Btw, Peru is a developing market. Should bottom by 2020 and start moving back up.

Knowledge Age won't take over and turn bearings into worthless relics in only 4 years. You have a lot of time to adjust on Knowledge Age.

The immediate threat is the coming totalitarianism.

The West will continue declining after 2020. No end in sight for the economic devastation in the West because of the $100s of trillions in actuarial unfunded socialism obligations. Developing nations don't have this albatross around the government's fiscal neck, thus they can waterfall collapse now until 2020, then they will bottom.

Its all over for the West. Kiss it goodbye.

For example the readers here who never looked at the data and patterns of international capital flows were in the dark about what is coming. They lacked data and a model. For them it is a Black Swan. But not for me.

That proves nothing. My capital can early higher gains interim. Why should I let it sit there and lose ROI.

Reread my post.

You are framing your logic incorrectly. Just because I give you high odds of an outcome that doesn't mean opportunity cost means I can earn more betting on that outcome directly.

I am betting on that outcome indirectly by putting all my effort into creating better anonymity and decentralization.

You can't calculate the return on a bet without calculating opportunity cost.

OROBTC in all due respect for you as very amiable person, I give you 0.1% chance of Armstrong's model failing on the big picture. Little small things yes but not on the big picture.

There will be no hyperinflation at all. There will instead be deflation, rising interest rates, and expropriation via rising taxes and confiscations-by-another-name (e.g. violating money laundering laws, Civil Asset Forfeiture laws, bail-ins, nationalization of pension funds, etc).

He has been accurately predicting the future for nearly 3 decades now.

His $1 billion computer model predicted the 2008 crisis back in 1995.

His model predicts the black swans. Black swans are not really dark, only to those who don't have the data to model them.

If you understand Taleb's math on a deep level, and understand on a deeper level what Armstrong is doing, then you would see the so called black swans are only dark because centralized systems (and groupthink) ignore data and thus overcommit to egregious failure.

It is not just China. Every where outside the USA is entering hard landing after October. It will accelerate into 2016.

We are heading into 2008 crisis yet much worse. The USA has no incentive to QE as the banks were already recapitalized in 2008/2009. It is Europe which has 30-to-1 leverage in the banks all over Europe (all of Europe will follow China soon). The Fed must raise interest rates because pensions are going broke and because they see stampede of international capital into the dollar.

Outside the USA will go into a downward spiral because their currencies & exports will implode at the same time their debt explodes and being short the dollar also.

By 2017.9, the strong dollar will have killed all of the USA's exports and then we will see the USA fall into the abyss too. They won't be able to QE again in 2018, because confidence will be blown to smitherenes. The USA public is ready for change and this will intensify as the dollar inflows won't help mainstreet only wallstreet. If they don't get it in the 2016 national elections, they will withdraw their money by 2018. That means the government bastards will have to move to capital controls.

Massive totalitarianism coming. You'll need an anonymous coin and one with decentralized mining. GavinCoin (aka BitcoinXT) will be the tracking coin subservient to the State.

And you will be wrong. Guaranteed.

That is the end-to-end principle of Knowledge Age networking. Your example in spades.

They need the tools to communicate and trade, i.e. anonymous internet and anonymous money. They need both. Economies-of-scale in knowledge don't work if you can only exchange with your physical neighbors.

It all ended up overseas in bond issues due to carry trade from ZIRP to higher interest rates in developing markets. And thus now the world is short the dollar (owes $9 trillion as their exports collapse) and the is why the dollar will become incredibly strong until 2017.9.

You guys are clueless because you don't read Martin Armstrong and you don't understand international capital flows determine everything.

There won't be any hyperinflation. The Fed will raise interest rates now for the next several years and send us into a horrific global deflation and totalitarianism.

And no Bitcoin will not win. It was planted as part of the plan to move to trackable digital money so you can be enslaved and expropriated.

Any way I am tired of teaching this. Go ahead with your fantasies.

This impacts crypto-currency in at least two ways:

• Those within the devalued currency regimes may see value in gold or other private assets. More likely they buy dollars though (if they can).
• This is the global economic collapse into totalitarianism as destitute Western (socialist) governments try to squeeze blood from every turnip. Thus driving capital and commerce into free trade zones of anonymity and decentralization (if those technologies are sufficiently easy and mature).

Once you put unbreakable crypto technologies out in open source, TPTB can possibly filter one protocol but a 1000 others will sprout, because where there is a demand supply will go. (And with steganography and perhaps alternative wireless networks, they may not be able to filter)

The smart fork would enable spending the coins from the destroyed protocol into the new protocol, so it is a continuation of the preexisting value and distribution. TPTB can then play Whack-A-Mole.



The more the government stomps on commerce, the more demand for those technologies.

I don't think they can break the core math quickly. And we'll always be driving ahead towards stronger math. Our community hasn't been organized. We haven't been funding mathematicians.

My goal was to get the snowball rolling downhill. I sense the past tense is accurate now.

Edit: TPTB rely on something not being too popular or co-opting the popular movements. How can they convince the people they are stomping on to prefer their walled gardens and jails? The count on being able to divide-and-conquer or pick off a few from the herd at a time, so the rest of the herd doesn't react. But if you do decentralization very well, then any individual can effect his own choice. One problem with Bitcoin from my view, has been we rely so heavily on network miners being not co-opted and thus the battle over BitcoinXT (aka GavinCoin).

BTC did not move up much with gold's move up to $1117. Gold paused and BTC made a lower low (relative to recent). It appears BTC does not want to rally with gold. Thus is looking very weak.

Satoshi even spoke out on Aug 15 about the danger of GavinCoin. (Either the real Satoshi posted or someone with enough hacking skills or influence posted from his former email account, thus either way someone is expending precious resource to make a point about how serious this is)

I am not sure what to make of all this, except that overall gold and BTC are correlated and that both are headed for extreme lows by Spring 2016 (based on Armstrong's gold low prediction).

Popular game currencies have threatened the State enough that overtly totalitarian States had to outlaw them:

http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2009/06/china-outlaws-use-of-virtual-currency-for-real-world-items/

And insidiously totalitarian States in the West have effectively outlawed them by forcing anyone who exchanges fiat for them to be registered money services businesses under the AML clauses in the asinine oxymoronically named Patriot Act.

So yes I agree virtual game currencies have shown promise but so far they lacked resiliency against the State (anonymity, decentralized exchanges, decentralized consensus that can't become centralized, decentralized scaling, etc).

Follow up:

In investing, never say never. Only fools do that.

And a miniscule (and shriveling in terms of relative growth) portion of the intangible knowledge economy.

Relative size is an important concept in economics, as well as scalability and relative rates of growth.

And that 'beauty' attribute is not the attribute that historically imparted most of the value to gold. Rather gold was a more rare, compact, fungible, durable physical representation of physical value in a physical economy where trade of physical objects was the major aspect of the economy. It was like packing a bunch of land into a compact, transportable form. Whereas if you review my essay linked from the opening post of this thread, I argue that knowledge creation is accretive, spontaneous, and the property of the creator, thus it can't be tied to money or physical value. Knowledge creation is like an end-to-end principled network in that middle men (Theory of the Firm) can only obstruct it.

Trickle ICO meaning sell coins on an open exchange only when you have some development you need to fund and then document where the raised funds were spent to. This thread is supposed to be about solutions, so I guess this is not too far off topic. Also when developers know there is this large body of capital ready to fund, they should hopefully be knocking on the door, especially with the global economic collapse (renewed from and worse than 2008) just around the corner.

There is an issue of follow through. Ways to deal with that are pay-for-performance, not funding repeat offenders, and prefer funding experts in their demonstrated fields.

In that way investors know their funds are not being spent on hardware and electricity and they also know there is a transparent process and the controlling group isn't hoarding coins. Hoarding is anti-distribution which is anti-currency. Power law distribution of wealth means some investors will try to accumulate. Coins need sufficiently wide distribution to drive its use as a currency while also protecting the store-of-value (and appreciation of value as adoption increases). Realize that the top altcoins have market caps roughly less than $100 million. I doubt Ethereum will hold its market cap, thus really most altcoins (Litecoin and Ripple excepted) are less than $20 million market cap. And there is a $40 trillion global economy out there. The market is wide open for growth. Apparently the ways it has been done isn't working well. In private, I have referred to a "fair launch" as sort of a circle jerk. It sounds nice but using that as a marketing crutch does not grow the coin's market cap to $1 billion and beyond. Of course, the coin should try to show it was fairly launched, but that can't be its main claim to fame. All the endless tit-for-tat verbiage between coin fanboys is useless noise. Instead I posit a coin needs to open new markets and to do that it could fund developments to kickstart its ecosystem imparting sufficient economy-of-scale (remember currency needs widespread adoption before it can get over the hump between useless and utility needed to gain momentum).

OTOH, this would make the coin somewhat centralized during the extended period in which that resource has to be managed (this was the reason I originally rejected trickle ICO but now I've returned to it). And management of a large resources can lead to politics and even attempts to capture the resource. So the tradeoff is moving the trickle ICO along fast enough. It is difficult to find qualified, trustable people to fund and also difficult to find trustworthy people to form a controlling group that won't do evil.

The goal for a coin launched this way would be to get the trickle ICO completed and get the funds dispersed into needed developments asap, and then have the coin running decentralized on auto-pilot. The best intentions ('plans') of mice and men.  

P.S. It is also difficult to find team members who will ignore trolls and not create wars in Bitcointalk, but that is a separate issue to address. I've been guilty of that myself (yet you will notice I rarely go on and on and on endlessly with a troll so at least I contained myself that way .... e.g. I made peace with Cypherdoc and left his thread ... this is because I want results and I notice when I am wasting my time and stop).

P.S.S. The four letter domain name (not fuck.cum nor shit.con, lol) was not lost.  

I hope this is the last public discussion of my work from me. Again I am available for private messages (at least for now).

---

Edit: We as a community are fighting for a mutual goal against a very well funded TPTB who control mass media and thus have annointed Bitcoin because they know they can control Bitcoin via its centralized mining and lack of anonymity. I posit we are wasting our resources by throwing our money into hardware and electricity when we could be using our resources to fund the developments for economies-of-scale needed to overcome.

Btw, I am not referring to the consensus algorithm above but rather launch distribution and network security is a related factor but I have an innovation on that. I reiterated my thoughts about proof-of-stake recently here:

Proof-of-Work vs. Proof-of-Stake

During the lost era where physical trade was the economy, precious metals represented physical value.

No one is measuring knowledge value in units of precious metals.

Gold simply does not back anything any more because it no longer correlates to the intangible knowledge that is valuable in an era where knowledge moves the economy.

Back your lost era, knowledge was less important than land ownership, number of head of cattle, etc..

Also we are in era where digital reach is ubiquitous geographically, thus there is no place to hide from the fact that governments want to be able to tax and physical gold as untraceable cash would prevent them from doing so. Thus governments will fight gold as cash and besides for the reasons I stated above, gold is not a representation of value any more in the knowledge age.

Gold is hanging on because the physical industrial age is not quite dead yet. But gold is fading fast.

The physical economy is fading away in relative value (relative to knowledge creation value). It won't too long from now that physically manufactured items will be nearly free.

During the lost era where physical trade was the economy, precious metals represented physical value.

No one is measuring knowledge value in units of precious metals.

Gold simply does not back anything any more because it no longer correlates to the intangible knowledge that is valuable in an era where knowledge moves the economy.

Back your lost era, knowledge was less important than land ownership, number of head of cattle, etc..

Also we are in era where digital reach is ubiquitous geographically, thus there is no place to hide from the fact that governments want to be able to tax and physical gold as untraceable cash would prevent them from doing so. Thus governments will fight gold as cash and besides for the reasons I stated above, gold is not a representation of value any more in the knowledge age.

Gold is hanging on because the physical industrial age is not quite dead yet. But gold is fading fast.

The physical economy is fading away in relative value (relative to knowledge creation value). It won't too long from now that physically manufactured items will be nearly free.

I don't. He was specifically focused on the block size debate.