Bitmessage is dead.

Bitmessage is dead.

Powers-that-be have defeated the only way to communicate anonymously.

Bitmessage is dead.

---------------------------- Original Message ----------------------------
Subject: Martin, I am not claiming the ANGST isn't real!!!
From:    AnonyMint
To:      "Armstrong Economics"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Would you please stop obfuscating my point!

http://armstrongeconomics.com/2014/09/18/ukraine-still-mad-at-politicians/

The point I made to you in the prior communication:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=365141.msg8871381#msg8871381

Is that the ANGST is symbiotic with the trend towards global herding.

It is not just a CIA plot. Rather it is a confluence of the trend at all levels wherein the masses are symbiotic with the trend towards global herding.

Please don't have such a one-dimensional analysis.

You often claim that people don't see how things are interconnected. Now you use a simplistic dichotomy "CIA plot" versus "Grassroots uprising" to obfuscate what is really going on!

Damn it!

You are abusing and wasting the resources you've developed. You are so talented in one area and so deficit in another. It is so frustrating to both respect you and pull my hair out at the same time!

Grrrr!

Hope you don't mind, I am copying my reply to Armstrong, because both of you have part of it correct, and both of you have a myopia also. I will not repeat your words verbatim in public.

It is important both of you move closer to understanding each other.

Anonymous Female, I believe Armstrong is correct that the elite are NOT more powerful than the cycles. The elites are symbiotic because they are part of the cycle and the power vacuum of democracy is one of the natural causes of the cycle.

I also believe Armstrong is incorrect in that he can't see the cycle is leading to one-world government and global elite control. He stated in his recent audio interview that he doesn't understand how one-world government could bring peace and rather he thinks pushing for that would bring war. Martin is correct that the elite dominance is deflationary, megadeath, failure-oriented paradigm that would lead to war.

Martin's misunderstanding is that the majority gravitate towards being herded. The collectivism and centralization of control was always limited in the past by the lack of technology to herd the entire global population. Communication and tracking was technologically limited. Imagine how could you track someone 100 years ago.

But now the elite have the technology to herd the global population. So global herding is the natural outcome, because people need to be herded. This is the power vacuum of democracy as so eloquently explained by the 150-160 IQ genius who coined the term "open source":

http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=984 (Some Iron Laws of Political Economics)

This is why I keep telling Martin that the only possible way to avoid a Dark Age is new disruptive technology that interrupts their totalitarian herding technology.

WTF do you think I am doing! Martin has the readership to be a very big help, but instead he is misdirecting his readership away from the solution and chasing the rainbows which are symbiotic with the elite's direction towards a total Dark Age, e.g. all this idealism Martin is displaying about Scotland's potential as independent, and the other myopic Armstrong had about Ukraine and the true symbiosis of the ANGST movement underway. The angst is driving humanity right into the lap of the elite's technological herding.

Martin will instead try to build political resistance to the surveillance, but the politics is by definition always symbiotic with the elite, as you and I so described below. Martin can't grasp that the only possible solution is technological disruption.

I hope the elites realize they are trapped in their own destruction, unless we succeed in disrupting their technological herding.

Is Martin too old to see? He was at one time technologically astute. For some reason he is blinded.

P.S. The Corbert report is public:

http://www.corbettreport.com/yes-to-what-the-scottish-conundrum/

Learn from the first person who ever communicated with Satoshi in a public forum.

http://blog.jim.com/war/cathedral-imperialism-revealed/

http://blog.jim.com/war/recap-on-ukraine/

http://blog.jim.com/war/arab-spring/

http://www.corbettreport.com/yes-to-what-the-scottish-conundrum/

Yes to What? – The Scottish Conundrum

This week the Scots will go to the polls to answer a deceptively simple question:

“Should Scotland be an independent country?”

The question’s simplicity belies the enormity of what is being asked. In centuries past, such a sovereignty proclamation would only have been delivered at the end of a sword after the spilling of much blood. Today the fates of nations are decided by referendum…sort of.

You see, the question is extremely simple, and, in the words of at least one Canadian commentator who finds its precision refreshing after the convoluted tangle of Quebec’s sovereignty referendum questions, “crystal clear.” But is it really? After all, what does it mean to be an “independent country?” Does that mean passport sharing with the UK? Military association? An independent currency? EU membership? NATO membership? Will Scotland keep an allegiance to the crown? Will it become a commonwealth nation? There are no answers to these questions because none of those details have been worked out yet. For now, nationalist politicians are content to leave voters to fill in the blanks.

But these are not trivial questions to be asking. In fact, they go to the very heart of what is meant by “sovereignty” and “independence.” What’s more, Scotland, insofar as it is fast becoming the envy (and the role model) for independence movements around the globe, could potentially be setting precedents for future events in Catalonia or Veneto or elsewhere. In effect, they are setting down the definition of freedom for others to strive toward, so their answer to this string of questions might make the difference between true independence and what could very easily be just another form of dependence.

To see how this is the case, let’s examine some of these questions.

Military Matters

The question of what would happen to Scotland’s military facilities in the event of independence is not an idle one. HMNB Clyde is the Royal Navy service base in Scotland and is home to Britain’s nuclear weapon capability. This capability comes in the form of Trident missiles on the base’s nuclear armed submarines. Currently, Scottish First Minister Alex Salmond plans to remove all of the nuclear weapons from Scotland in the event of a “Yes” victory. This does not sit well with the usual chickenhawks in the corridors of power, who are hyperventilating over what such a “destabilizing” event would mean for the UK’s nuclear deterrant capabilities. Evidently we are meant to believe that if the submarines had to be moved to another base Putin and his band of marauding Russians would use the opportunity to launch a nuclear strike on England.

That specific concern plays into a larger question: would an independent Scotland be part of NATO? David Cameron used the opportunity of the recent NATO summit in Wales to announce that “a number of people” at the summit “raised their concerns about the referendum.” But could it maintain a spot at the NATO table? Salmond and the “Yes” campaign have made it clear they are interested in applying to NATO as a non-nuclear member. A spanner was recently thrown into the works, however, when NATO announced last week that the Scottish government would have to increase military spending by 500 milllion pounds (up from its proposed 2.5 billion pound budget) in order to be admitted into the alliance. Unnamed NATO officials have also been quoted in the media as noting that “you need every single NATO member to say Yes for you to join and even if one doesn’t, you’re stuck,” implying that a scorned UK could actually block an independent Scotland’s attempts to join the alliance.

Regardless of the back-and-forth wrangling over these details, though, the real underlying question is: should a free and independent Scotland seek to join NATO at all? Given its record in recent years in Yugoslavia, in Afghanistan, in Libya and in its continual push toward encirclement of Russia and China, it can no longer be doubted that NATO is one of the greatest threats to peace and stability on the planet at this point. Its mutual self-defence clause obligates member nations to become involved in the affairs of other nations. As we saw with last year, high-ranking Turkish officials have discussed staging a false flag event to blame on the Syrian government in order to go to war with the Assad government. In such an event, Turkey would almost certainly invoke the NATO mutual self-defence clause forcing Scotland to commit resources to a strike on Syria. A similar situation could take place if NATO-member Poland similarly feels itself “threatened” by Russia.

Why would a free and independent nation, finally un-yoking itself from centuries of subjugation to a foreign crown, immediately take on the yoke of a military alliance which would put its military at the beck-and-call of a proven pack of murderers and war criminals? It wouldn’t, of course, and the Scottish people should be worried that Salmond and the SNP have expressed their eagerness to join NATO as soon as they achieve “independence.”

The European Union

“An independent Scotland will be an enthusiastic member of the EU,” says Scottish First Minister Alex Salmond. You might want to read that sentence again to make sure you understood it correctly. To repeat: the leader of the Scottish independence battle wishes to maintain membership in the European Union, one of the most draconian and tyrannical governmental institutions in the world today.

This is the same European Union that made Ireland vote on the Lisbon Treaty a second time because it didn’t like the results of the first vote. The same EU that has spearheaded the disastrous Eurozone and the subsequent meltdown of the Eurozone economy. The same EU that is run by bureaucrats through an unelected an unaccountable European Commission. The same EU that ruled through its “Court of Justice” [sic] in 1999 that it is illegal to criticize the EU, a ruling that they actually used to formally reprimand UKIP MEP Nigel Farage in 2009 for calling the EU an unaccountable tyranny.

Why anyone claiming to be in favor of Scottish independence would be interested in immediately signing away their sovereignty is beyond my comprehension. But even for those “independence” advocates who are so inclined, it is doubtful they will find a cheerful ally in the European Union. The members of many of the EU nations will be concerned about the potential genie that Scotland is letting out of the bottle with this referendum. Spain will worry about Catalonia, Italy about Veneto, Belgium about Flanders.

Ironically, though, as long as these “independence” movements all follow the Scotland “Yes” campaign in clamoring for EU membership, it is the EU that will be the big winner of this trend. Brussels will have even more power over Europe when small, isolated local governments are gathering at the table. It is only by rejecting Brussels altogether that Scotland can have any hope of maintaining its sovereignty or achieving true independence.

Free Scotland and the Monarchy

Would a free and independent Scotland still recognize the Queen as its monarch? According to Alex Salmond, yes it would. In fact, he even went so far as to say that the Queen “will be proud” to be the monarch of an “independent” Scotland, and Scotland “would be proud to have her as monarch of this land.” The Queen, for her part, “is firmly of the view that this is a matter for the people of Scotland,” according to a royal spokesman.

The idea, presumably, is that Scotland would take its place in the Commonwealth alongside Canada, Australia and other former British colonies that have achieved independence from England but still recognize the Queen as head of state. In the case of Scotland, the bond between the crown and the country is more substantial; the 1603 “Union of the Crowns” united Scotland, England and Ireland under a single monarch. The Crown of Scotland remains distinct and separate, meaning that Queen Elizabeth is also formally “Queen of Scots,” a role that Salmond sees no problem with her maintaining after independence.

This is not such a popular position, however. Polls show that 46% of independence supporters also support the idea of Scotland breaking its ties to the crown. Yes Scotland campaign chair Dennis Canavan is on record saying that he is in favor of a referendum on the subject if the country wins its independence. An independent country would also have the ability to write the monarchy out of the picture politically by removing the Queen as “head of state” even if they did decide to keep some formal tie to the crown.

The anti-royalists face an uphill battle, however. The Queen spends a week each year at her official residence in Scotland, Holyrood Palace, and even more time at Balmoral Castle in Aberdeen; Prince Charles is the Duke of Rothesay; the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge are also the Earl and Countess of Strathearn. The royal roots in Scotland are deep, and a majority of the country is in favor of keeping the ties.

But why is this? What is “independence” if not the notion that a nation is sovereign; that is, not subject to any outside authority? Why would a free and independent Scotland want to bow down to any crown, rather than take their place amongst the nations of the world that recognize no special line of rulers who are granted their title, crown and ornate riches for no other reason than they were born into the right family?

If the independence movement wants to live up to their name, they will take Canavan’s suggestion, hold a referendum on the royal issue, and roundly reject the notion that any family has the right to rule over Scotland by virtue of their “blue blood.”

Scotland’s Own Currency?

By far the most important question facing an independent Scotland would be how to handle its monetary policy.

It may be surprising to anyone who has never shopped in Scotland, but the country already has its own currency, issued as banknotes by three of the country’s biggest banks: the Bank of Scotland, the Royal Bank of Scotland, and Clydesdale Bank. According to The Association of Commercial Banknote Issuers, these Scottish banknotes are “fully backed at all times by ring-fenced backing assets partly held in Bank of England notes and UK coin and partly as balances on accounts maintained by the issuing banks at the Bank of England.” Interestingly, some of this issuance is backed somewhere in the bowels of the Bank of England’s vaults by special 1 million pound notes called “Giants” and 100 million pound notes known as “Titans.”

But as viewers of “Century of Enslavement: The History of the Federal Reserve” will know, the paper money in circulation in the US only makes up a tiny sliver of the total money supply, and similarly in Scotland these Scottish banknotes only make up a fraction of the money supply there. Most of the money in Scotland (like almost every other country) is credit created by the private banks as accounting entries in their ledgers when customers took out loans.

But what would happen in the event of a “Yes” vote? Would the Scottish pound continue to be backed by Bank of England notes? Would it continue to trade at par with the English pound? Would the Bank of England continue to act as a lender of last resort and set monetary policy for Scotland? It is by no means clear, and depends on whether “independence” involves: Scotland entering into a formal currency union with the UK; Scotland continuing to use the sterling as its unit of account; Scotland creating its own, completely separate currency; or Scotland adopting the Euro.

In order to enter into a currency union with the UK, Scotland would have to negotiate an agreement with the Bank of England to set the terms of that relationship. Perhaps the Bank of England would remain Scotland’s central bank, or set monetary policy, or act as the lender of last resort. If so, there would be very little change to the status quo, although it would likely mean that the cost of borrowing for the newly-independent Scottish government would go up, depending on the terms it could reach with the BoE.

If Scotland adopted the Euro, it would need to set up its own central bank. As Ollie Rehn, the former EU commissioner for monetary union, noted earlier this month, any attempt to join the Eurozone would require “a monetary authority of its own” which he referred to as one of the “necessary instruments of the Economic and Monetary Union.” This central bank would presumably work something like the Bank of England does today; as a nominally “nationalized” bank that sets interest rates and purchases treasuries.

If an independent Scotland went the route of using the sterling without a formal agreement with the Bank of England, it could get by without a central bank. As many observers have noted, Hong Kong similarly relies on three private banks for the issuance of its banknotes and it does not have a central bank. Instead the Hong Kong Monetary Authority maintains the Hong Kong Dollar’s peg to the US Dollar by selling or buying US dollars as needed to balance supply and demand of the local currency. Similarly, a Scottish Monetary Authority could maintain a peg to the pound sterling by buying and selling Bank of England notes, all without the need for a central bank.

Perhaps the most exciting prospect of all, however, is for Scotland to become an example of some of the truly revolutionary (but historically proven) methods of securing national credit. The Scottish treasury could issue credit instruments directly. The inflationary pressures of this issuance could be controlled by offering a discount for use of these instruments in the payment of taxes. When the issuance is returned to the Exchequer the debt is cancelled out and extinguished or recirculated as required. As Chris Cook lays in a convincing article for Pieria, “Credit Scotland,” such a system could completely eliminate the need for banks to act as the middlemen of credit in the economy. As Cook argues, this would not only be possible, but has already been attempted in the past; in Alberta in the 1930s, for example.

Clearly, the “problem” of how an independent Scotland would secure its national credit presents a very serious challenge to the potential independence of the nation itself. A free Scotland could opt to immediately put itself back in the debt chains of the bankers-either by negotiating a deal with the Bank of England or the European Central Bank or creating its own system of central bank while keeping the currency-as-debt model-or it can truly strive to achieve “independence” in the deeper sense of the word, by throwing off the bankers’ debt chains and finding an alternative system.

Conclusion

Of course now that the polls are showing that the momentum is on the “Yes” side of the ledger, the powers that shouldn’t be are pushing every panic button they can find on their bought-and-paid for media wurlitzer. According to the propaganda pushers, a “Yes” vote for independence would mean: a possible Russian invasion (Business Insider), the abandonment of the country by the nation’s biggest banks (NY Times), higher prices for consumer goods (Herald Scotland), higher roaming charges for cell phone use in the rest of the UK (Sky News), soaring mortgage costs (Financial Times), a deep recession (The Daily Mail) and a litany of other doom-and-gloom scenarios. If the “Yes” momentum continues watch for these same media mouthpieces to bring out even more bombastic claims: the cancellation of Christmas! A rise in dental cavities! The opening of an interdimensional portal and releasing of the kraken!

No, the hyperventilation of the mockingbird media can be safely dismissed for what it is: transparent fearmongering. But there are serious pitfalls that the independence movement might sleepwalk into if they do not think through their actions carefully. After all, “independence” and “freedom” are not just words on paper; they are lived experiences of free and independent people. If that freedom and independence is not expressed – by the rejection of royal families and regional governments and banking oligarchies and military alliances – then they do not really exist. In a very real sense, even if Scotland does vote “Yes” this coming week, that will be only the first step in their journey toward independence.

And there is an added burden on the Scottish people. They are not just acting for themselves, but setting an example that will doubtless be aped by independence movements around the world.

Choose your actions carefully, Scotland. The world is watching.

---------------------------- Original Message ----------------------------
Subject: Scotland & Philippines will both beg for international law to protect their oil assets
From:    AnonyMint
To:      "Armstrong Economics"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

See I believe the powers-that-be are cooperating. I think Obama would love to blame martial law on "rogue terrorists". You see USA is going to be at war with everyone, Russia, ISIS, China, etc.. The blame doesn't have to be pinpointed to Russia.

This was all depicted already on those murals at the Denver airport. The powers-that-be planned this outcome a long time ago.

This is how they bring the world to its knees in order to implement their one-world currency and governance.

Note there will be succession movements such as Scotland, and they will later join the one-world regime at the end-game. It is pretty easy to destroy Scotland, just drop a nuke on them if they get too far out-of-line of what the powers-that-be want. Rather I think the powers-that-be will use Scotland as tool of their plans as Scotland will support a global order in which they are a large beneficiary. Specifically the powers-that-be already have the Philippines begging to the UN for territorial  protection over the Spratly islands oil fields (which China is threatening). Scotland will need also international protection of its claim to the North Sea oil asset.

All large scale human movements are funded by the powers-that-be. This is why Scotland suddenly had a big move toward sovereignty. Ditto the revolution in Ukraine. Of course there was grassroots desire, but the organization and funding is always infiltrated and accelerated by the powers-that-be. They have serious brain power tucked away in think tanks to plan out these strategies and read the tea leaves winds of public opinion.

That is the rpietila that I admire.


Now if you could just learn the math (simulated annealing is nature's only known generalized optimization method) of why top-down organization is "infringing someone's life, liberty or property" then we'd have progressed. I thus claim the 1000 XMR.

I think we require a verbal discussion on this matter in the future...


1. We don't need causality, for as long as it holds, then increasing adoption must increase the market cap. If it fails to hold, then we will have disproven the correlation. Thus it is a worthwhile experiment which some altcoin should have done long ago.

2. Irrelevant. This exemplifies your lower IQ. Fact is investors don't spend as much of their coins as non-investors do, thus more non-investors means more transactions per money supply.

TADA!

Monero will be destroyed. Any one want to wager a bet?

There is only one curve that is correct for maximizing user (not investor) adoption: perpetual debasement. Bad money drives good money out of circulation. Reality check!

And per Peter R's chart, user adoption is what drives the market cap, not investor adoption. The market price is a weighing machine of the user (not investment) adoption value, i.e. the whales don't influence the price at all (over the long-term). All they can do is make the mistake of thinking they do and doubling-down on their mistakes when the adoption value and thus price is not increasing fast enough.


Until you get this point, you will be scratching your head wondering why Monero's price is not growing fast.


Bwahaha. ROFLMAO.

Your true colors are now shining through. You bear false witness against your fellow human, which in my book makes you a charlatan.

You are now a proven liar. The only people I've been begging are the gold dealers who withheld my money (but this has since been rectified). I owned 18,000oz of silver in 2008. I was minting silver rounds and 10oz bars and supplying Risto's silver business in Europe. If you disagree, you quote me where I have begged for money. You will not find one such quote. I was gifted 2 BTC by Risto unexpectedly. And he will earn much more from that 2 BTC than he will ever earn on his Monero investment. I never asked him for money. Also in the past I was also generous or flexible in my dealings with Risto when he had a failed deal with a counter party.

So you are escalating this eh? It won't end well for you and Monero. The worse thing you can do is motivate me.

I have not aggressively criticized Monero in the past. I was fair. But you guys can dish out the verbal lashings on everyone else's coin (e.g. BBR, DRK, NXT, etc) but you can't stomach it when someone tells you that your coin has egregious weaknesses also. Your little shitcoin is going nowhere. Observe and learn.


Btw, Risto when you talk about how you've been persecuted by the authorities in Finland, realize you are not a USA citizen as I am.


Sweden, New Zealand, and USA all have a high crime rate:

http://www.insideprison.com/crime-statistics-by-country.asp

But the difference is that Sweden rehabilitates and helps, whereas the USA brutalizes and punishes:

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/dec/01/why-sweden-closing-prisons

Look at the photos on this web page below, you will be so sickened when you compare the USA prison to the Finland prison:

http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2013/09/why-scandinavian-prisons-are-superior/279949/



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_incarceration_rate

Number of people in prison:

2,125,424 - USA (that is 2.1 million)
1,674,862 - China (and China's population is 4X larger)
  113,000 - Philippines
   68,598 - France
   44,547 - Chile
   31,379 - Australia
    8,302 - New Zealand
    5,760 - Sweden

http://armstrongeconomics.com/2013/02/13/why-do-they-hate-us-so-much/

The USA's conviction rate is nearly 99%. Even Adolf Hitler had a
conviction rate of about 90% at his notorious People’s Court under Roland Freisler (pictured in the center) who was the most bloodthirsty of all the head judges to rule that court. Even Wikpedia writes:

“The number of death sentences rose sharply under Freisler’s stewardship. Approximately 90% of all proceedings ended with sentences of death or life imprisonment, the sentences frequently having been determined before the trial. Between 1942 and 1945, more than 5,000 death sentences were handed out, and of these, 2,600 through the court’s First Senate, which Freisler headed. Thus, Freisler alone was responsible, in his three years on the court, for as many death sentences as all other senate sessions of the court together in the entire time the court existed, between 1934 and 1945.”

The conviction rate in the United States is nearly 99% and has beaten every historical statistic of the worse tyrants throughout every century except those who did not even pretend to give a trial. And Obama has signed into law the right to indefinitely imprison American Citizens without trial, lawyers, or any rights whatsoever. Now this Justice Department leak shows he also maintains it is legal to kill American without a trial as well – take them away! This will enable the government to reach their goal – 100% with no exceptions! The question is WHY do these people hate our civil liberties so much? They are like a two-year old who refuses to share a toy and prefers to break it instead. They know they are collapsing. They have ruined the finances of the state. Instead of trying to reform, they prefer to retain power and destroy everything that made an American once proud to be an American. They will not survive. This is as unsustainable as Communism and the fall from grace will be very nasty.


http://armstrongeconomics.com/2013/01/25/the-untouchables-how-the-obama-administration-protected-wall-street-from-prosecutions/

The one thing that surprised me running around the globe on this last trip was how much the United States has fallen from grace. The legal system is seen as the most corrupt in the world and that is the important essential cornerstone of commerce. When Margaret Thatcher spoke at our conference in 1997, she was asked which country would she invest in – Russia or China? Her response was “neither” because they did not respect the rule or law at that time. The rule of law is the foundation of everything. If courts change transcripts and rule only for government as the US conviction rate is now virtually 99%, then capital is not safe and cannot invest for there is no way to vindicate your rights be they to property, human, or
constitutional.


http://armstrongeconomics.com/2014/06/09/numerous-false-terrorist-charges-torture-to-extract-confessions/

One must question the government’s involvement in that one as well. Higazy explained that he had falsely confessed because the polygraph operator had threatened his family. They ALWAYS threaten your family – that is how they keep their 99% conviction rate. Women are threatened with taking their children and putting them up for adoption.

Federal Judge Jed S. Rakoff ordered the U.S. Attorney’s Office to investigate how the FBI came to extract a false confession from Mr. Higazy. The government’s first response was to tell Judge Rakoff to take a hike. They bluntly told him he had no authority to order the government to investigate how it extracted an obvious false confession from an innocent kid.

Because as a person of great wealth and potentially influence, you do not give the appearances of retaining an open-mind about all possible altcoin developments. Instead it appears you've anointed Monero, which appears to some as if you are some King or Hitler. This requires that you think you are omniscient. Such hubris annoys people who want to see all possible developments come to fruition (for a myriad of reasons, some are scammy and some maybe not).

You create a thread entitled "Rpietila's Altcoin Observer" which despite the erroneous thread title is mostly just a shrill fest for Monero.

If you believe that people who are telling you that your haters are just jealous or scammers, then you've really fallen into the abyss of groupthink and confirmation bias. The world is not the oyster of your small group of 400 ethics majors. If you want to play in currency, you've got to interopt in the real world as it is.

Most of your theories have ended up entirely incorrect. As far as I know, your one major accomplishment relevant to crypto-currency was buying Bitcoin < $10. Thus the perception of your hubris outstrips your performance record.

Being a little bit more humble and open-minded about your capabilities and pronouncements, and throwing the love around more to more developments will put you back in good standing in the community.

If you don't want the community to weigh in your fairness, then don't broadcast your influence. You can be a private investor or a public figure, or both. If both, learn how to play the political game correctly.

How many times I told you I hate politics, but it seems you are determined to go the political route. You made this decision, nobody forced it upon you.

Edit: if you want to talk about scams, look at Monero's emission curve which was designed to give most of the coins to your group of early investors (so you are not a scammer  ):

FATCA & How It is Destroying International Commerce

This is what I posted upthread how the powers-that-be will eventually make it is impossible to get enough cash if you can't document where the cash come from and is going to.

This is why ring-signatures are useless anonymity if you need to convert some crypto-currency to fiat.

Thus follows only two solutions:

1. You've got to make the anonymous currency popular enough that you less often need to convert it to fiat in order to use it. The anonymous coin must be a currency, not a silly investor pump like Monero.

2. You've got to make it such that when you do convert it to fiat, you can provide your private keys if necessary and it can't be proven that you story of where you obtained the funds can't be proven false. (Obviously I am withholding some details on my thoughts here).

P.S. sooner or later readers wil learn that I am rarely wrong about the future when I've researched it extensively for the past 9 years. To the poster who says Armstrong would be rich if his model was always correct—he is.

Edit: I don't have time for stupid shit! We have a serious problem in the world now.

You keep finding a way to write something so important that I feel compelled to reply.

I see some motivational advantages for this idea also versus a premine, but unfortunately it is insufficient. For any coin that does not have Monero's catastrophic design error of rapidly declining the block reward, the 1% will be insufficient when it matters most at the early stage where all the critical work is done before inertia and vested interests prevent further radical improvements (e.g. Bitcoin).

The rapidly declining block reward is a design error because the early hodlers lock up the coin and the rate of velocity of money and adoption decelerate (e.g. Bitcoin and Monero).


Another problem with the developer fee: it is a resource to fight over and it can fund the development of a bureaucracy, e.g. the MEW foundation (just see what happened to the Bitcoin foundation and you can be sure the same will happen to the MEW despite the best intentions and will of the current participants due to the Iron Law of Political Economics aka Mancur Olsen's treatise on the Logic of Collective Action).

Also it does give the appearance of being a corporation instead of an open source project.

The best funding model is still (as it was for Bitcoin) for the brilliant creator to take his stash and run after he has made the coin so popular that no one can refuse nor fork it.

Great thing about a premine is all those who obstinately won't buy the coin until AFTER everyone else does. I love that.

P.S. Did you know Satoshi perhaps limited the money supply to 21 million because that is what he could fit into standard double floating point arithmetic with each coin at 100 million of the smallest unit (satoshi). Nice excuse any way.


Edit: for the math deficient, note that a slower declining rate of debasement means the relative value (as a percentage of total mined coins) generated by the fee is less early on than for a more rapid declining rate of debasement. And there is no guarantee to the developer that his hard effort early on will be rewarded 10 years hence waiting for the fee to accumulate. Timing risk comes into play when borrowing long to lend short. This is what killed the banks in 2008. Hommel did teach me that future's contracts are evil.

Proverbs - Do not be surety for thy friend.


And when the majority do not adopt the social contract, it is a catastrophic failure. It the money doesn't circulate, it isn't a currency, and there is no adoption. See the Quantity Theory of Money.

Do you have any clue how fucking tired I am of writing that? I have only written that point about 50 times in my archives on this forum. Geez.

Good riddance to this forum! (I know it is not your personal fault, you did not read what I wrote in the past)


Absolutely false!

The magic show is coming soon to a theater near you.

Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. — Arthur C. Clarke


Risto is correct, many or most people aren't skilled or well-practiced in math and or macro economics.

One last attempt to explain how I see that the rich buys club is incongruent with the future.

I could summarize all my posts in this thread with the following outcome in the movie Braveheart:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rdlL65LD6I4

You really should watch that and see the unexpected SWAN impale the rich boys British at the end.


Sorry that is just a constant size reduction and it doesn't solve the fundamental problem that ring-signatures can't be pruned, except by some other restrictions such as an expiry on coins.


There IS an obliterating black swan (i.e. Taleb's unexpected long-tail statistic event) they don't see, whilst they be doing busy-bee grunt work of fixing databases for a broken design, making a gui, etc..


And this produced how many million user products?

I have produced (one as a co-developer) three separate "million user" level products since 1980s. With a lot of goofing off vacation time in between (mea culpa).


I suppose this was directed to me as well as any others who aspire.

This is analogous to the inefficiency of saying that anyone who wants to buy french fries needs to travel to Belgium.

Those who are truly capable don't need any money. There will be too much money trying to be rammed down their throat.

Money is the weak thing to hold. Knowledge is strength.

My suggestion to you was to be more friendly and spread an insignificant (for you) investments around on all promising endeavors in order to be respected for your 1% instead of resented by the community. Also to give yourself more chance on not missing the swan boat when it comes. Your "Rpietila's Altcoin" thread instead of being a jovial and spirited discussion of exciting developments, should be renamed "Rpietila's Monero Membership Club". I am not upset about it, I am just relaying to you how it appears to others who are not brainwashed by "Monero is the answer".

You've already been friendly to me and you even gifted me 2 BTC. There is no problem between you and I. I am writing to gift you feedback, because in my analysis you are in the process of committing a fail and possibly a mega-fail.

Expecting busy hackers to go through personal interviews with you is I am sorry to tell from the perspective of a hacker insulting. I am not insulted, but I am telling you what sort of actions and attitude breed animosity. We build our reputations by our code, not our talking.

"Talk is cheap, show me the code"— Linus Torvalds

"Those who can't build, talk"— Eric Raymond

Your stance is fundamentally incongruent with the open source movement. Open source projects will spawn more and more granularly (smaller teams) and stored capital and top-down organization will become more and more irrelevant.

This is a virtual new economy; we only need to click a button to make an investment. We don't need to travel across the world. And we don't need to invest everything in one thing or two things, thus we don't need to know all the answers before the questions can even be asked. Creativity spawns serendipitously not as planned (even my own work lately proves this is true, because I didn't plan all the ideas I discovered along the way).

Open source is the odds of large numbers.

"Given enough eye balls, all bugs are shallow"— Eric Raymond paraphrasing Linus Torvalds

"Given enough experiments, all possibilities are achievable"— Shelby Moore III paraphrasing Eric Raymond paraphrasing Linus Torvalds

Eric Raymond noted that is the only known positive-scaling law in software engineering, i.e. that efficiency improves the more autonomous N actors involved. Design by top-down grouping or committee is not the same scaling law.

We don't have time to waste on top-down bureaucracy.

Warren Buffett doesn't do angel investing, because he wants to evaluate companies based on well established metrics. Angel investing is a game of more risky probabilities. Thus efficiency of scattershot is more important. Angel investing will become less and less like an exhaustive evaluation and more and more spontaneous and small, e.g. KickStarter. Everyone gives a little bit, not one big whale slowing everything down.

The Knowledge Age is the end of the road for large stored capital. The power-law distribution of wealth will shift to stored knowledge. Actionable knowledge will be power-law distributed. It already is. Which is why when you are searching for a needle in a haystack, don't tell the needle to jump to your castle.

P.S. I do want to have friendships and vacation in nice resorts such as castles. But that is vacation time. I can't mix business with vacation, it doesn't work. When I am coding, I need to be where ever I already am where I can code now, not tomorrow, not after a conversation, not after a glass of wine, not after ... Procrastination is the bane of software development. My best work has come when I didn't have material comforts.

I have not taken a shower in 2 months. I haven't washed my clothes, they are stink like a pig pen. I have not been outside of my room nor seen the sunshine except to restock on food.

Time is of the essence.

---

And the competing and equally devastating Apple Plan.

Your attention span is too ephemeral.

You continue the miss the point. Capital in your hands is useless in this arena because you can't develop what we need. That capital needs to be out chasing those who can develop it. Spreading it around more gets it moving and not buried in a useless vault.

---

You are not controlling me. I am trying to give you feedback on the question you asked in the OP.

I don't really have a problem with what ever you do. Only you can win or lose, it doesn't impact me what you are doing.

I am trying to explain that your confidence in your ability to select the winners and losers at the nascent stage of development is misplaced. You'd be better off with scattershot than concentration.

But alas, I have to let go....

...this is my last post. Seriously.

Good luck. We will be in touch in private communications in the future.

I feel I must reply, because I don't think you are getting my point. It is as if we are talking past each other. You keep repeating the reasons you like Monero, and I keep trying to explain that is irrelevant to my point.

I had written that you picking the winners in the market at a nascent stage reminds me of China's solar debacle. You are not even close enough to the technology to make such determinations.


The $trillions are not going into crypto-currency but rather since the peak of silver and gold in 2011, been shifting into real estate and stocks (mostly in the Five Eyes nations who allegedly made an unpublished central bank pact to raise interest rates and stop QE). Armstrong has explained why. It is about international capital flows and liquidity. Bitcoin (and certainly not Monero) will not have enough liquidity within the requisite 2 - 4 years until collapse.


There is no lack of experience (I know I haven't built investment companies as you have and I know it is not relevant to what I write below). I understand the utility of trying to pick solid efforts, then rallying capital and inertia towards them.

Nascent stage developing mass appeal software projects is precisely my area of maximum expertise. Applying your model of building investment companies to this arena is bizarre and mismatched to what makes the development and discovery process work. And I surmise that is why you are running into friction.

There is a scenario where you succeed with that strategy with Monero, and that is where nothing else sufficiently earth shattering comes along that renders it irrelevant and unable to compete. But even within that limited success you may attain, it is very, very unlikely that Monero as refined by a committee will ever do anything earth shattering. For example, the genesis of Firefox was a teenager Blake Ross. He revolutionized the entire internet browsing experience. He is humble and downplays his role, but you as an investor should not. It is difficult now to find an article that accurately describes the leadership role Ross played at the crucial early stage. I had read about this long ago. Now most of the information paints it as a collaboration between him and Hyatt (and later others). But the fact was Ross drove the idea. Hyatt was a Mozilla/Apple developer who had been around a long time (and he and I fought some about his XUL ideas, etc, also I fought with his comrade Ian Hickson who is the lead on HTML5).

Don't get me wrong. Engineering refinement is extremely important, and one guy can't do that by himself. But the design and idea generation that defines the revolution never comes from a committee; I can't think of one example where it has.

So my point to you is your model of discovery of the creative ideas and developer that will change the world is wrong. In order to find that you have to look for raw talent, unrelenting drive, and luck of the draw. You can't play if you expect it to be all so well structured and visible.

It is a game of chance. You have to play as you do those real-time games of chance that you regularly score higher than me on.

Monero is safe and secure, but probably limited upside. There are other chances you might neglect because you want to only roll the dice on that which you can see with top-down clarity.

And this forcing-to-have-the-answer is what is alienating the Monero investors from the community-at-large. Monero has not swept the anonymity feature. There are many competing efforts out there and more to come. And ring signatures is not the end-all and be-all of anonymity. Plus anonymity is not even sufficient by itself to make a big wave of adoption.

People are here because of the excitement of the unknown. They don't want some top-down castle government dictating what is possible and impossible in this world of exciting possibilities.

It is not your 1% they hate, it is the way you try to lock everything down in structured molasses and don't embrace the world of possibilities that makes them feel you don't deserve to keep that 1%. And I believe they are probably correct. But randomness will obfuscate the outcome.

I don't think people (well at least not me) are jealous of you having the insight to invest in Bitcoin and change your wealth status. We are watching you do what most people of new found wealth do. They change what made them successful (the creeping from risky to later assured investment in Bitcoin) and become married to safety and controlling (erroneously applying a confirmation bias thinking that all those investment companies they did before the Bitcoin investment where relevant). Your Cryptocrypt forum had like 400 members in 6 months and this Bitcointalk.org wildwest probably gets that many signups in one day. You can't shoehorn a free market into a top-down structure voting system of ranks of competencies. The communication overload makes it impossible to scale top-down organization out to creativity which is born in the small from the large population of chance. For example, I couldn't communicate all my ideas about crypto-currency to you even if I wanted to, much less trying to convince your investment board. I wouldn't even bother. Much better to drive adoptionally virally then much later you realize you missed out because you expected a Cathedral.

For example, why are you so harsh on BBR? It wouldn't hurt you one iota to send 0.1% of your capital towards his coin and boost his chances. More competition with Monero is better for you (makes your Monero devs less complacent and smug), and then you become a hero in the community rather than a villan. BBR's efforts are helping Monero since many of the source code commits get shared between the two efforts.

This arena is more like a wildwest Bazaar. Your (desire to reform it into a) Cathedral style is incompatible with the open source and creativity.


As hard as you will try to avoid scammers, even your own group is profiting on your dependence on them. When you marry yourself to something, it can attract flies and also your "wives" can become complacent (and later demanding).

I heard you were ready to defend the Monero price with a stash. When I heard that I thought of how a couple that is headed for breakup, often try to make a baby first to double-down, e.g. Jason Hommel who is now a relative pauper after once had 200,000 oz of silver and $12 million in pink sheets mining companies.

I actually advised you to not buy the castle and I advised Hommel not to buy that $1 million mansion in 2007 and not to make the baby. He opted to double-down and have the sure outcome.

(I should talk about my own mistakes, but don't have time to explain and it would muddle this post)


If you were speaking to me, you are incorrect. I am competent.