Agreed. Anything below 51k is mental. wink fucking wink

Never seen that kind of Milka, damn.

Need to start a petition for 1% interest on your received merit. Per day, week, month, who cares. Whatever keeps it sufficiently uninflated for negating bots.

Perhaps not for the conversation. But from a trader's perspective it can be useful to consider how other people might think about the market. Mostly for deciding on how to stagger out your orders.

Why is the cake day man giving out the presents?

I can finally play Super Mario Kart in 4k 144hz HDR. The future is now.

Bitcoin is ded.

Even after all these years it still seems "too good to be true" from a ROI perspective. When that is no longer the case some sheeple will join for crumbs and once those are mostly gone the rest will follow simply because they will have to in order to participate in the market.

I'm not sure if normal users have any significant impact on BTC prices. So an increase in use doesn't necessarily imply an increase in price.

The average person has an annual post-tax income of around 1-2k USD. Take 2/3 away for rent, food and other expenses and you're left with some 300-600 USD. It would then take 10m users chipping away their entire disposable monthly income on Bitcoin.
And even then it would only account for the 24h volume or 10% of the market cap.

In reality the average person probably has less money left over and wouldn't think about putting it all in, much less regularly.

The bottom line is that unless hundreds of millions jump on simultaneously there won't be much movement in the price (based on increased use).
I'm almost fully convinced that the big players are (basically) just waiting for golden and death crosses on long-term charts and thus reinforcing the self-fulfilling prophecy of technical trading with everything else just being short-term noise until a truly big change in the landscape, such as institutional money actually flooding onto the blockchain instead of non-physically settled instruments, occurs.

So one Pentillion market cap at one Billion users? $50m USD per BTC?

I don't think bug spray is going to be very effective in Australia.

I don't see humans not merging with AI in some way down the line, or at least enhancing our bandwidth for information processing. Someone will have to keep identifying desirable problems, so humans will need to self-enhance to be capable of keeping up with the results of AI research and deciding on new targets.


Also, no. No AI will ever make perfect market predictions. Simply because different players will employ different AIs to play against each other. At that point humans might be entirely incapable of trading manually though, as AIs would be capable of forcing market movements over any short and large time scales. It'll basically make humans play into its pocket.

You can use Sci-Hub to access any paper if you have the DOI (serial number kind of thing). Basically the pirate bay of research.

One Billion Dollar Bitcoin party.

I find it easy to get lost in what seems like progress, but in this particular sense isn't.
This gets harder the more you do, since there are strong fundamental parallels between seemingly different things.

Basically, the more you're capable of, the easier it becomes to pick up new things because you get to recycle old skills. And while you'll learn more faster, you might actually be investing less energy due to the recycling.

I'd consider that passive learning and feel like that doesn't help you keep your edge with regard to focus and attention.

Perhaps looking out for that could help if you don't already.


You can take (some) drugs responsibly in ways that don't have any impact on your health span.

Do you regularly do anything that actively challenges you mentally? Picking up new things (actively, not through osmosis) helps with concentration and accuracy.

Economics of scale. Cost of production for everything is going down and with abundant energy (fusion) and advances in AI physical "things" will be virtually free. But producing all those bodies would still be less desirable than just getting some vaccine.

I disagree. You precede your memories. Without you being there first there is no you to have memories.

The question is then whether or not you are the substrate that holds the memories. And in that case people run into a problem about putting their memories on a "different" computer (which my previous post shows how to solve in the future).



Not really sure about any links since I haven't checked in for a while. But you can run any of the keywords into Google and find plenty of sources.

There are some serious researchers in Cambridge, Harvard and similar places these days. The main research institute for aging appears to be SENS by the way.

And with some of the keywords I've mentioned they're not directly being pursued for aging, but if you look at them you'll see that they offer themselves to that in the future.

With the information argument there's at bare minimum the option of restoring a human with impairments, then fixing the damage that stops them from acting human. Worst case scenario would be total (but probably partial) memory loss. Which would still potentially be preferable to some to certain death.

And I'm not convinced whatsoever that any of the damage is permanently irreversible.

We run data compression all the time. In reverse that means that you don't need full information to restore everything that's relevant.

There are artificial limbs (arms with hands and fingers) that were successfully attached to amputees. They were connected to the nerves of the patient, which was then able to use the arm as his own while also being able to feel things with it. So we already have this demonstrated not in animals, but in humans. The reason this is moving so slowly is because you can't just walk around attaching heads to bodies.

I don't see why the digital presence should not be you, as long as the connection is established properly (rather than just copying your memories onto a computer).

But there is a simple solution to this problem.

You create an interface with which you are simultaneously aware of your physical body and digital presence. Add a function that allows you to temporarily enable and disable either presence while keeping your consciousness. That way you can test for yourself if the digital version of you is still "you". Depending on the results of this you can choose yourself what you want to do.


May sound sci-fi, but is not. It's reality and has been demonstrated in rats and more primitive animals. Life-spans have been extended quite significantly in those and clinical human trials started this year. The problem with human trials is that, well, it kind of takes a lifetime to get one data point.

Full body transplant is the one that seems the most bothersome to me. At least for life extension purposes. This seems more like a "get a resilient body that won't get smashed in a car accident" kind of thing. It'd also probably be quite cumbersome to shit billions and billions and billions of human bodies for replacements.