 Show Posts
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 3 »
|
He was singled out by gangsters who have competing altcoin projects because they didn’t like his analysis which pointed out the flaws in their projects. Let’s see if he attempts to ban those who make criticisms of his project or if he addresses criticisms rationally and factually, admitting any lapses or errors. And singled out by some of the mods who don’t like a person who is confident. Also he was attempting to cross-link from the numerous duplicate threads on similar topics, in order to help readers gain some coherency of issues. The link above to Meta contains all the details for any readers who want to judge for themselves. Reviewing the link to Meta above, you were offended by his very profitable analysis about SegWit, which is presumably why you started attacking him personally (rather than debating the facts about SegWit, BCH, etc). You’re focused on his personality traits (and frankly picking on a man who was incredibly ill with Tuberculosis and MRI-confirmed cysts all over his liver, spleen, and kidney causing delirium and massive fatigue and so I hope you’re proud of your statements about his lack of productivity), not on his technical arguments and capabilities. I hope that works out as well for you, as his capabilities have worked out for him. The proof is in the pudding Sir. (note as for the picking on a man who he was gravely ill, then telling him “despite the fact he's a grown man responsible for his own actions”, that’s not very masculine. If you’re really AnonyMint’s elder, then you shouldn’t be talking smack, because much elder than him is when men decline significantly in all athletic metrics. I mean you don’t see Lebron James talking smack and then not showing up face-to-face to test his masculinity. It’s analogous to not being very masculine to pick on crippled kids instead of other men who are at your competitive level. IOW, grow up and stop the feminine bitching/trolling from behind the safety of the Internet. As @r0ach explained, that is what females do is run away and hide while the men fight to death to see which man can go impregnate her. Men talk for analyzing and to do important actions.) The forum has some “know-it-alls” who are flippantly offended by expertise, without first doing their own research to confirm their often erroneous, presumptuous flippant judgments. And gangsters who for example use a person’s chronic illness(es) to attack a person’s reputation, expertise, and skill level. Whatever. In any case, the point remains there will be no direct communication here because of that outcome. Let it rest, can’t you? If we could, we would close this thread, because its underhanded to ban someone then continue a derogatory thread where he can no longer defend himself. AnonyMint is not the victim. He is the victor. I’m just responding to @d5000 about why there will not be official updates on this subforum where a certain mod runs the show. And congratulations for yet again managing to destroy productivity by inciting a necessarily long-winded, detailed rebuttal. You’re so expert at that. Which is yet another reason to not have official communications here where the moderation and curation features are not sufficiently sophisticated and decentralized (i.e. a self-moderated thread is not objective, but an unmoderated thread has no curation, and that is why AnonyMint proposed a better alternative in Meta which he is now implementing). In a decentralized moderation/curation paradigm, I would simply mark your uselessly inflammatory/truculent post as unproductive and then everyone that trusts my curation decisions would not by default see your post. They could still turn off the filter if they wanted to see all the noise and check to make sure they still trust my curation decisions. And no one would be required to choose me as their curation filter. And then the math/algorithm for making those choices automatic. There are 100s of more good ideas like that in AnonyMint’s brain. |
|
|
|
There are updates if you’re resourceful enough to look. Wow... there are lot of OG's in this thread
AnonyMint isn’t allowed to have an official user account on this forum site BCT to give you the information directly. He is permabanned ( archived) for telling the truth too often about flaws in projects and correctly predicting LTC from $6 to $300 and other such transgressions. He was banned for breaking the forum rules. but go ahead and continue making him out to be a victim despite the fact he's a grown man responsible for his own actions. Yeah we see the “I’m the defender of absolute truth” button pinned to your lapel, did you become oblivious to your own short-sightedness. How exactly do you think you’re helping the situation? What Christian productivity are you helping enable or are you stirring up trouble? The quoted link to Meta above contains his responses to that allegation, including your condescending/presumptuous attitude from back then on clear display. I moved the rest of this post to Meta where it belongs, which elaborates on why there will be no official updates in this subforum (and to avoid BCT as a community building medium due to the highly dysfunctional trolling and unproductive “get rich quick” focus).
i think it should be around $7000 - $8000 strong demand will hold the crash
Based on what? Last time it went all the way down to around break even ($200) for miners despite people like you saying.. oh.. it will never go under 500. Oh.. There's strong demand and it won't go under $400.. blah blah blah. No one knows shit and it can make it's all the way back down again which, after the halving is probably now around $400-$600. Why? Cause as long as it is slowly going down (which is what happened last time), people lose interest and leave the market. The vast majority are looking to get rich over night and don't have what it takes to wait it out over some years. OMG you’re sooo expert and deservedly arrogant/smug? Umm, what if there’s more confidence now that Bitcoin is really a thing people all over the world see as real, unlike in 2013 when it was some toy that could just go poof at any time. The HODL demand is more intense by now. See the flattening of the regression fit chart. The majority (which are the greater fools) create the overshoots to the upside and downside, but the core HODL demand increases as adoption broadens. Duh. |
|
|
|
hahaha ... roach getting pwnd on monetary science by anonymint!! cryptos brings out all the weirdos that's for sure ... goldbugs actually do not like free markets for money after all, they prefer the rubber glove of gubmint agents from wall st up their backsides.
With respect, not all physical gold advocates prefer interference from .gov nor Wall St. I highly value some some cryptos as well as gold. Having great respect for free markets is no way incompatible with liking BTC and/or Au.Perhaps his implication was about my (quotes of Armstrong’s) point that all the claims about gold being long-term manipulated to suppress its true value are claims about indicators which can also be manipulated or which have free market justifications for their indications which have nothing to do with suppressing gold. There’s no firm basis to conclude that gold is manipulated long-term, i.e. free markets instead must be assumed. It’s documented (by Armstrong first-hand such as the Buffett case with silver in the late 1990s) that markets can be short-term manipulated wherein the “NY bankers” for example try to trade against their own clients, but this can be to the upside as well as downside and only short-term (as Armstrong has documented and explained). Your valuation of gold is presumably (given prior statements in this thread) based on the belief that it has always been money and always will be money (i.e. could be handed down to the children and grandchildren as a family heirloom), but that is historically false. Better forms of money come along and render the prior forms useless as money, e.g. sheepskins, shells, slabs of iron/bronze used to all be money. Gold was more compact, transportable and more fungible than the aforementioned antiquated forms of money. Paper money was even more so, but could be created willy-nilly by various nation-state regimes. Now crypto is even more so and adds the inability for any one nation-state to corrupt it’s invariants (e.g. protocol programmed money supply). And I’m (and I presume others are) working on even further improving the decentralized invariance of ledgers. Technology doesn’t stop moving forward just to accommodate old people who still think the world is flat. If we’re very lucky gold might go to $5000 at most (Bitcoin already raced past gold and is going to a $million by 2024 or so), and then we have to hope that governments won’t target those with large holdings of gold as terrorists (and/or blame them for the financial collapse 1) when they try to sell at that price. If you don't sell such as the peak in 1979/80, then you ride gold down for decades as interest rates peak and a new bond bubble forms. And also I think the next bear market for precious metals will take them down towards irrelevance because of the advent of decentralized ledgers. It’s just time. Precious metals are nearly finished in human history. To all readers, we’re at the cusp of a major shift in the monetary history of the world. Get on the train or be left behind. Afaics, all forms of fungible physical money are becoming defunct, including gold. Gold will become just like any other physical asset equivalent to real estate. It will no longer be effectively movable, because no one will be willing to buy it without paying tracked electronic money for it in exchange which of course the governments can then tax, confiscate, and restrict movement same as for real estate. Barter isn’t coming back. Gold will become trinkets for fondling and gazing, like jewelry, gaudy gold trim such as at the Trump executive suites. | 1 | We are bringing this model back into play because there are rising concerns among our European clients that if they hedge against the decline of the Euro and government bonds in the EU when the collapse unfolds, they will be targeted for undermining the government. The way to avoid this and be “politically correct” traders, is to once again create synthetics correlated with time.
With the hostility in Europe eliminating the ability to short government bonds in a pathetic attempt to prevent the collapse of the EU bond market, it is paramount that we resurrect our synthetic models in order to be “politically correct” in trading what will no doubt turn into a witch-hunt once again.
|
  When and if the SHTF, then if your comfy coin dealers are not able to service you, then you will depend on the innate liquidity of precious metals, meaning what the common person thinks of them. I suggest you go stand at the mall and try to give away a 1oz silver coin at $10 under spot as some guy did at numerous locations in the USA and nobody was interested to pay $10 for a 1oz silver coin. He was standing right in front of a coin dealer and even told them they could check the spot price inside. The masses do not think gold and silver are currency. Get a fucking clue. As cited in my OP, those who have experience economic and social collapse first-hand, have stated that only food, security, medicine, and sin goods are liquid during that scenario. Also any liquid currency that people know they can very readily exchange externally to the collapsed region. Precious metals (especially silver dimes!) don't qualify. Tinfoil hat wearing goldbug idiots are thinking that people will accept their coins in barter. Never going to happen dude. Get a fucking clue about reality. You also are closed-minded because you are wearing a tinfoil hat (as I used to do) and thus you are blindly married to the concept in which you are vested. […] Edit: Selling a 10 oz Silver Bar for $10 (When It's Worth $160) - EXPERIMENT -Selling 1 Oz Gold Coin for $25 (when it's worth over $1,500)Buying a 99¢ Taco with 1 Ounce Gold Coin (worth over $1000) - from Taco Bell's Drive-ThroughFree $5 Bill or Free Silver Dollar? It's Up To You <--- make sure you listen at 1:30 to the guy who knows the spot price but still won't take the silver dollar! |
|
|
|
I am confused: is Blocklattice the same as RaiBlocks?
Yes afaik it’s the same design. They changed the name based on that post I linked for you where AnonyMint had made them aware of the Rai concept that Vitalik had written about. Afaics, they’re releasing a design that was thoroughly debunked in order to grab the money from n00b speculators. |
|
|
|
Well argued and articulated. The USA is not an island and there’s a lot of bad guys with guns and that won’t change even if the good guys give up their guns, because the problem is too vast. Europe may become more familiar with this predicament if they continue importing millions of rapefugees. When a bad guy is pointing or shooting a gun in a life threatening manner, it’s not manslaughter to defend oneself. QUESTION: Mr. Armstrong; Here in Germany, one obvious consequence of the refugee migration has been that wages are declining for low-end jobs. I believe you had said that would be a consequence of the refugee crisis. Do you see this spreading throughout Europe?
ANSWER: It is only common sense that if you increase the labor force in the low-end unskilled area, wages must decline. Every study that has ever been conducted on this issue has shown that is the logical consequence. This is indeed what caused the riots in Philadelphia against the Irish. Wages declines in the midst of a depression. Yes this trend will spread throughout the EU.
Also survivalism and rugged independence is still a core value amongst some Americans. Remember we needed our guns and militias to protect ourselves from illegal taxation and oppression by your King. We’re descended from the concept of independence and individualism. And we have a history of war against natives, British, Mexicans, North vs. South, and probably another civil war coming soon of extremist leftist cities versus extremist conservative rural areas. Western Europeans are tired of fighting after 2000 years of it. The Americans aren’t quite done yet. Simple. Because Brits are descended from a monarchy system as contrasted against Americans who are descended from a republic and the struggle for independence from the monarchy. Many Americans view guns as a patriotic duty. Brits view themselves as placated servants to the queen (in the abstract culturally they do). In short, some Americans are still prepared to kick ass when the time comes.
|
|
|
|
Just because you may have registered a shady domain with the same name first doesn’t mean you have the exclusive rights for the name CRED. You don’t even have a working website or product.
I think you fail to understand who AnonyMint is and the scope of his project will likely overwhelm in popular usage anything this narrow project Verify will ever achieve (not unless perhaps in a very unlikely scenario Amazon decided to accept cryptocurrencies and selected Verify as their reputation service, but even I think that would be mostly hype and not enough people would buy on Amazon with cryptocurrency at this time, although that might be viable some years from now yet then one would assume Amazon would create its own reputation service). And the CRED project has been in research and development for years. You can do what ever you want, it won’t change the fact that we own the CRED name as both the project name and the token name because our project will have orders-of-magnitude more users and exposure than yours. I was attempting to make a friendly suggestion that you consider changing your token name to REPS avoid causing confusion at the exchanges. You (and the exchanges who host you) could end up getting sued later perhaps by our users in a class action lawsuit who are pissed off that your selling them tokens (on exchanges) which are not usable for our project. Or who knows what our attorneys may advise later. So it might be best for you to bite-the-bullet and make the change sooner than later (that is if your project is serious about being around a year or two from now, but I doubt that as well). Frankly I think we’re probably in entirely different markets not only w.r.t. the scope and features of our respective projects, but also because Verify is likely primarily targeting speculators first before users; whereas, our CRED project is targeting users and not speculators. And there will be actual teeth behind this claim to make it provably so. Your project is supposed to be a serious, objective reputation service for merchants. Reputation is a quality attained by widespread acceptance. So you should be using REPS and not credibility which is more informal, can vary based on localized, subjective persuasion, and associated with street cred where it fits better with our project (e.g. we will have decentralized curation/moderation wherein credibility can vary for different sets of users). Also who knows you may possibly end up doing very well with your project by piggybacking on ours, so why are you trying to make enemies? Even look at the title of this thread says, “Verify - The Future of Reputation” not “Verify - The Future of Credibility”. You can clearly see that the word credibility doesn’t describe your project well. Be consistent and use a token name that matches the words you use to describe your main feature, and stop infringing our project and token name (which are consistent and well matched to our project theme). cred·i·bil·i·ty
ˌkredəˈbilədē/
noun
the quality of being trusted and believed in.
the quality of being convincing or believable.
another term for street credibility.
rep·u·ta·tion
ˌrepyəˈtāSH(ə)
noun
the beliefs or opinions that are generally held about someone or something.
a widespread belief that someone or something has a particular habit or characteristic.
You’ve been sent a friendly notice at the earliest time that we became aware of your use of our project and token name, for your token name. Btw, are you a member of the project team or just some random supporter that we should ignore?
don’t forget Ethereum was also an ICO.
You’re not Ethereum. You’re one of some 100s of ERC-20 token ICO metoocoins with a niche idea and whitepaper, extracting money from speculators for a common enterprise, which makes it a security subject securities regulations in the USA, Asia, and soon in Europe with MiFiDII: There’s no way we’re going to let you waste the CRED token name on that, given we owned it before you starting infringing and our plans are vast and have been in place for a long-time. And we’ve already used the CRED token name, you just aren’t aware of it. Lol get the fuck out of here.
The gangster tone is not befitting a professional project.
I'm nowhere stating that CRED is Ethereum, just debunking your argument where you state that ICO-issued project will not survive in two years.
Read more carefully. I wrote “ERC-20 ICO-issued”, not “ICO-issued”. And that’s a very important distinction which is covered in detail in the linked threads I provided. ERC-20 means you can issue a pre-functional token fairly easily with nearly no open source community (at the time of the launch or within a short time thereafter) and other aspects that might make issuance instead a utility token or otherwise side-step the Howey test. go to their website and contact the owner or sue them
I’ll presume they read this thread or have been alerted by their community who do. Yet we’ll also alert them through their other channels of communication. I’ll also presume their attorneys are capable of understanding the implications of investing heavily in a token name which is later subjecting the principals of the project to potential liability. As I said, our post here was only to serve notice that we will not stop of our use of the CRED name for both our project and token. And suggesting this could possibly lead to problems for them in the future, which they might wish to avoid. And suggesting that REPS is better fit to their theme of reputation. Obviously we’re not at the point right now of suing anybody nor wishing to do so. Trying to suggest amicable resolution. It’s up to them obviously how they want to respond or not at this juncture. I presume they’re only interested in the short-term extraction of speculators money and so I presume they don’t care about the long-term outcome. They probably presume they’ll be long gone by them any way. So as I said in my first post, I think the market may resolve this naturally. We’ll see… Lol you’re pathetic. I’m just saying that because registrering a domain doesn’t mean you have the exclusive right for a name first.
The first thing we do before deciding if a name can be ours to use, is to see if we can register the major domains and see if there we any recent registrations for the applicable domains which would indicate some other project may be using the same name. Because being aware of potential future conflicts ahead of time is important for planning and decisions. If they had done this, maybe they would have decided to use REPS from the start instead. Additionally the issue here for trademark law (copyright is the not the correct law for name protection) is establishing preponderance of public awareness for a particular target market. If our target markets don’t overlap such that users don’t get confused, typically there can be no trademark issue. Yet if our use of CRED totally dominates public awareness, yet they’re selling CRED tokens to our confused users on exchanges, then they would be the infringing party regardless of the dispute about who claimed the name first. So that is why I suggested that if they intend to still be on the exchanges 1 – 2 years from now, they might want to contemplate the implications and consider whether a change now to REPS might be a better strategy. If they instead wait too long, maybe some other project grabs REPS, then they could get squeezed by our more popular adoption and having not a good alternative to switch to if trademark lawsuits come later due to exchanges confusion. The exchanges within our legal reach aren’t going to be offering our token any way (by our design), so we wouldn’t care if they were listed as CRED on exchanges except for the conflict will be, if any, that if our users are mistakenly assuming they can buy our tokens on exchanges and then getting pissed off at Verify for selling our users something they can’t use in our project. Perhaps the confusion will be minimal. I dunno. We’ll see… Thus, I can conclude you’re also apparently ignorant of the law. Just saying, get the fuck out of the CRED topic, bringing a negative vibe. And if you really have a problem with CRED then normally a smart person would contact the owner itself, not via a forum lol. Ask them directly or sue them directly.
We have hereby provided notice officially in the most popular forum for altcoin announcements and discussion. This is a necessary action so that a date of first public notice is established. Since 2015, AnonyMint has been quite negative on ICO-issued projects that violate securities and/or FinCEN/AML regulations. A forum is for speaking openly about analyses. The regulators have begun to take actions all over the world on ICOs and this will increase. They can’t shutdown every exchange in every third world country, but they can go after the principals of the projects who reside in G20 countries for example. IMO a huge clawback and crypto winter is coming for those projects which flaunted the law, even if they had legal counsel advising them that they could side-step based on some invalid theory or jurisdictional arbitrage. It’s a very complicated subject matter though, so we’ll have to see what transpires on that front. Nevertheless, I presume 99% of the ERC-20 token offerings are “get rick quick scams” for the insiders. But moreover, I can basically assume this project is BS because they have a fundamental hen-egg problem with scaling. They can’t scale merchant adoption of reputation services by being a (one of eventually dozens of) 3rd party(ies) to the decentralized ledger trying to aggregate customers and merchants. Rather the reputation problem needs to be solved by the officially sanctioned decentralized ledger protocol itself for a popular decentralized ledger. So that economic reality further weighs into the consideration of whether Verify’s token is truly a utility token and not a speculative security. OTOH, they appear to have some capable people on the team, so it may not be all a mirage, but I still think they'll fail to scale it. There’s other issues I see with the project concept, but I’d rather not expend my time writing it all down. And by the way, i’m not working for CRED in any matter. I don’t even have CRED lol. I’m just following the project because i see its true potential. But found it very funny to see such dumb people on the internet thinking they know everything.
Yeah like you think you know everything: https://gist.github.com/shelby3/e0c36e24344efba2d1f0d650cd94f1c7When CRED launches its correct solution to the above issue of how to scale decentralized which Bitcoin, Ethereum, EOS, Iota and all others have not and will not be able to solve, do you even grasp that it’s on an entire other level than this niche reputation project Verify. Note Bitnumb is apparently just a troll with a gangster attitude and not a representative of the Verify project, so he has been put on Ignore. |
|
|
|
Some of you were asking upthread about RaiBlocks: RaiBlocks:RaiBlocks is a highly flawed design that was debunked by experts ( including @gmaxwell Gregory Maxwell Core Bitcoin developer) in 2015 as linked below. Heck Vitalik and AnonyMint even helped them think of the name change from Blocklattice to RaiBlocks. […]
Does Armstrong read this thread? See his latest blog today quoted below: Money is an information system that enables cooperation and civilization. The quantity theory of money is wrong, wrong, wrong at many different levels of analysis.
I am most interested in your revisionist view of QTM. You debunk QTM frequently within broader topic discussions, but I’d love for you to address QTM by itself in a historical context.
You're arguing both pro-statist and anti-statist for the same point.
My analysis is like 3D chess. You’re still stuck in one dimensional (one degree-of-freedom) analysis. It is by no means a one-dimensional economy. This is global and we are all connected.
|
|
|
|
There are updates if you’re resourceful enough to look. Wow... there are lot of OG's in this thread
AnonyMint isn’t allowed to have an official user account on this forum site BCT to give you the information directly. He is permabanned ( archived) for telling the truth too often about flaws in projects and correctly predicting LTC from $6 to $300 and other such transgressions. |
|
|
|
@thejaytiesto, since you asked me in a private message then here is what you need to know: RaiBlocks is a highly flawed design that was debunked by experts (including @gmaxwell Gregory Maxwell Core Bitcoin developer) in 2015: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2672512.msg28733469#msg28733469Several old timers have been messaging me asking for AnonyMint’s analysis. It’s linked above from 2015.
The last addition of the hype before RaiBlocks that I saw was Hashgraph, which is being sold now as "the bitcoin killer" by youtuber-pumpers:
They’re all trying to capitalize on the theme of thread you started about AnonyMint’s project a year ago: Do you think "iamnotback" really has the" Bitcoin killer"?
But none of them have the design that AnonyMint has up his sleeve. |
|
|
|
RaiBlocks:RaiBlocks is a highly flawed design that was debunked by experts ( including @gmaxwell Gregory Maxwell Core Bitcoin developer) in 2015 as linked below. Heck Vitalik and AnonyMint even helped them think of the name change from Blocklattice to RaiBlocks. I heard about raiblocks for quite sometime, and many people told me how profitable it would be in future.
Fast forward to 2016, I dont see a single discussion about Raiblocks. Why is that?
Is raiblocks gone?
Tl;dr - what happened to raiblocks?
Because you didn't listen to TPTB's (i.e. @AnonyMint's) technical analysis of RaiBlocks: This design was already discussed and there are serious doubts about its viability: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1219264.0I find it deceiving that the lead developer did not reference the prior thread in his OP. And has created new threads to spam the Altcoin Discussion forum (ostensibly to bury the above linked serious technical analysis). Also in my opinion, you are fundamentally responsible for being your own block emitter. If you want to spend a cryptocurrency you obtained, and your blocks have not propagated enough you may need to provide the store with a large packet containing all the blocks/chains necessary to fully trace the inputs to your transaction for validation.
...
Thank you for your input. I look forward to hearing your design.
Your design is not secure in terms of all nodes (users' chains) seeing a consistent ordering, because the set of possibilities is unbounded and you can't disprove a negative in an unbounded universe. It is covered in my whitepaper. Raiblocks already invented what you did, and they tried to arrive at consensus with voting but @monsterer and I explained why that was flawed.Because it's the coin that comes closest to removing middlemen while still failing and being a scam:
Iota didn’t come any closer than anything else. I challenged CfB to remove the centralized Coordinator (or any obfuscation of it) and afaik they haven’t because they can’t. The consensus will not converge without it. You've got altcoins out there with $billions mcaps which are entirely BS technobabble including RaiBlocks.
|
|
|
|
For our ignored tinfoil hat and his reliance on manipulated “manipulation indicators” for detecting manipulation he alleges exists: The oldest game in town is manipulating inventories. Commodities can be stored at many places, but only selected facilities are on the reporting list. During the famous Buffet Silver scandal of 1997-1998, to justify taking silver up in price they had to make the inventories appear to decline. The easy way to do that was simple. Buffet bought the silver but in the London market – not COMEX. Thus, the silver was moved from New York to London and then everyone touted silver was in short supply as if it had been consumed like wheat.
The advice I use to provide to Japan to help reduce the trade friction was to buy gold in New York and sell it in London. The trade numbers could care less about the product actually being exported. It will reduce the trade deficit and make it appear that the US exports are rising. It is just an accounting ploy.
Institutions NEED income – and the only way to get income is to lease it [gold] out. But then the gold promoters misunderstand that and see it [the leasing in futures markets] as oppressing gold. They cannot get their mind around other people think differently and have different needs.
There is a difference between institutional and individual investment. Institutions cannot buy gold bullion for they need regular income. Those entities in the business or cannot lend money for interest based upon religion, lease gold to generate income of a fixed asset. This is not some sinister plot.
This is the same nonsense spread about “paper gold” and futures are evil. The futures market has been around since Babylonian days. A farmer has the risk of growing a crop and then not knowing what the price the market will be. He sells his crop for FUTURE delivery. Yes, technically, it does not yet exist. That does not suppress the price. It creates a viable market by eliminate the risk to grow the crop. For a miner, they will not mine even gold unless they know they can sell it yes for paper money.
Leasing gold allows someone to own it and earn money. Otherwise, gold pays no income or interest and would be a dead asset. This is why institutions cannot buy gold for they need income. Many people lease gold to own it but have to have some income from that money. This is not “paper gold” intent upon suppressing the market. Without the futures market, gold would not be traded and it would shrink from any viable international status. It would become indistinguishable from rhodium or another untradable metal.
It is NOT fractional banking that is the problem. Listen to some of these people rant and rave about fractional banking and you see how uneducated they truly are about finance. If you ended this system, the entire world economy would end. All real estate would collapse for how can there be a mortgage? You retirement fund would vanish. Nothing would exist economically. Like paper gold they usually also want to end, you would quickly see gold would lose all value if there is no market to trade. Stocks are more LIQUID than real estate BECAUSE there is a central place to trade. Eliminate “paper gold” and you eliminate the ability to trade and then gold would lose its liquidity and thus its value.
Now let’s talk reality. The Gold backwardation is simply nothing more than the collapse in interest rates as capital lost faith in banks and then the Sovereign Debt Crisis began with Greece in 2010. Much of the liquidity that came to gold in the early years was OPEC money. It had absolutely nothing to do with gold. The problem was OPEC was getting all this cash, but religiously they could not earn interest. Thus, I took clients and showed them if we bought gold and sold it forward we were earning the effective interest rate but it was called the “carrying cost”. Backwardation in this case is not indicative of any shortage whatsoever or a collapse in “trust” of the dollar. The dollar has been rising! Just look at German interest rates on short-term paper went negative by 0.6%. This has NOTHING to do with fiat and people losing faith in paper money –yada, yada, yada. If that were true, interest rates would not COLLAPSE, they would SOAR because people would not trust government bonds and they would have to pay up. The flight to quality would reverse into PRIVATE assets as it did even during the German Hyperinflation.
Gold is a tangible store of wealth to make the transition from the present to the future monetary system. It is not going to $30,000 creating false images of getting rich quick. It is not that “fiat” money always collapses – it does not. If you were waiting for the end of the dollar since 1971, that is more than half your lifetime. Asia has had nothing but fiat monetary systems where the emperor, the hand of God on earth, simply issued a bronze or iron coin and said this is valued at – w,y,z. Regardless of what money has been, it is ALWAYS a confidence game.
Buy gold because it is an INSURANCE policy against the transition. It is distinguished because it is MOVABLE, from classes such as real estate that are IMMOVABLE. The problem emerging with gold is government is out to track every ounce and tax any sale. They are trying to eradicate the underground economy.
Gold is not in permanent backwardation. You obviously never heard of carrying costs that are related to the interest rate. Nothing is EVER permanent. Stop the idiotic explanations. You cannot point to a single relationship in history that is ever permanent except stupidity. Just like the propaganda that silver is suppress and it will soar to 16:1 because that is where it use to be. Good one.
“Isn’t the Comex just a price suppression scheme as the volume is usually 50% to 100% of open interest?” That is up there with communism. We just answered that in the Swiss press that published the Socialists who claim that commodities are higher than they should be because of speculation and therefore all futures markets should be closed to eliminate speculation. This is the pinnacle of pure stupidity. Every study shows that markets reduce volatility and the price of a commodity is stabilized by creating a market. If there was no COMEX, the price of gold would be far less because you could not sell it without a market. I was a market-maker. All the stores buying gold would not have existed if they could not have sold what the bought from the public, someone refined that jewelry, and then resold it into COMEX.
Is there gold in Fort Knox? That question is completely irrelevant. Why? Will it really make a difference? The stories of no gold in the vault are just spun by people so desperate to support a gold bull market it is just crazy. I was given a tour of the NY Fed years ago and there was gold there. The US started going after the Swiss and threatening to seize their assets here in the USA for hiding Americans with assets. Without fanfare, the Swiss quietly took ALL their gold and moved it out of the USA.
|
|
|
|
Anonymint, why are you jacking off about craptocurrency […] How the fuck is this "the decentralized knowledge age"?
Oh please, you are clearly going down the same path as the socialists/communists.
So the Internet has not benefited the human species  The Internet enabled no decentralization whatsoever? All technology creates is socialism and communism? Nonsense. Lol, you can't handle the truth of what your malfunction is, can you?
The Internet is only about malfunctions of technology? Nonsense again. @r0ach (aka @realr0ach) put on Ignore for having too low of an IQ (or personality traits which render his IQ to extreme myopia, absolutism, and Ludditism) to be worth having a discussion with and for slandering my reputation with his conflation of the facts. End of discussion. I have work to do. He’s conflating unrelated concepts. Socialism and communism require politics. The Internet may participate in socialism and communism but that’s not their only function and impact. The technological designs I’m working on posit to ameliorate the politics of consensus. That’s the entire point of seeking decentralized ledgers. Bitcoin even if ultimately controlled by global elite from behind the mining curtain, is in effect providing more degrees-of-freedom (i.e. less political morass) than nation-state political morasses (which Bitcoin side-steps and disintermediates). Yet I’m repeating myself. That was already explained to him. @r0ach is a Luddite. IMO @sidhujag is vindicated on his characterization of @r0ach being disingenuous in discussion. I tried my best. Respectful disagreement is acceptable. But it is not acceptable, the slandering by mischaracterizing another person’s philosophy and intentions, with his logical errors. It’s trolling. I place greater than 50% odds that @r0ach is greater than 60 years old, perhaps 70s or 80s. |
|
|
|
Society is unwilling to allow some lazy fat cats sitting on gold doing nothing while extracting all the production from society in the form of deflation!
Except that isn't even a problem in the first place. If gold does not circulate, the value of the silver circulating just replaces it's market cap by proxy. If the silver doesn't circulate, there's a shit ton of copper so it's never been past that point. Ah you’re right back to legal tender again and have solved nothing. The nation-states (and local politics) can continue to subjugate their citizens to seigniorage and fiat. Did you forget the silver politics in the USA that bankrupted the country (JP Morgan had to bail out the USA). Physical money can’t cross borders on a photon-based communications line! How dumb are you that you can’t comprehend this? Globalized monetary competition (aka jurisdictional arbitrage) has more degrees-of-freedom thus more potential energy. Bitcoin is not exempt from the Ted Kaczynski rule.
Citing an insane, sociopath, anti-civilization, uncooperative person exemplifies who you are. Go live in the isolated forest and take your metal with you. Do not trade with the rest of civilization. Go try what you really want, which is to live like a caveman. Society is never going back to using physical metals as a unit-of-exchange in commerce. |
|
|
|
Anonymint, why are you jacking off about craptocurrency when they are clearly just recreating the exact same usury systems all over again? How the fuck is this "the decentralized knowledge age"? Or do you not agree with my analysis that bitcoin is in fact based on usury?:
@r0ach goldbugs are myopic absolutists that forever dream to live in a perfect world that can’t exist. They never think through the ramifications of what they want and compare the alternatives. Friction always exists, for without it the past and future would be undifferentiated and we could not exist (everything would happen at the same spacetime and we couldn’t perceive any differentiation of past and future). Usury and proof-of-work are just forms of friction. What makes them somewhat less optimal is that some centralized entity is able to aggregate/leverage/funnel that friction into centralized power. Yet the power-law distribution is a fact of nature. It’s actually required (but I won’t go too deep into that because the explanation will become too abstract, theoretical, and complex). Yet w.r.t. to fungibility and consensus systems, a centralized power may be necessary to enforce and prevent disintegration into chaotic disagreement (e.g. forkathons with competing double-spends). You may argue that gold is fungible without any centralized power, but the centralized power facet enters at the level of the alternative choices civilization has for stored monetary value representation and the wars and disagreements those choices cause. Society is unwilling to allow some lazy fat cats sitting on gold doing nothing while extracting all the production from society in the form of deflation! That is why the money supply must increase (either via creating more of the same unit-of-account or alternatives becoming available). Money is an information system that enables cooperation and civilization. The quantity theory of money is wrong, wrong, wrong at many different levels of analysis. So what role do the forks and the forkers play within your model specifically?
The forks have not displaced Bitcoin 1 as the reserve of the cryptocurrency ecosystem, nor stopped the progression of cryptocurrency in its disintermediation of nation-state currency and banking systems. It’s not clear yet which technology will provide transactional cryptocurrency to the masses, and whether this will be a global unit-of-exchange or will the nation-states succeed in requiring national currencies for all transactions within their borders. I posit nation-states will have to forsake control over globalized transactions, such as those on the Internet especially those involving transactions (especially microtransactions) between international parties. 1 I believe Satoshi’s protocol has not been displaced. Some people are transacting on a protocol that can be double-spent back to Satoshi’s protocol in the future[next crypto winter]. Greater fools always have to be raped by the market. That’s the way markets function. |
|
|
|
Of course Mnuchin is lying about Ft Knox. […] Russians and the BoE are clearly stacking silver too: How befitting that the hi-tech USA offloaded the dying industrial age and the barbaric relic gold on Russia and China. Or someone may wish to bluff and make the world think that acquiring gold is some strategic advantage, so the compartmentalized central banks are focused on gold while they’re disintemediated by permissionless (no third party because nobody controls them) decentralized ledger technology. Now even if we presume that Bitcoin is ultimately controlled by TPTB, for all extents and purposes until they exert that control in a way that causes third-party risk, then Bitcoin is permissionless without trust risk and thus superior to gold (and additionally because no one can prove who is in control or if mining is centrally controlled, because mining is more or less anonymous). And obviously if their goal is creative destruction of the nation-state politics that causes them to have to maintain 170+ central-banks, they won’t exert any such control until the 666 stage of Revelation which comes after the 10 Kings stage (i.e. 10 regional currencies and economic unions instead of nation-states) and the disintermediation of the central banks. Because any way, TPTB also control gold (via their control/influence over the DEEP STATE from behind the curtain) as has been explained to you. Another facet is that it has been shown that Bitcoin requires an oligarchy to form, else it will no longer converge on consensus as the transaction fees become significant relative to programmed block reward. Thus even if we posit that the global elite are not cooperating nor in control, then they must or a victor must form, else Bitcoin will eventually fork off into chaos. Yet we require the same about gold and the formation of a new monetary reset with a new reserve standard (that someone must take control to make the choice and enforce it). So one way or the other, some oligarchy must enforce order, else we end up in a Dark Age. But as I pointed out, the route to a new reserve standard via gold is impossible (you’ll end up with a scorched earth nuclear-bombs WW3 as the superpowers battle it out over due to collapsing economics and war-politics during massive deflation for which asset or mix of assets should be the reserve and who should oversee and control that)! Whereas, Bitcoin is virally replacing the world’s banking systems without any need for top-down political coordination. Bitcoin is a market-based solution to an otherwise intractable globalization political problem. As @CoinCube had explained, globalism is all about maximizing coordination so that on the local level humans have more degrees-of-freedom and so the knowledge age can proceed. As he also explained, there’s no such thing as 100% decentralization, which is what would be required for @r0ach’s (goldbug’s) theories about gold to be true. As Armstrong has explained many times, every form of fungible money is a fiat, even gold. It’s human greed, lust for power, and idolization of fungible stored monetary value which may lead them into the 666, while the non-fungible knowledge age provides an outlet for those who choose it. At the generative essence, for example the feminist politics is just non-meritorious greed and lust for power and the manipulation of religion/philosophy to accomplish such. Gold is not at all involved in this decentralization of information. It’s analogous to the comparison of the value of mechanically crushed gravel compared to etched silicon. The intellectual property component of the valuation is orders-of-magnitude differentiated. @r0ach (@realr0ach) why can’t you comprehend that purely monetary stored value is dying, because the industrial age and fixed capital investment is dying. Why can’t you comprehend my essay, “Rise of Knowledge, Demise of Finance”? You’re as myopic as the Luddites, who couldn’t accept that technology had changed the economics from their antiquated, truculent understanding of the world. |
|
|
|
The fact central banks hold them is due to the free market already sorting out what is and isn't useful over the course of thousands of years […] It's already a given that the peg will be gold […] It appears the US doesn't actually have much if any gold in Ft Knox
Lol, the Zionists have you hoodwinked as designed. Carry on. Double-down on your silver bet please. Most of us “crypto shills” here will be laughing our heads off later. You’re only a 25 bagger (2500% relative loss) behind already. Trump’s cabinet are lying about Fort Knox? And btw, there’s more gold supposed to be stored at the NY Fed, than Fort Knox, and Germany recently completed repatriation of their gold from the NY Fed. if they don't want you to use metals, you should go along with that
Somehow you didn’t get from my comments the intended meaning that the Zionists want you to stack precious metals. It’s a trap. You’re apparently experiencing cognitive dissonance while reading my shocking posts. You're arguing both pro-statist and anti-statist for the same point.
My analysis is like 3D chess. You’re still stuck in one dimensional (one degree-of-freedom) analysis. Now you're trying to cut and paste different sentences together to try and make them mean different things
No, I’m just trying to simplify which excerpts are relevant to respond to as tersely as possible, so I can leave this discussion with minimum additional verbiage. I’ve already made my arguments clear enough. Debate is complete. You’re entirely free to think what ever you want, and lose your relative wealth. Enjoy. I have no desire to carry the debate forward or ever restart it with you again. Go ahead and spread your views and ridicule mine as you wish. I tried my best to help you with edification. I did my part. IMO, you’ve been so mind programmed by the goldbug propaganda lies, that you’re incapable of escaping the cognitive dissonance. |
|
|
|
And that is why they created and planted Bitcoin as a surreptitious creative destruction of the nation-state central banking system with the USD as the reserve
This just doesn't make sense to me. Who is They. If They are elites that's controlling the human population, making bitcoin just don't make sense because they can't control it fully, and from bitcoin so many other coins have been created that's even more private and secure. I think you're assuming too much here. I believe bitcoin was created by someone that was sick of the corrupted financial system, and wants to great something that can free people from it. To avoid a long-detailed reply which repeats what I’ve written dozens of times before, presumably I know a lot more about anonymity technology and decentralized ledger technology in general than you or Theymos likely ever will. There’s no practical, provably reliable anonymity which the national security agencies can’t break (due to meta data, out-of-band issues, etc). But that’s besides the point. The banksters have never been able to control where a leaf falls on your lawn for example, yet that doesn’t prevent their control of central banking and usury from affording them vast control over our institutions from behind the curtain. They have to manage the continual evolution of technology and their power. I could debate/discuss you with you further, but it would be a waste of my scarce time. You have a lot of reading to do. AnonyMint’s archives are 20,000+ posts. I’ll talk to you in a few months after you read it all and caught up. And your presumably layman’s understanding of computer programming and large systems programming would cause you to believe that a smart individual in their garage could conceive+design+vet the economics, game theory, and code for Bitcoin while also managing all communication about Bitcoin. And an expert such as myself sighs. Okay guys. I’m not going to load this damn forum for a while. Have fun with the thread. Can’t make a point and leave without having to defend old points over and over and over again. Understandable. |
|
|
|
|
