintained volume for their coins is always high right from the beginning. A prime example of this is Ethereum.
It would be naive to think that the market activity will just come without some kind of manipulation going on to jump start trading.
Wow! So manipulation or die in your opinion? I am thinking tokeweed is correct: Thanks for the links and discussion. I still can not for the life of me wrap my head around the "volume" of alt coins traded recently. With no transparency into these exchanges, we have no idea what is going on behind the scenes. I'll put dollars to doughnuts there is more then meets the eye.
It is obvious that the high volume are the insiders buying from themselves in order to control the market price. The way this works is that if you flood the exchange with high bids and high asks, then the small volume of actually lower asks is insignificant and minor cost for the insider. For example let's say the insider is 99% of the volume (using Sybil identities on the exchange), then the 1% that wants to sell is an insignificant cost to the insider, because the manipulation of the price drives more speculator demand on the bid side than on the ask side. So in this way, the insider is actually unloading tokens at higher and higher prices. This games goes on until the insiders have unloaded their tokens at nosebleed prices. Then it collapses. In Ethereum's case, it was alleged by the Dao attacker that the insiders are using their tokens as margin to do margin trades to provide more upside price leverage manipulation. So first you use your tokens buying from yourself to pump up the price, then you use your ETH to short the ETH price, and start selling tokens rapidly to cause a crash in price. You cover your shorts, and repeat the process again driving the price up. But you don't crash the price too far, so as to keep the dream alive. Having very good marketing also helps. This is why we often see a huge decline in the price after the initial ICO pump, as this enables the insiders to accumulate tokens very cheaply and then the upward price manipulation begins. Note the insiders need to make sure they are the only large holders, so no one can compete with them and for example sell into their pump. It seems if you don't do this manipulation, then your token will be scorned by speculators and your reputation as altcoin developers will be tarnished. The developers if they are honest, will take their funding and continue to work hard. The market manipulators are going to come in and buy up any good coin and pump it. The only way to stop that would be for the developer (and/or the community) to hold the coins tight fisted, but then this creates a dead market such as Monero which has never seen more than 4X gain after the initial pump by rpietila. So what can an honest developer do He has no choice but to let the speculators have what they want. The important thing is the developer is funded and able to drive the ecosystem to success. If so, then the downside price crash will be limited or at least a great buying opportunity. Fundamental development (coding) and marketing matters. But alas, DEX is going to be scorned because the manipulators can't operate there. Or can they? Speculators will go where the (manipulated) volume is. Speculators learn to play the game. I do not exactly know what goes on behind the scenes when a coin/token gets listed but you'll know that a team behind a platform knows what their doing because the maintained volume for their coins is always high right from the beginning. A prime example of this is Ethereum.
It would be naive to think that the market activity will just come without some kind of manipulation going on to jump start trading.
Wow! So manipulation or die in your opinion? Nope, I'm neutral. But that's reality. It's all I'm saying. I had sort of religious transformation of sorts and come out of my dogmatic cave to see the light of day. 1. When no whale is supporting the volume and price by manipulating with his tokens, then the price will decline and thus a whale will be able to accumulate low and then begin manipulating. So preventing manipulation is really difficult. Monero seems to have been able to do it, by selling "holier than thou" Jim Jones koolaid locking their supporters into a perpetually underperforming token but most other tokens aren't able to achieve this Zen masochism: http://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/monero/Note XMR has good volume though. So it has apparently some savvy traders who employ leverage. 2. Thus we might as well as accept that manipulation is really just trading. When speculators play, they must understand the rules. And that is there are no rules preventing manipulation. Thus to be competitive, manipulation is part of the game. 3. A coin developer has the choice of letting someone else do the manipulation for him (e.g. Bobsurplus and destroy the token such as Bitbay), or do it themselves so as to more beneficially maximize the long-term value of the token and project. |
|
|
|
I do not exactly know what goes on behind the scenes when a coin/token gets listed but you'll know that a team behind a platform knows what their doing because the maintained volume for their coins is always high right from the beginning. A prime example of this is Ethereum.
It would be naive to think that the market activity will just come without some kind of manipulation going on to jump start trading.
Wow! So manipulation or die in your opinion? I am thinking tokeweed is correct: Thanks for the links and discussion. I still can not for the life of me wrap my head around the "volume" of alt coins traded recently. With no transparency into these exchanges, we have no idea what is going on behind the scenes. I'll put dollars to doughnuts there is more then meets the eye.
It is obvious that the high volume are the insiders buying from themselves in order to control the market price. The way this works is that if you flood the exchange with high bids and high asks, then the small volume of actually lower asks is insignificant and minor cost for the insider. For example let's say the insider is 99% of the volume (using Sybil identities on the exchange), then the 1% that wants to sell is an insignificant cost to the insider, because the manipulation of the price drives more speculator demand on the bid side than on the ask side. So in this way, the insider is actually unloading tokens at higher and higher prices. This games goes on until the insiders have unloaded their tokens at nosebleed prices. Then it collapses. In Ethereum's case, it was alleged by the Dao attacker that the insiders are using their tokens as margin to do margin trades to provide more upside price leverage manipulation. So first you use your tokens buying from yourself to pump up the price, then you use your ETH to short the ETH price, and start selling tokens rapidly to cause a crash in price. You cover your shorts, and repeat the process again driving the price up. But you don't crash the price too far, so as to keep the dream alive. Having very good marketing also helps. This is why we often see a huge decline in the price after the initial ICO pump, as this enables the insiders to accumulate tokens very cheaply and then the upward price manipulation begins. Note the insiders need to make sure they are the only large holders, so no one can compete with them and for example sell into their pump. It seems if you don't do this manipulation, then your token will be scorned by speculators and your reputation as altcoin developers will be tarnished. The developers if they are honest, will take their funding and continue to work hard. The market manipulators are going to come in and buy up any good coin and pump it. The only way to stop that would be for the developer (and/or the community) to hold the coins tight fisted, but then this creates a dead market such as Monero which has never seen more than 4X gain after the initial pump by rpietila. So what can an honest developer do He has no choice but to let the speculators have what they want. The important thing is the developer is funded and able to drive the ecosystem to success. If so, then the downside price crash will be limited or at least a great buying opportunity. Fundamental development (coding) and marketing matters. But alas, DEX is going to be scorned because the manipulators can't operate there. Or can they? Speculators will go where the (manipulated) volume is. Speculators learn to play the game. I do not exactly know what goes on behind the scenes when a coin/token gets listed but you'll know that a team behind a platform knows what their doing because the maintained volume for their coins is always high right from the beginning. A prime example of this is Ethereum.
It would be naive to think that the market activity will just come without some kind of manipulation going on to jump start trading.
Wow! So manipulation or die in your opinion? Nope, I'm neutral. But that's reality. It's all I'm saying. I had sort of religious transformation of sorts and come out of my dogmatic cave to see the light of day. 1. When no whale is supporting the volume and price by manipulating with his tokens, then the price will decline and thus a whale will be able to accumulate low and then begin manipulating. So preventing manipulation is really difficult. Monero seems to have been able to do it, by selling "holier than thou" Jim Jones koolaid locking their supporters into a perpetually underperforming token but most other tokens aren't able to achieve this Zen masochism: http://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/monero/Note XMR has good volume though. So it has apparently some savvy traders who employ leverage. 2. Thus we might as well as accept that manipulation is really just trading. When speculators play, they must understand the rules. And that is there are no rules preventing manipulation. Thus to be competitive, manipulation is part of the game. 3. A coin developer has the choice of letting someone else do the manipulation for him (e.g. Bobsurplus and destroy the token such as Bitbay), or do it themselves so as to more beneficially maximize the long-term value of the token and project. |
|
|
|
I must correct you:
1) NEM has some unique features. As an example the only multisig implementation where you can add and remove cosigners.
2) how can you be sure of manipulation? You are just supposing it.
1. Yeah it might have some minor features that other coins don't have. Please explain why these are really important and justify a $133m mcap. 2. The chart of a non-manipulated coin looks like the following with never getting more than 4X gain off any low (note rpietila caused the spike at the start): http://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/monero/ |
|
|
|
How many NEM coin are in circulation and not hold by the NEM team? I am not sure if the total marketcap is fake. Thanks for giving an accurate answer.
Ask for proof also. Words are meaningless. |
|
|
|
My opinion of NEM (since this is supposed to be a watch thread per the new thread title): People getting mad because they put down NEM and now look at the results of hard work and patience.  Chillax. No worries, as altcoins are always manipulated pumps (otherwise they are scorned market failures): https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1413819.msg15390617#msg15390617It is not particular criticism of NEM. It is just the way altcoin speculation is. Fundamental developments don't matter as much as price manipulation. Gold fever. Get rich quick. So it really doesn't matter if Proof-of-Importance is just technobabble obfuscation of Proof-of-stake. Technology isn't really the #1 important factor. Manipulated upward price is. Giving away stake is a good way of insuring the tokens end up concentrated with a manipulator. Either they are given directly to the manipulator, or those who received them free then dump them and the manipulator buys them for peanuts. The manipulator was accumulating when NEM was below $1m mcap for 1 year: http://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/nem/
i know its very easy to assume that there MUST be some kind of deviousness involved somewhere along the line, but that has never been the case with nem. its a major reason why i supported nem wholeheartedly from the beginning and will continue to do so for years to come.
So we must trust you. So just like how Mark Karpeles was our hero until he wasn't? Why didn't you make a WoT to codify the level of decentralized trust in the system, so the decentralized trust is more verifiable. What are the names of all these people I am asked to trust? Who trusts whom within that? What are their backgrounds and past performances? Etc... Again I am not making accusations. I am just suggesting that if you want the market to trust you, you should be able to show information that helps to establish the trust. i never asked for anyone to trust myself or anyone else. i just gave my opinion on the matter. you can trust my opinion if you wish or your can do your home work. either way, you will find nem is quite a lot different to any other crypto in many many ways. it really does buck the trend. what you take from my post is entirely up to you. I am just making the point that trust has nothing to do with it. Your "Proof-of-importance" (don't tell anyone it is really just proof-of-stake) technology has nothing to do with it. The price is moving up because someone is manipulating the price. wrt PoI, Here is the formula. The importance score, ψ, is calculated as follows: ψ = (normalize1(max(0, ν + σwo)) + ˆπwi)χ where: normalize1(v) is: vkvk ν is the vested amount of XEM σ is the weighted, net outlinking XEM πˆis the NCDawareRank score χ is a weighting vector that considers the structural topology of the graph wo, wi are suitable constants as you can see, "v" which could be considered the proof of stake part of the algorithm, is a part, but not the only part, nor is it the majority. so no it is not proof of stake, but it is a component in the overall algorithm. "The price is moving up because someone is manipulating the price." -> is any buy on any market anything less than intentional or unintentional market manipulation? i have no interest with disputing whether it is market manipulation or not. if that is your opinion then so be it. its not my loss. The reputation/rank aspect is just proof-of-stake in transactions. It has the same properties of proof-of-stake wherein your stake determines how much rank you realistically have (and not just lose it all to transaction fees). Yes everything is a "manipulation" (i.e. a trade), but the difference is that in order to move a price up vertically like that requires significant concentration of the tokens into one manipulator's control. That isn't necessarily bad or good, depending on your perspective of good and bad. It carries certain risks, which include that the manipulator can crash the price when he is ready to short. I am just advocating honesty: 1. NEM doesn't have any new technology. It is a rehash of same old technology. 2. NEM's price is being manipulated to the upside as of this moment by someone with control over most of the float. You don't need to take that as an insult or criticism. Just take it as a being fair and factual.
I must correct you:
1) NEM has some unique features. As an example the only multisig implementation where you can add and remove cosigners.
2) how can you be sure of manipulation? You are just supposing it.
1. Yeah it might have some minor features that other coins don't have. Please explain why these are really important and justify a $133m mcap. 2. The chart of a non-manipulated coin looks like the following with never getting more than 4X gain off any low (note rpietila caused the spike at the start): http://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/monero/
How many NEM coin are in circulation and not hold by the NEM team? I am not sure if the total marketcap is fake. Thanks for giving an accurate answer.
Ask for proof also. Words are meaningless. Well, I very well undertand the concept of proof, but an "official" number from a trusted team member would be satisfying for me at the moment.
How do we know they aren't Sybils for the same entity? How do we know they didn't sell cheap to the manipulator? See I think the bottom line value will be the actual technology of the project. The price will rise high and then crash to the true value in the project.
NEM is for the masses, not just those who roam in these boards.
Please explain how NEM can scale to 1000s or millions of transactions per second? What features does NEM have which make it the coin for the masses? 1. NEM doesn't have any new technology. It is a rehash of same old technology.
2. NEM's price is being manipulated to the upside as of this moment by someone with control over most of the float.
1 was wrong 2 was uncertain 1. I was correct. 2. I'm certain. See the 16,000 BTC volume on a $123m mcap, versus say for example 276 BTC for Monero on a $17m mcap. That is the manipulator buying from himself. |
|
|
|
i know its very easy to assume that there MUST be some kind of deviousness involved somewhere along the line, but that has never been the case with nem. its a major reason why i supported nem wholeheartedly from the beginning and will continue to do so for years to come.
So we must trust you. So just like how Mark Karpeles was our hero until he wasn't? Why didn't you make a WoT to codify the level of decentralized trust in the system, so the decentralized trust is more verifiable. What are the names of all these people I am asked to trust? Who trusts whom within that? What are their backgrounds and past performances? Etc... Again I am not making accusations. I am just suggesting that if you want the market to trust you, you should be able to show information that helps to establish the trust. i never asked for anyone to trust myself or anyone else. i just gave my opinion on the matter. you can trust my opinion if you wish or your can do your home work. either way, you will find nem is quite a lot different to any other crypto in many many ways. it really does buck the trend. what you take from my post is entirely up to you. I am just making the point that trust has nothing to do with it. Your "Proof-of-importance" (don't tell anyone it is really just proof-of-stake) technology has nothing to do with it. The price is moving up because someone is manipulating the price. wrt PoI, Here is the formula. The importance score, ψ, is calculated as follows: ψ = (normalize1(max(0, ν + σwo)) + ˆπwi)χ where: normalize1(v) is: vkvk ν is the vested amount of XEM σ is the weighted, net outlinking XEM πˆis the NCDawareRank score χ is a weighting vector that considers the structural topology of the graph wo, wi are suitable constants as you can see, "v" which could be considered the proof of stake part of the algorithm, is a part, but not the only part, nor is it the majority. so no it is not proof of stake, but it is a component in the overall algorithm. "The price is moving up because someone is manipulating the price." -> is any buy on any market anything less than intentional or unintentional market manipulation? i have no interest with disputing whether it is market manipulation or not. if that is your opinion then so be it. its not my loss. The reputation/rank aspect is just proof-of-stake in transactions. It has the same properties of proof-of-stake wherein your stake determines how much rank you realistically have (and not just lose it all to transaction fees). Yes everything is a "manipulation" (i.e. a trade), but the difference is that in order to move a price up vertically like that requires significant concentration of the tokens into one manipulator's control. That isn't necessarily bad or good, depending on your perspective of good and bad. It carries certain risks, which include that the manipulator can crash the price when he is ready to short. I am just advocating honesty: 1. NEM doesn't have any new technology. It is a rehash of same old technology. 2. NEM's price is being manipulated to the upside as of this moment by someone with control over most of the float. You don't need to take that as an insult or criticism. Just take it as a being fair and factual. |
|
|
|
Dollar rally still ahead (Q4 2016?), and possible lower lows in gold and corrections in crypto-currencies:
Ehmm, did you notice the XEM mega rally? SC strong rally? NXT went more than x4 (900 -> 4200) My point is that when BTC consolidates, ALTs make party. That will not change soon I think.... I still see more upside for all CCs for another few months. Again I think the upside for BTC for this run is $1200ish (the prior top should be resistance and perhaps we get a retest of the this cup handle as support before blasting through $1200 later next year). Some are diversifying BTC and ETH gains now. And the manipulators/bottraders are out in full force to capitalize on the opportunity. All I am saying is that Q4ish we have the threat of the dollar rally igniting... TPTB_needswar: That's not to say it will continue but unless there is some miraculous central bank inspired magic trick coming, how does gold plummet after this?
Strong dollar = crashing gold (at least initially) Trump victory will also support a strong dollar. |
|
|
|
TPTB_needswar: That's not to say it will continue but unless there is some miraculous central bank inspired magic trick coming, how does gold plummet after this?
Strong dollar = crashing gold (at least initially) Trump victory will also support a strong dollar. |
|
|
|
i know its very easy to assume that there MUST be some kind of deviousness involved somewhere along the line, but that has never been the case with nem. its a major reason why i supported nem wholeheartedly from the beginning and will continue to do so for years to come.
So we must trust you. So just like how Mark Karpeles was our hero until he wasn't? Why didn't you make a WoT to codify the level of decentralized trust in the system, so the decentralized trust is more verifiable. What are the names of all these people I am asked to trust? Who trusts whom within that? What are their backgrounds and past performances? Etc... Again I am not making accusations. I am just suggesting that if you want the market to trust you, you should be able to show information that helps to establish the trust. i never asked for anyone to trust myself or anyone else. i just gave my opinion on the matter. you can trust my opinion if you wish or your can do your home work. either way, you will find nem is quite a lot different to any other crypto in many many ways. it really does buck the trend. what you take from my post is entirely up to you. I am just making the point that trust has nothing to do with it. Your "Proof-of-importance" (don't tell anyone it is really just proof-of-stake) technology has nothing to do with it. The price is moving up because someone is manipulating the price. |
|
|
|
Dollar rally still ahead (Q4 2016?), and possible lower lows in gold and corrections in crypto-currencies: which warns that everything can flip against the EU come early July. We have also been warning of a coming dollar rally that will make the dollar bears’ noses bleed from vertigo. The critical monthly closing support remains at 13660 in the cash pound against the dollar. A June closing beneath this level will confirm the dollar rally is beginning in a broader trend.
...
Things will be moving into August/September. June was a Directional Change and that seems to have been on target along with our computer’s forecast years in advance.
...
August looks to be rather chaotic. We should begin to see other countries move more rapidly for referendums. As this process begins, we should begin to see the realization that the euro is in crisis; not the pound.
We can see that the Yearly Bearish we elected at the 116 level at year-end 2015 has proven to be dramatic. We rallied back to retest the 116 level, which took a little longer, but it has fallen sharply and we can see the trend is in motion for a big dollar rally.
QUESTION: Marty; I have been reading your blog on gold and get all your reports. One things that I have notices was this 1206 number. Back in 2013, it was important back then. Here it showed up again in 2015. This seems to be an amazing number. Can you explain why. ANSWER: Today, it seems to be 1206. True, it was appearing in 2013 and now again it has emerged once again. It has now become a Daily, Weekly, and Monthly Bearish. So it is migrating to more levels in time. I am not entirely sure that we can predict if such numbers in advance will be the ones to reappear time and again. It is a phenomenon that warrants more investigation. Since this model is physics based it is complex. Sometimes it will produce a high or low precisely or within a few ticks. The Monthly Bullish from the December low has remained unchanged at $1362. We warned back on February 11 that $1362 was the top of the range for gold that it had to exceed: “The Monthly Bullish stands up at 1362. That is what we need to elect to suggest that a change in trend is possible.” It is fascinating to watch the precision within markets. I always have to laugh when people try to attack me in the same manner as other analysts, claiming I am wrong for one reason or another when these numbers are not what I “think” and they are certainly not my opinion. They simply exist within any market.  Many comments and emails are pouring in that our model correctly forecast BREXIT years in advance. Here is the picture for the next big chaos period — the US Presidential Election in November. You can see that 3 out of 4 models show a Republican victory. I'm not sure if anyone has posted this, but this is what he wrote on June 17th in his private blog @ ask-socrates.com:  "The Dow reacted strong back from the brink, but it was not quite strong enough just yet. The Weekly Bullish now stands at 17915 and the Weekly Bearish is 17580 on our minor model. The Daily Bullish Reversal stands at 17900 and the Daily Bearish Reversal lies at 17437. We do have a Minor Monthly Bearish at 17579 and a June closing beneath 17790 will indicate the market is still positioned neutrally. This is the same number showing up on indicators for the Quarterly timing level. A June closing beneath 17037 will signal a break to retest the support perhaps creating a September low. To imply a breakout requires a June closing above 18137.50 to hint that we may run into a September high crossing the 20,000 level." For me the way I interpreted this was to short the market under the assumption that we would either elect those reversals or come very near to electing them (basically viewing them as a target), and hold over the weekend if it looked like the numbers were going to be elected as Friday came to a close. On late Friday afternoon we were still well below his weekly reversal of 17580, so I held UVXY and sold it today over 16$. That's over a 40% profit. The reason I sold is because I expect the DOW to rise back up to test his Minor Monthly Bearish reversals @ 17579 by Thursday, and because common sense simply tells me that markets tend to consolidate after big swings like that. Holding over the weekend was somewhat risky (I hate holding over the weekend), but according to his 1% rule (which basically says the narrower you elect the reversal by, the stronger the signal) I was relatively safe to assume there would be a little bit more energy pushing the market slightly lower on Monday's opening. This worked perfectly for me, so I'm really having trouble understanding all the scepticism here. Martin's reversal system seems to work. |
|
|
|
Well from what I've been able to gather the flaw is built into the "Gas", IOW the ETH language for the contracts is inherently flawed so it matters not if it's DAO or some other contract there will be a (multiple?) flaw/s inherited. Is this a correct assumption?
Yes and no, but mostly no (imo). A lot of the complexity in the design of Ethereum and in the correct coding of contracts comes as a consequences of the requirement to abruptly terminate execution when gas runs out. But aside from being complex and perhaps a bad design or even a bad idea from the very beginning, there are no flaws of which I'm aware in how the gas mechanism works. It working as designed. Whether that constitutes 'inherently flawed' is a matter of opinion. Always glad your around to clear up misconceptions and cut through all the noise.  So the Ethereum itself is quite safe, or not buggy. The problem is in the writing or the coding of the contract. Incorrect. |
|
|
|
Dollar rally still ahead (Q4 2016?), and possible lower lows in gold and corrections in crypto-currencies: which warns that everything can flip against the EU come early July. We have also been warning of a coming dollar rally that will make the dollar bears’ noses bleed from vertigo. The critical monthly closing support remains at 13660 in the cash pound against the dollar. A June closing beneath this level will confirm the dollar rally is beginning in a broader trend.
...
Things will be moving into August/September. June was a Directional Change and that seems to have been on target along with our computer’s forecast years in advance.
...
August looks to be rather chaotic. We should begin to see other countries move more rapidly for referendums. As this process begins, we should begin to see the realization that the euro is in crisis; not the pound.
We can see that the Yearly Bearish we elected at the 116 level at year-end 2015 has proven to be dramatic. We rallied back to retest the 116 level, which took a little longer, but it has fallen sharply and we can see the trend is in motion for a big dollar rally.
QUESTION: Marty; I have been reading your blog on gold and get all your reports. One things that I have notices was this 1206 number. Back in 2013, it was important back then. Here it showed up again in 2015. This seems to be an amazing number. Can you explain why. ANSWER: Today, it seems to be 1206. True, it was appearing in 2013 and now again it has emerged once again. It has now become a Daily, Weekly, and Monthly Bearish. So it is migrating to more levels in time. I am not entirely sure that we can predict if such numbers in advance will be the ones to reappear time and again. It is a phenomenon that warrants more investigation. Since this model is physics based it is complex. Sometimes it will produce a high or low precisely or within a few ticks. The Monthly Bullish from the December low has remained unchanged at $1362. We warned back on February 11 that $1362 was the top of the range for gold that it had to exceed: “The Monthly Bullish stands up at 1362. That is what we need to elect to suggest that a change in trend is possible.” It is fascinating to watch the precision within markets. I always have to laugh when people try to attack me in the same manner as other analysts, claiming I am wrong for one reason or another when these numbers are not what I “think” and they are certainly not my opinion. They simply exist within any market. Many comments and emails are pouring in that our model correctly forecast BREXIT years in advance. Here is the picture for the next big chaos period — the US Presidential Election in November. You can see that 3 out of 4 models show a Republican victory. I'm not sure if anyone has posted this, but this is what he wrote on June 17th in his private blog @ ask-socrates.com: "The Dow reacted strong back from the brink, but it was not quite strong enough just yet. The Weekly Bullish now stands at 17915 and the Weekly Bearish is 17580 on our minor model. The Daily Bullish Reversal stands at 17900 and the Daily Bearish Reversal lies at 17437. We do have a Minor Monthly Bearish at 17579 and a June closing beneath 17790 will indicate the market is still positioned neutrally. This is the same number showing up on indicators for the Quarterly timing level. A June closing beneath 17037 will signal a break to retest the support perhaps creating a September low. To imply a breakout requires a June closing above 18137.50 to hint that we may run into a September high crossing the 20,000 level." For me the way I interpreted this was to short the market under the assumption that we would either elect those reversals or come very near to electing them (basically viewing them as a target), and hold over the weekend if it looked like the numbers were going to be elected as Friday came to a close. On late Friday afternoon we were still well below his weekly reversal of 17580, so I held UVXY and sold it today over 16$. That's over a 40% profit. The reason I sold is because I expect the DOW to rise back up to test his Minor Monthly Bearish reversals @ 17579 by Thursday, and because common sense simply tells me that markets tend to consolidate after big swings like that. Holding over the weekend was somewhat risky (I hate holding over the weekend), but according to his 1% rule (which basically says the narrower you elect the reversal by, the stronger the signal) I was relatively safe to assume there would be a little bit more energy pushing the market slightly lower on Monday's opening. This worked perfectly for me, so I'm really having trouble understanding all the scepticism here. Martin's reversal system seems to work. |
|
|
|
Interesting responses, the vast majority seem to be related to "price" and wealth generation more than anything else.
I'm curious, how many people here like an alt coin because of a reason other than price?
Money is a huge motivator. Especially if you need it. So you believe the vast majority involved care for nothing more than monetary and selfish gains? I think they'd also like a seriously developed project. A mix of all. |
|
|
|
People getting mad because they put down NEM and now look at the results of hard work and patience. Chillax. No worries, as altcoins are always manipulated pumps (otherwise they are scorned market failures): https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1413819.msg15390617#msg15390617It is not particular criticism of NEM. It is just the way altcoin speculation is. Fundamental developments don't matter as much as price manipulation. Gold fever. Get rich quick. So it really doesn't matter if Proof-of-Importance is just technobabble obfuscation of Proof-of-stake. Technology isn't really the #1 important factor. Manipulated upward price is. Giving away stake is a good way of insuring the tokens end up concentrated with a manipulator. Either they are given directly to the manipulator, or those who received them free then dump them and the manipulator buys them for peanuts. The manipulator was accumulating when NEM was below $1m mcap for 1 year: http://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/nem/ |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
