There’s also Rebit.ph.

I can add veracity to this reason. I have been in Davao since 1994 and the banks (as well as grocery stores and even the roads) are so overcrowded that it is a way to waste a half-day for what should require only a few seconds or minutes to do.

Also can’t even open a bank account here anymore without a TIN number, but the BIR will not issue the TIN number unless you convince them you need one (bank account not being a valid reason). Once you have a TIN number you have to file a form every month at the BIR office and stand in line again (do not dare use their e-file as nothing technological works properly in this country), else you will pay a $20 per month penalty.

Basically bank accounts are an enslavement paradigm in the Philippines. Moving from the cash economy to the banked economy, causes the national government to track you. The cash businesses are tracked/fleeced at the local level by barangay officials, corrupt local police, local competition that will eject you from your business with some corruption/force and take the location/concept, etc..

Cryptocurrency in spite of also being a corruption at the highest levels, is actually increasing degrees-of-freedom for the peons (but the end game of crypto is 666 directed). Working online removes them from the aforementioned local threats with cash-based businesses.

Also Philippines was the SMS capital of the world long before Twitter. And filipinos made friendster the #1 social network for a while. So my point being that filipinos love their mobile phones, so to be able to manage their cash/investments from their mobile phone fits with their lifestyle. They’re accustomed to quickly downloading an app and go. Presumably much less adoption friction than complying with all the hassles/requirement of the banks.

---

Another reason the people in the developing world are going crazy for Bitcoin is purely speculation and get rick quick fantasy. The Asians and Latin Americans have gained some savings now and want to live the high life. They’re very much enticed to speculate. Gambling is very very popular pastime amongst Asians.

And MLM scams spread by word-of-mouth very easily in the Philippines. Filipinos kept asking me about afair Bitclub which they heard about from Facebook or from a friend.


Indeed this is another reason. And yes you’re correct that there is still a huge reservoir of billions of people yet to come in, yet who will eventually.

I was there debating @nullc (Gregory Maxwell) at Reddit.

You’re the one who started the name calling by declaring BCH sleazy. I’m just reminding you that the entire paradigm is sleazy. You seem to not understand the big picture of crypto is a system for the TPTB to rape the masses yet again.

The early adopters will profit. The masses will be fleeced. I explained how in my prior post.

Your foolish idealism about the lie of democracy and user supported soft/hard forks is being utilized against you.



Backsplaining again. Review the thread. You railed pretty hard against BCH in this thread. If you want to spin that as not arguing, then so be your spinmastery.

This thread is not about BCH replacing/overtaking BTC, so do not use that lie as an excuse. Read the thread title again “Will BCH kill BTCSegWit while reinstating BTCSatoshi?”, it is not that many words. Surely you can comprehend the thread title if you read it multiple times?



Just because some hyperbolic nonsense pops into your brain, doesn’t make it a sensible estimate of reality. You’re trying to paint a picture that there is no widespread speculation participation in BCH.

You’re reasoning is emotionally influenced by your desire for a community driven idealism. You really believe the community of fools could achieve decentralized governance and that this would make a better world. Ah to be age 20-something and delusional again…


The entire point of Taleb’s antifragility math is that the fragile systems overcommit to the past and thus lack degrees-of-freedom to handle the reality that was unseen. The unseen reality is for example the fragile timebomb of SegWit and LN. As well, the futures markets on Wallstreet being created presumably first for BTC and not BCH, meaning although a lot more liquidity also a huge incentive to front run manipulation of the BTC price.

Remember the majority always has to be slaughtered in financial markets. That is simply the way markets for passive investing/speculation function. The experts steal the candy from the fools.

None of you entirely understand LN. I’m not going to argue the deep technical issues of LN with someone such as yourself who is incapable of having such a discussion. LN undeniably will create a Mt. Box scenario and the fragility I have alluded to.

Satoshi (i.e. the Zionists) entirely predicted LN. In fact, he was the first one who explained conceptually about hashed time-locked contracts for Bitcoin. They (the Zionists writing under the pseudonym Satoshi Nakamoto) knew damn well why he had set the block size at 1MB and various other aspects in the game theory and design of Bitcoin.

Who do you really think controls the national security agencies apparatus throughout the world?


And that you do not even understand that is also what I wrote in the post you were replying to, speaks volumes…

I will tell you again that TPTB (i.e. the Zionists) pulling the strings are in control of (or funded) both Core and Bitmain (i.e. both BTC and BCH). The entire Hegelian dialectic crisis is a dog & pony show to make us fools believe we have something new and innovative. We don’t. It’s just another speculation and enslavement paradigm to fleece the majority.

This entire notion of BCH being evil and Core being the savior, is so naive. We’re being played from all directions.

Some amongst us will reap some monetary gains in the process. The vast majority who come into crypto will be fleeced.

The entire reason the Zionists created proof-of-work is so they can create a globalized monetary system they can control technologically in order to enslave the nation-states and move towards the NWO, and of course they will set up futures markets which they can front run. Of course the feigned resistance from the nation-states is part of the deception (although that resistance is easy to make appear to be valid via the compartmentalization¹ employed, i.e. bureaucrats and politicians may actually believe they’re important). The truth about politicians and beaucrats (i.e. those who run the nation-states, ignorant that they’re compartmentalized and controlled like puppets by the leverage of the Zionists):


I repeat (since it is now buried on the prior page):


Also I want to reiterate that on the prior page I cautioned against reentering BCH too soon.

1	https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compartmentalization_(information_security) https://www.truthcontrol.com/articles/compartmentalization-lie-different-every-level

BCH versus BTC.

An excerpt:

BCH versus BTC.

An excerpt:

What is so funny is you think that the abomination which violates Satoshi’s immutable protocol and enables SegWit to “pay to anyone” is somehow named “Bitcoin”.

You’re easily fooled by the optical illusions of a magician or politician.

Who anointed that SegWit shit to be the official Bitcoin? The economically irrelevant lunch money investing tyranny-of-the-mob users and the tyranny of bankster financed Core? Core might be just a misdirection plan to suck in all the fools who believe in democracy and tyranny-of-the-mob. In the end, the whales and miners will decide which fork is the real Bitcoin. Perhaps they patiently wait for the SegWit “pay to anyone” loot to pile up, get their new CME, CBOE, and Nasdaq futures markets ready for that SegWit shitcoin so they short the hell out of when they plan their massive theft of BTC and anoint the real Bitcoin while the tyranny-of-the-mob-believing fools with unwarranted high pride lose everything. My popcorn is still waiting…

I would never design a crypto project wherein the individual users (aka the tyranny-of-the-mob) could vote or otherwise be involved in mutating the protocol. The users should only be able to enforce the protocol, and never mutate it. Because users are dumb and have many conflicting needs they want to meet, which may have nothing to do with objectivity, i.e. the reason democracy is a clusterfuck. Satoshi designed proof-of-work such that the miners and whales decide. Period.

---

On the mcap dominance chart, clearly BCHBTC is the most bullish over next months of the Top 10. Near-term this week, LTCBTC has already made its move headed back up to test 0.01 while BTC stalls < $11.5k for a couple more days at least. Looks like ETHBTC is also going to turn up and test its prior Nov peak as well, but not as certain. Over the next months, ETHBTC looks very bearish unless it has found a firm bottom in November, which is dubious. LTCBTC has to prove it can breakout over 0.01, else it too is not that bullish (although not as bearish as ETHBTC). BCHBTC might turn up a a little bit here, but looks like it is still in near-term bearish correction mode. At some point BCHBTC will find a bottom and reassert its aggressively bullish mode, but it could also launguish and decline much more first. So this is why at this time I hold mostly LTC and BTC, with a little bit of ETH and BCH. Eventually I hope to buy more BCH once I sense it is clearly closer to a correction bottom. I suspect LTC could move very quickly to $150 now especially if BTC stalls.

---

You were wrong when I predicted in this thread that buying BCH at $300 would soon go to $1500. And you will be wrong again. BCHBTC is the only token in the Top 10 other than BTC (note I have not analyzed BTG yet) which is bullish over the next months relative to BTC, in terms of the current chart picture.

How many of you ignored me when I said buy LTC at 0.006 and then it went to 0.022, and ditto again here in this thread for BCH at 0.05 just days before it went to 0.3+. That is like 24X more BTC y’all could have had if you had listened to me. So who is loony?

Heck even I dislike the EOS $2 billion money grab, I said to buy it at $1 a few weeks ago and now it is at $3. Add this trade and that is 72X more BTC if you’d not diversified (or still significantly more BTC even if you had diversified).

Core is no less sleazy. Core does have more expertise, but we do not need fucking expertise and instead need wisdom. We need for the mofos to stop mutating the protocol and bloating the reference code base with endless shit. The ecosystem should bit all those fancy wallets and shit. The reference implementation of the protocol should be as simplistic as possible so that more the protocol is clearly implemented. Then more sophisticated (e.g. more performant) versions in the free market ecosystem can test themselves against the reference protocol.


Once LN is live then not only with the SegWit loot of fools who will lose everything pile up much faster, but also all sorts of new attacks on Bitcoin because possible, such as flooding the system with transaction volume when settling in LN channels delayed and all-at-once by the Mt. Box nodes. More opportunities to front run the shorting on the upcoming CME, CBOE, and Nasdaq futures markets. You see the entire Bitcoin ecosystem system is yet another financial means for TPTB to steal everything from the people.

Democracy is a lie. Democracy exists to fool the masses into thinking they have rights. You have no rights. They own you.


Satoshi’s proof-of-work does not scale decentralized. Period. Not with LN nor with big blocks. The fight is over who will control it. Miners want big blocks and banksters want LN so they can do fractional reserve banking and take control over it.

It doesn’t matter to me who will control it. I just want to make the correct investment decisions. And I would much prefer the stability of Satoshi’s immutable protocol than the potential creative self-destruction chaos (REKTing) of those Rube Goldberg machines created by Core in order to violate the entire principle of Satoshi’s protocol.

As for the idealism of a truly decentralized protocol…

There’s only one counter-trend altcoin at this time in the Top 10:

https://coinmarketcap.com/charts/#dominance-percentage

Very dumb to buy it because it’s going down short-term (before it goes up, up, up again).

BitcoinSegWit is not Satoshi’s immutable protocol, i.e. it is not Bitcoin. It is a “pay to anyone” shitcoin. I smell a rat on the horizon combined with shorting on futures markets.

I will if he responds that his BTC address is up-to-date and that he will redo the Bitcoin price regression chart. I and others will donate if posts about that. No I did not donate in the past because I wasn’t following him.

Update Dec 4: saw no action on this and will stop following.

On a percentage basis your statement is false.

We had -40% drops in June/July and Sept.

Afaics, the volatility is decreasing.

The purple line would adjust upward if the regression was recomputed.

Where is Trololo? Can he recompute his Bitcoin price regression chart now?

Also notice the corrections have been getting shallower and shorter in duration.

https://cryptowat.ch/bitfinex/btcusd (choose 1D chart time period)

Btw set the above chart to logarithmic Y axis to get a less emotional view of the recent price action!

-40%: June 11 - July 16
-40%: Sept 1 - 15
-33%: Nov 7 - 12
-22%: Nov 29 - 30 (presuming the bottom of the correction is already in)

Thus if the $8800 bottom of current correction holds, then we can see that the bubble is accelerating (i.e. corrections are shallower and shorter in duration), so it means the blow-off top is likely coming now in December.

However, if we instead stall here at this level with a horizontal trading range, then we would be forming a new plateau from which to rise higher in 2018. In that case, the altcoins would likely accelerate w.r.t. BTC as they normally do when BTC stalls.

I’m hoping for the stall because I hold some altcoins. Given that altcoins such as LTC have not yet made their run to 0.03 - 0.5, I think it is possible that BTC needs to plateau first. However, altcoins such as BCH already had significant runs to 0.3+. There is so much going on with Wallstreet (Mainstreet of the investor world) coming into cryptocurrency, I have a difficult time believing this level is the blow off top already. However, I do think BTC is a bit hyperventilated and ahead of itself, and probably needs to stall for a while here. If so, then my altcoins should do well, as BTC investors diversify out temporary.

Possible reasons for the plateauing and stall would be that BTC has finally reached the 10X threshold from the last bubble peak 2013. $10,000 was a pyschological level. Perhaps also to take breather while the Wallstreet futures are implemented and require some time to ramp up.

A major risk to the crypto sector remains SEC action against ICOs, but the government probably moves slowly. They probably also need to coordinate with other major governments. They might also be waiting for the European Mifid II financial services regulation to come into effect in 2018.

If we could establish a new plateau here at $10,000, that would also form the likely extent of the bottom of any future crypto winter. If not, then yes anything above the 2013 peak could be the bottom.

So what we have right now is probably a battle between those afraid of crash to $2k and those who think BTC has much more room to run in 2018. Thus that contention would be another reason for a stall as the bears and bulls slug it out. Rather at the blowoff top, too many newbies should be very bullish and the smart money will be pulling the rug without saying anything.

I am not certain. We could have seen the blowoff top already at $11,400.

To put this all into more perspective, view the logarithmic chart for the entire BTC history:

https://99bitcoins.com/price-chart-history/

You can see the peakiness/verticalness of BTC is declining on each bubble. We have a much more stable and epic move in BTC now, than those prior nascent overaccelerations. And the reason is of course widespread adoption as a financial speculation.

That logarithmic chart makes me think we have another year or more to go on an epic run for crypto as everybody and his 5th uncle realizes they want to get into this new phenomenon that has increased from $10 in 2013 to $10,000 in 2017. IOW looking at the logarithmic chart, for us old timers who got in at $10, we see a relatively calm rise in the price over a long-enough period of time, but  for the newbies coming in they think the price rise is insane, as they’re comparing it to other large marketcap paradigms such as the stock market. They would not be comparing BTC to a pinksheet stock, because an individual pinkshit stock doesn’t have a $200B mcap. An individual pinkshit stock wouldn’t have the widespread public awareness that Bitcoin has.

Look at this following updated version of the chart from the OP (sorry images aren't displaying on my posts bcz I’m a “newbie" lol who has been here since 2013):


The slope (trajectory) of the curve on the dip between 2013 until 2017 was less vertical then from 2011 to 2013. This gives me another thought for the possible outcome at this juncture. We may have indeed topped out at $11,400, but the green price curve for the dip could be much more shallower and more horizontal basically hugging the red line. As I had already stated, mathematically I expect the red line to adjust upwards compared to that quoted updated chart above (presuming the author will update it?), given the rise of the price since that quoted chart was computed on January 3, 2017. Such would be consistent with the plateauing that occurred in 2013 which lead to another peak later in 2013 which was 5X higher in price.

Another thought is the eventual death of altcoins? If Bitcoin scales out (at least in terms of the use case of financial speculation and altcoins never really deliver adoption otherwise), then perhaps the marketcap of Bitcoin rises to dominate the altcoins again? Which had not been the case until June 15 when the Scalepocalypse was muted with the NYA agreement on SegWit. But since early Nov this reversal stalled presumably due to the failure of SegWit2X and the pump of BCH:

https://coinmarketcap.com/charts/#dominance-percentage

So does that reversal resume and the altcoins continue to diminish w.r.t. to Bitcoin with SegWit, or not because 1MB is insufficient for transaction volume scaling even with Lightning Networks? I’m betting altcoins still have another run w.r.t. BTC and BTC is overheated at $11,400. I’m not sure if BTC to $25k first or after such. My vision is that we have a big mess and the speculation is far ahead of the reality of adoption as a payment system. So I think we get more speculation in altcoins and we get an overshoot for BTC in 2018 to $25+k, then the SEC and other major governments attack ICOs, Wallstreet will be short, most of the altcoins go to ~0 because they're difficult to short, and the entire sectors moves down but not so extremely so as in 2011 and 2014. If we reach $40k, then maybe we correct down to $10k. The more shorting, the more buying support on the way down. Again this means most altcoins are going to end up empty bags in the end game, unless they have some capability that Bitcoin does not which is had widespread use case. But short term altcoins may have another run. Longer-term the speculations will move from altcoins more to ecosystem startups as BTC dominance is established and the BTC price is rising more slowly as time goes on, thus an actual regulated crowdfunding investment model. The wildcard is the potential for theft of SegWit by miners in cahoots with whales due to the “pay to anyone” feature of SegWit, restoring the immutability of Satoshi’s protocol.


Thoughts?



Wallstreet is bringing in the sheep now. No way they will shoot the goose that is laying the golden egg until they’re massively short.

Read this:

https://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/bitcoin-price-declines-9200-factors-another-strong-rally/

Investors with large size can’t enter an investment until they see an exit strategy. Now with the liquid derivatives coming, they have that exit strategy. So now Bitcoin moves up to a much larger scale of markecap.

Here was an updated version of the chart, but note that as the green price has risen since the chart below was computed (and if will continue to rise) then the red line will rise again (thus only in retrospect will we see that the red line was higher at the end of the bubble than we projected it to be):


I agreed with the following:


We have confluence of several factors, which are fundamentally driving the current bubble higher.

These create a PUBLIC CONFIDENCE in the bubble which spreads it to the general public. I have many people telling them what everyone they know is becoming aware of the Bitcoin bubble. Someone wrote that exchanges are adding 500K new accounts per day (is that correct?!!). IOW, we’re going to overshoot by a country mile any sane rate of price rise, before we crash down hard and long. The fundamentals are too strong and there’s far too small of a marketcap right now in crypto, compared to the global interest level. And altcoins will sometimes make their runs w.r.t. BTC (e.g. BCH from 0.05 to 0.3+ as I predicted), so diversifying some to alts and then taking profits when they go vertical is a wise strategy. Appears smart investors can extract another 5 – 10 bagger out of this crypto bull before the next winter. First all the old-timers need to sell too early, get jealous and repurchase. This bubble has to make fools of everyone and shock everyone before it will be over.

Perhaps we’re roughly at the analogous level where that volatility got more intense as BTC crossed $400 going vertical in 2013. It continued on to rise ~3X higher.

Wallstreet is coming into Bitcoin:


And it will enable them to take a greater interest in expanding the number of sheep in Bitcoin as they will be able to extract much of the value out of the ecosystem by front running futures markets:


Investors are transitioning from real-estate globally into movable assets:



Also the international dollar carry trade short squeeze vortex will send capital stampeding out of the Eurozone (and other peripheral economies) and into the dollar, US stocks, and Bitcoin via Wallstreets foray into Bitcoin:

---

Obviously the green line price never exactly tracks the red line projection. The red line represents a level the bubbles must peak above.

---

Indeed, we expected many people who had long-term capital gains to take profits at $10k.

---

Yup, but they need a larger and larger marketcap to steal from. Volatility can increase as they try to front run insider news they create to profit off the gyrations, but overall they want the market cap to grow.

Nevertheless I have not lied. Note the word “above”. You had misquoted me in the prior message by trying to apply this different context now quoted above by you, wherein I was talking about your stance towards men, to this more recent context wherein I was talking about disregarding the fact that God is provably (per the logic I explained on this page and our private message follow-ups) an issue of faith and can’t be proven with reason and logic. This btw is I believe the reason Jesus spoke in parables which he alluded to in scripture.

As for the context of your ethics about putting a double-standard on men by accusing them of not treating women fairly if we do not allow the State to destroy marriage and funding/encouraging hedonism by allowing the woman to take control over the man’s financial life, then yeah I do not like leftists in that respect and I think that is a very evil ideology with grave implications leading to totalitarian war and megadeath (as well as many other aspects of a decadent civilization such as collapsing birthrate):


When I wrote that, I do actually think your stance towards men is despicable and evil. And you think that men who refuse to support their wife/kids are despicable and immoral (yet we do not know if that man had a valid reason why he did not want to encourage the behavior of that woman/kids by supporting them). In fact, it has caused a great rift between what was formerly viewed as a sincere friendship between us. But I also recognize in a calmer reflective mindset, that I’m not omniscient enough to be able to judge whether you’re truly evil. I personally dislike men who are under the skirt of their woman, and I avoid them for the same reason I avoid dogs with rabies. (And frankly I do not think you’re intentionally intending to not be upstanding. It appears to be your extreme desire to be upstanding that makes you what I judge to be a zealot, so afaics it’s sort of a trap you are in that you are incapable of grokking from another perspective) Heck I have even told you before either publicly or privately that I don’t view myself as above evil. We have imperfect information because the universe we comprehend is the antithesis of a total order as we discussed upthread already. In fact, my entire argument with you about superrationality has been about that we are arbitrary and there is no universal truth, juxtaposed versus your (and Charlton's) illogical stance being that we can seek to be non-arbitrary and that there is a universal truth.

Afaics, the entire ideological chasm that separates us is because you (like a typical Westerner leftist/progressive/zealot ideologue) have a worldview that man can improve himself and that we are on a monotonically increasing path towards betterment of ourselves ethically. Whereas, I prescribe more to the Asian perspective (not surprising given I arrived in Asia in when I was 26 years old and have spent nearly half my life here, and I was raised in the Old South of the USA, and I have Cherokee native American blood), that we are on a cycle and nature repeats over and over again, e.g. the Asian religions reflect this such as Buddhism. Asians are more pragmatic and understand the nature of humans is an invariant. Yet even the Asians manage to achieve megadeath also via collectivism.

What really super ticks me off, is when zealots go around telling everybody else what they should do, while not allowing themselves to be called out individually for the great harm they are doing to society. I want to tell them to mind their own fucking business and stop sticking their nose in other people’s business, otherwise do not be surprised if you will get kicked in the face by men who very pissed off about you mofos trying to destroy us with your insane concept of putting females on some pedestal wherein they can have their cake and eat it too. I understood your stance to be that great sacrifice is a great virtue for a man to have, so the implication being that this role should be put on the shoulders of men. But I argue that men are already sacrificing by competing as hard as they can, as nature wants men to do. And women are sacrificing by being the one who bears the children and feels the most responsibility to feed them (even when the man does not feel it because he can make many more kids than a woman can). This is all natural and both are sacrificing. Why meddle?

For you it was a very simple conceptualization that some men are irresponsible fathers thus men need to regulated by the State. I have since over the past months laid out a very complete argument for why you’re incorrect about society being able to make nature perfect and about there being any positive benefits of society attempting to do so. Stop meddling with nature, lest you will create a civil war in the USA and worse. I warned you it is coming, but you fucking ideologues have nearly destroyed the USA and the West. You fell right into the trap and plans of the Zionists, who promulgated all that ideological propaganda. Y’all fell right into the zealot trap.

Note even James A. Donald is advocating the State enforce K strategy, i.e. that men must support their wives and children, but that as a consequence women have no right to divorce or otherwise leverage the regulation of men to fund their leftist and hypergameous tendencies. Even Matthew 19 and the commandment against adultery indicates that females should not be allowed to divorce. The point is that we can’t allow women to have their cake and eat it too. If a group of men want to enforce K strategy, then they need to enforce on both the men and the women, not just on the men as the insane, self-destructive West is currently doing. And that men rather than beating their wives for being incorrigible/irrational bitches, and who can afford to be polygamous (i.e. more than one wife), should thus be allowed to be. Women usually are not super sexually attracted to men who are under their skirt, which means they will constantly shit test her cuckolded husband. But the key here is actually supporting all your wives and children, i.e. making the society more successful. IOW, the most productive men and their culture of high productivity rises to the top and dominates the society thus improving the culture of the society. But nature is never going to allow a perfect K strategy. The R strategy will always seep in, because nature requires it for maximizing resilience of the species. Thus there isn’t any one correct way to organize society. Entropically we need a wide diversity of sociological strategies. Thus I conclude that the evil of the idealists is they want to spread a mayonnaise on diversity. But again I am not omniscient.

So yeah, we’re like oil and water and we are not going to ever understand each other. Period. I have unfortunately resigned myself to this realization.

It’s impossible to not end up attacking each other personally in an ideological debate. For example, the implication of your stances is that I am unethical and a bad person. And ditto vice versa. There’s no avoiding that. So it seems it is best for us to both go back to our separate spaces.

About truth and God, I will only reiterate that the truth can be different for each person and that is okay.

The source of my greatest disagreement with you is your proclamation of absolute truth. All of us are trying to find that, but none of us I think should be so cocky to boast to others that we possess absolute truth. That is why I argue for allowing diversity and allowing for individual paths. Even though you might see great harm in allowing diverse experiments, nature does not agree apparently. For example, if you like the atheist Scandinavian model of socialism or the theistic Israel model of it. The USA is split between northern progressive ideologues, southern Bible belt ideologues, and the pragmatists who straddle some where in between. The USA was glued together by the pragmatists, but now they are being pushed out or forced to choose. That is one reason I left the USA and not sure if I want to come back. I am still trying to analyse if the pragmatists have any constituency anymore.

To the extent any group could achieve any organization of K strategy and not insidiously leak leftism effects out on others outside their group, I would I think probably be very supportive. I’d also be interested in hearing about how they had accomplished it.

Afaics, the most important power of a K strategy grouping is the power to influence the philosophy of the offspring. But the problem is that is leaky, thus K strategy either is fleeting because of being leaky or is has to be zealous mind control. This is a power vacuum, which is why we find the Zionists are in control of it ultimately. Unfortunately I think there is no universal solution. Nature is a chaotic soup.


Conscious maybe, but rational impossible. I would like to see a proof that it was rational. Sorry I refuse to lie to myself about such a decision being rational.

If I choose faith, I should not lie to myself about the basis of my faith, for the deceived are not truly faithful in a true sense of faith. Faith is an understanding that the decision is purely based on faith. Everything else is self-deception.

Let us get into Pascal’s wager in the future. Not now. That is an interesting angle to analyse, but I think I can reason that his argument has no basis.

I also want to contemplate this dilemma (or not being able to reason about faith) more.

There’s something there in terms of (intentional and perhaps unintended) limitations (of both intended scope and perhaps unintended inherent limitations) of the scripture and 10 commandments. Remember Jesus was put to death by the State and the established religion.

On the faith issue, I would agree with CoinCube on the desire to better ourselves and treat mankind better, but I have to pragmatically base in the reality of nature and not let ideological extremism cause me to participate in the totalitarianism. I do not want to raise princesses which are like Ivana Trump (although caveat I have not truly studied nor interacted with her) and who are leftist/progressive leaner wolves in sheepskin.

The sociological issue is a very difficult one to get correct. So far, I just conclude we choose a direction and there is no perfect ideological stance to choose. But I wish I had a better analysis. Will apply more effort to it when I have more free time.


Yup.

---

EDIT: I hope to end my participation in this thread for a while because this can consume too much time. I want to add that for example it is a wonderful feeling to walk down the aisle with the woman you love, lift her veil, kiss her and say “I do”. That is very noble and to fulfill her emotions w.r.t. to the institution of marriage is to sustain the motivation and inspiration of young single ladies and provide confirmation happy feelings to the elder ladies. The social institution. As I said, this seemed to perhaps work for men when the society was enforcing the institution of marriage on women and the man could be proud at least that his wife was truly his and that he was the leader of his household and finances to which he was largely responsible.

However, not one size fits all. And others have other ideals and ideas. And times are a changing.

I just wish the world could remain a place of diversity where different ideas and ideals aren’t suffocated by some mayonnaise of universality or totalitarianism on the way to finding out that seeking such universality is futile.

Disagree.

It's quite obvious you emphasized a statement about God which was not the theme of the post you referenced:


The boxing in is where you attempt to argue with logic and reason that superrationality is valid, yet I showed whether it is possible relies on faith. So you're essentially implying that those of us who disagree that superrationality is valid, are somehow not ethical and are implicitly less good because we refuse to strive for something above and beyond nature.

---

I remember in the past you tried to accuse me of lying about my predictions successfully made, and then I would quote and cite for you exactly where I had done what I had claimed I had done, then you accused me of editing my posts ex post facto (i.e. you implicitly accused me of being a liar). But the point was you falsely accused me. So now you're in a huff when I call you out for having a confirmation bias as a religious zealot and a leftist/progressive (who tries to claim his is a libertarian), and you're trying to once again misrepresent the facts of what was done and said.


Your misquote above misrepresents what I wrote. I will quote for you exactly what I wrote as follows:


No where in the above quote did I declare you are evil, nor did I declare what your ethics are. I declared a specific action/tactic to be evil. Are you admitting you are doing the action/tactic that I stated is evil? I can't judge you on matters of good and evil (proclaiming a total order or universal truth), as I am only human with knowledge of only a partial order. I stated what I think would be evil because it is impossible for someone to prove their faith with logic and reason, thus it seems to me that should be a private matter in consultation/prayer/meditation with our God.

The reason you're falling into this trap is because you're trying to force reason and logic as justification for faith. That is causing you to push too hard to find confirmation bias in everything. If your faith is truly solid, then you should not need to win arguments of logic and reason about your faith. Faith is a personal and private matter. I warned you about Bruce Charlton, and that he is trying to judge others with logic and reason (which I showed is inapplicable) as if he is a God. Satan throws out these traps for us. But again I can't judge him other than if he is judging others then he will receive what Matthew 7 says, the same judging back on himself.

---

By demanding that I discuss my faith outside of my closet, you would be doing the action/tactic that I (and Jesus) said is evil.


Egalitarianism is not very loving. It's destructive.


I already provided my refutations about superrationality. I think you're suffering from the sort of idealism (lack of grounding in pragmaticism and facts of nature) that leads to megadeath.


Define worth in this context? Who wrote they are worth less or worthless? Only you apparently used that word in this thread.


To respect them we must understand them. Putting them on a pedestal and destroying them (or society if you raise leftist/progressive princesses) by promoting egalitarianism which funds their hypergamy to run amok is not respecting them. As I stated already, I don't believe that females in aggregate can overcome their hindbrain which is baked into the biology of the species. The actions of females can be better understood and explained once their subconscious mind is taken into account. I am confident that the cited psychologist will agree with me after he reads what I wrote and researches the facts. I have no problem with allowing females to be in a meritocracy where they must compete equally. In that case, end all divorce laws, end all affirmative action, end all identity politics/subsidies/distorts of the free market. That means do not force men to pay for the children! Let women compete with their biology as it is, and stop subsidizing them. Stop putting a double-standard on men. If a man does not want to support his offspring, that is his decision to make, not society. Otherwise you're subsidizing hypergamy. You and I will never agree on this.


End egalitarianism. You can't have it both ways. Complaining about something while continuing to do what causes that something is not a very coherent state-of-mind.

Notice the actual green price has always overshot that red projection on peaks.

Thus shouldn't we expect BTC to go significantly above $10,000 (perhaps as high as $25,000 - $40,000) within next weeks or months before crashing?

Note I'm not making a prediction. Yet this dip from $11k to $9k feels like not the start of bear market yet to me. The alts such as LTC still stuck below 0.01 BTC, either haven't made their final move yet w.r.t. to BTC (or already made it), being another clue that maybe BTC has not lost momentum yet.

His mistake is he is referring to the conscious and overtly measurable traits of the female, but the female hypergamy manifests in insidious facets such as for example being agreeable to socialism/collectivism because it funds their (the females’) hypergameous R-strategy reproductive preference. The female shit tests a man in indirect, not overtly confrontrational ways. She is apt to leverage the collective to confront on her behalf, e.g. the laws. (He also alluded to this near end of his video where is acknowledge passive aggressive techniques for female bullying)

Thus I absolutely do not agree with his assessment that women are “undeniably more reliable than men”. He needs to enumerate his criterion for that metric so we can break it down with deeper/holistic analysis.

Women are higher in all emotions, not just negative emotions. They live and breath emotions. They are like a child. Some may have a very rational and even very high IQ prefrontal cortex, but their true driver is their biological hindbrain.

His “interested in people versus things” distinction is I think missing the point. Men are interested in engineering solutions, and some men such as myself are extrovert and also interested in people partially because of the fact it requires people to accomplish goals. Women are interested in people as a dog is interested in legs to hump and kids are interested in toys that make them feel good.

He is placating that female while pretending to have an intellectual exchange. Come on, debate a man from the DE movement if you really want to have peer review.

Btw, I agree with his point that men interact in somewhat confrontational manner when there is disagreement. This is because men instinctively need to follow or be the alphamale who is going to insure them success. They must not be following some idiot who will lead them to failure. That is a positive and necessary trait of men. Men are all about goals and achievements. So we will not automatically give respect to other men, it has to be earned via meritocracy. Women are about nurturing (because they need happy chemicals because they are all about emotions) and hypergamy. That is why men bring conflicts to a head to resolve it asap (because men are essentially doing active free market annealing for fitness and maximum resilience), and women will pretend-and-extend as do the central banks (and the ZIRP) that funds the female hypergamy and destruction of Western civilization, because women are not leading society, they're parasites unless properly managed (counter-balanced by the control) by men.

I agree with his assessment about the dynamics of competition between men and women are nonsense. But he does not cut to the root of it which is that women are not competitive in a way that can lead society effectively. And thus men who are castrated by the society via laws w.r.t. to females, will mean they defect and the society will collapse. All this BS about egalitarianism is destroying Western civilization.

He mentions highly successful female attorneys but remember they are successful in a society that is not a meritocracy and aided by affirmative action. They would likely not be successful in a male competitive society and I contemplate that their success is at the cost of the demise of Western civilization.

Again I had written on the prior page of this thread that although it is true that females can be very smart (surely there are even females who have a higher IQ than I do), we do not need them for the roles of leadership, because it messes everything up. We need them for the biological role they’re designed for. He refers to the elite females as benefiting, but I think he fails to note they move the society further to the left thus exacerbating the destruction of the Western civilization. Btw, he absolutely nails this point in another video and I suggest all men with daughters listen to what he said. My father has a higher IQ than myself and he was head attorney for West Coast Division of Exxon and he told me the same thing that a female after age 30 until menopause is totally unreliable. Btw, that linked video I just cited is excellent. I like him much better when he is in confrontational mode. He nails so many points correctly. Respect earned.

In another video, he starts off speaking truths but then he correlates egalitarianism with prosperity and fails to note that such a short-lived spike in prosperity is irrelevant if it means the civilization is collapsing because of egalitariamism, yet he does start to enumerate some of the ways egalitarianism has harmed society. Btw, I had seen some of his videos before in the past.

He echoed more DE themes on Fox News interview about his new book.

Note he claims that the reason successful women don’t marry down is because they don’t want to support the man, because they want someone to support them. I think that’s not quite accurate. They don’t want to marry down because biologically (subconscious hindbrain) they’re driven by hypergamy. A woman is not sexually motivated towards a man she perceives to be below her status. This was already explained in James A. Donald’s blogs which I cited upthread. And the evidence is that their hypergamy can be fooled by PUAs who can put them on the fuckboy carousel, thus not achieve marriage. Those ultra-confident women he refers to can be entirely broken down to a salivating animal by a bad boy which her ancestral environment hindbrain perceives to be alpha. The men who are afraid of rejection is because they give a fuck. The bad boy doesn’t ask for her fucking number. He doesn’t need her number, because he has more girls after him than he can handle already. He will be a bad boy to her and not give a shit what she thinks or does. Her pussy will be dripping wet and she will give chase to him. He’s making the mistake of presuming the females are responding rationally with their prefrontal cortex and I think that is where he fundamentally doesn’t understand female biology and thus psychology. Female life purpose is ruled by the hypergamy of the hindbrain, not the rational part of the mind. For those women at the very upper echelon of status and who do not get married when they’re young, they may not be able to easily find someone of actual status that is interested in them (and who would bother to ask for their phone number), and thus they are very vulnerable to being picked off by a PUA if they’re social environment doesn’t shield them from exposure to PUAs.

I suppose the most excellent outcome would be a society which could leverage the intellectual talents of these very high IQ females yet also provide their hypergamic needs are met. Really high IQ females need to bear children early and then incorporate their study/work into their life as mothers. Having women try to fit a lifetime of a career into their 20s is just destructive.


Bravo! He states much of my philosophy. But I do not agree with the interpretation of his video being that is why we can’t see God which presumes that God must exist (he mentions that only in passing and is not the main point he is making). Again God is a personal matter (and religion and God are distinct concepts), please STOP JUDGING OTHERS BY YOUR RELATIONSHIP WITH YOUR GOD!

How would you know why and what others see or can’t see w.r.t. an issue of faith. Elevating a personal matter to one of social commentary and judgment, is evil and potentially very dangerous as he points out in his video. I think you’re missing the point of his video, which is to look inside to yourself. If you find God there, then fine, but it doesn’t mean that his video is about the necessity of finding God and judging those who don’t find his God as failing to look inside themselves.


He captures some of the reasons that I dislike CoinCube’s presentation of God.

Stop boxing me in, and presuming your interpretation of a theological question is correct. God is a personal matter because it is always based on faith, not on rationality, logic, or reason. Allow me to do it my closet as Jesus said in Matthew 6:5.

We can box each other in on measurable phenomena. But God will never be measurable in our current understanding of spacetime.


P.S. On healthcare, I totally agree with this.

---

EDIT: I was listening to another of his videos about relationships, and agreed with him up to the point where he recommends blaming yourself for why another person doesn’t meet your needs in a relationship. Fuck that. Leave the relationship immediately and never come back!

Do not stay in relationships that do not work. Do not try to mix oil and water. They will never mix. Move on. Do not waste your life trying to accomplish futile things.

He is correct that humans, as is the case for all animals, are trainable in some cases. But you have to recognize when the training process has become futile. But do not train a person by pretending to blame yourself. Train them with incentives which are honest. I’m speaking from experiences. Personalities matter. When I finally found someone more compatible to my lifestyle and personality, it is like night and day compared to the prior relationships which were attempting to force a square peg into a round hole. Btw, in that last video link, he looks similar to Pat Riley the NBA coach.

Anecdotally, I can counter his claim that a disorderly person will necessarily fight with an orderly person. I’m a person who doesn’t care about cleanliness and orderliness which has no significant functional benefit to my productivity (or which reduces my productivity because of the time cost of doing it). My current gf is very much into cleanliness and orderliness even to the degree of reducing productivity such as mopping the floor everyday with bleach. I had to convince her to not mop so frequently. But this works for us because I do not make huge messes continuously (meaning I also appreciate some orderliness) and because I give her appreciation for the effort she expends on it. We’re both extroverts and conscientious so our similarities outweigh our slight differences. And we both enjoy observing/interacting with expressive animals and people. For example, she initially was disgusted when I licked my plate clean but I made it sort of humorous and then she laughed (so her appreciation of human expressiveness outweighs her desire for cleanliness). I also have this introvert side that likes to work on engineering challenges and art. She does too but so far hers in more in the arts and crafts area, because she is not as mathematical and analytical. She is more into language and natural science.

ca·pac·i·ty
kəˈpasədē/
noun
2.
the ability or power to do, experience, or understand something.
"I was impressed by her capacity for hard work"

As if a capacitor is incapable of employing it’s capacity to accomplish it’s function.


You just joined and running around making comments such as the following which demonstrate you have no comprehension whatsoever about the fact that terrorism is a lie created by the Zionists to enslave you (I suppose you idolize the satanic Pope too):

---

Everything that is fungible is fleeting, including fungible metals.

Cryptocurrencies (plural) are not fungible with each other (exchanges even decentralized exchanges don’t make them fungible with each other). The decentralized ledger is not limited to fungible applications such as currency. The currency aspect will end up fading away in relevance, as will the relevance of all stored fungible monetary capital. Where we’re headed, the utility (value) of all that fungible shit will become fleeting.

So keep stacking fleeting fungible shit. Those who are wiser will hone their knowledge creation capabilities. The next response to OROBTC applies, in that cryptocurrencies are about destroying the value of fungible monetary stores. Most people have not figured this out yet. I tend to be 5 - 10 years ahead of most others.

Note monetary capital still has some utility. I'm not saying to put no effort at all to accumulating some if you think you can utilize it to further the real point, but if that is all you're doing then I think you’re missing the point of our existence as quoted below in my reply to @OROBTC.

P.S. the government can’t do a damn thing about private keys and the balances/information controlled by them. I had months ago explained to you that cryptocurrency (and blockchain data) is like an endospore which can’t be permanently shut down. Besides cryptocurrency is the best information gathering tool ever gifted to governments, so they don’t want to shut it down.

---

That inspired this post:

---

Or a smart person might have discovered a way to make them plausibly decentralized. Just because you think you have analyzed all the options @r0ach, doesn’t insure you know all the options.


In my case, the delay has been significantly an issue of battling chronic fatigue due to autoimmunity, presumably due to TB and residual effects of multiple dengue infections. It’s difficult to make progress when one spends most/much their time in bed with brain fatigue/fog unable to remember what they were thinking 1 minute earlier.

See also:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3271466/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21112804 http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1413-86702012000100018 https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2016/04/11/zika-linked-second-autoimmune-disorder-similar-multiple-sclerosis/82908078/

I did write that thread years ago, a more recent Gist post (which btw is a truncated version of longer secret Gist which reveals some of my design), and even in fact recently embroiled into this again with Daniel Larimer.

It’s true that I see even flaws in my own design which could potentially cause it to become centralized, but I’m working on the notion that people will be able to form groups of like-mindedness about protecting the invariants of the protocol. The key is for the community to be able to objectively distinguish malfeasance and for each individual to be able to independently and effectively route around it, i.e. castrating the powe of political influence.

The devil is in the details.

---

I turned my focus away from trading and didn’t ask my source if he had purchased that report.

Btw, the username @CornCube was intentionally chosen to be visually similar to @CoinCube because I couldn’t think of a username that I wanted which wasn’t taken, because the only reason I registered again after prior username was banned again, was to reply to @CoinCube about superrationality in the DE thread, and because I thought maybe the mods would be visually confused for a sufficient time.

The “Man in Black”— Johnny Cash.

Wise man.

Inspirational to see Johnny Cash still available to perform so well when he could barely walk.

Add a new blog post to the above list:

https://blog.jim.com/culture/women-like-sexual-coercion/

And an older one:

https://blog.jim.com/culture/role-models/

---

Let’s remember to keep some perspective:

---

Do you deny the research on how their biology causes them to want to be treated? Would you advise fully emancipating a child and treating them the same as tribal elders or businessmen colleagues? So then why would you elevate females on such a pedestal which their hindbrain does not want. Is it because you erroneously think you can overcome nature and change the nature of female to not be ruled by her hindbrain. The links above explain that emasculated men who put women on pedestals are not respected by the subconscious, hindbrain which rules women.

Feminism is a manifestation of female hypergamy and irrationality, and emasculated “men” who feed that defect-defect dysfunction:

---

I had already explained from an entropic resilience of the species perspective (and the fundamental law of physics which presumes entropy inexorably trends to maximum) that it is not superrational to deny the necessity of hypergamy.

The stereotypical idealist thinks nature is savage and beneath what they myopically perceive to be the superior ideals of the intellectual and/or righteous.

I do not feel kinship with these idealistic, emasculated “men” who (as explained above) feed the hindbrain of women by putting them on pedestals which enables the multi-generational slide into leftist economic failure, hedonism totalitarianism, and negative birthrate— creates a clusterfucked society.

Society is sliding into hedonism because of idealists who stopped enforcing the necessary chastity on kids and females, placing them on pedestals encouraging their multi-generational slide into leftism. But nature needs these irrational idealists, so as to enable the defect-defect R stategy clusterfucked societies in order to diversify the gene pool. Every cycle has a purpose in nature.

Idealistic irrationality (obfuscated as claimed superrationality) is necessary.

There’s no universal truth. We pick a role. And every role is part of nature. And no, we’re never above nature nor above being an “animal” (as if a thinking creature is not an animal, lol)

Idealism is so dangerous like any good drug, because since they’re drugged on the “happy chemicals” of their idealistic delusion (lie), in exchange for swallowing the intoxicating blue pill, they’ll go to any extreme irrationality to maintain the delusion, such as junk science, forced sterilization, war, etc.. They drink their own Koolaid and truly believe their irrational “we’re making a better world”. News flash: the universe is constructed on ongoing randomness. If not, nothing would nor could exist other than as a static, prescripted recording. We’re not making a damn thing. The entropic reality is we’re finding ways to randomly destroy everything created— IOW by increasing the entropic diversity diversity of knowledge thus maximizing the distribution of uncertainty.

Follows an example of the irrationality of the stereotypical idealistic, self-proclaimed intellectual, righteous zealot:


The above is a baseless tautology because it claims that superrationality or universal truth must exist, as it declares (without proof) that all life must be coherent.

IOW, Bruce Charlton presumes the universe must be totally ordered and tells us to take this as an fundamental truth. Yet we know there can’t be any universal truth because if there were then spacetime could be totally ordered, the past and future light cones of relativity would collapse into undifferentiated and thus there would be no concept of unknown future. Thus we would not exist, except as some prescripted recording from which any point in spacetime can be replayed at will (where such replaying is part of the recording which is of course insane because it means the recording can’t exist because it must be unbounded thus can’t be enumerated in a deterministic, prerecorded spacetime!). If there is a God who has full knowledge of our universe, has preordained what and when can be replayed in our spacetime, then that God must necessarily be a partial order (by elevating the same argument as the prior sentence to God’s existence) and thus only one of an unbounded numbers of such Gods, but then we’re back to the same conclusion as my prior sentence. Theologians might retort that God’s existence is beyond our comprehension; and thus why we prefer to retain a belief in a God as faith, not rationality.

In short, total orders can’t exist because they must contain themselves, but then they would not be total.

So tell me who is insane?! Certainly Bruce Charlton!

Yet it seems to bother us because we can’t fathom the meaning and context of our existence given reality is unbounded such that entropy trends inexorably to maximum.

Charlton fails because he attempts to use logic and rationality to argue for a faith. Faith is by definition a phenomenon that can’t have a rational basis.

Human nature (as it currently is structured) apparently however does need (some of) us to have idealistic faith as it is part of the cycle of our evolution as I alluded to earlier. In between Nihilism and overt/zealous faith, there’s various other philosophies such as conquest, cults, jihad, and/or preference for community good will and cooperation via some shared values or modicum of idealism.

My rejection of Nihilism is based on the irrelevance of an existence void of human (or at least other reasonably intelligent animal) interaction. In additional to the need for humans to cooperate/network for survival, competition, and resilience of the species, thinking animals have emotions which drive them to seek a connection to humanity (and other species). It’s quite logical simply from the standpoint that the relevance of our existence is quite stark (and lonely) without other humans.