And I see such event as the end of the world. The world which well known for us. Ahead of this - Terra Incognita. Wars, chaos and then new world will born. Full matrix reset.
This is my vision.
Full reset and chaos means nobody will be maintaining and cooling the 500 nuclear plants worldwide, including the fuel pools. Only Cher and Keith Richards would suvive. Nastrovje! |
|
|
|
Guess what happens when a bubble really pops? It goes back to where it was before... which was sub $30. Before GOX manipulated the market.
Some days before, you gave a chance of 10% that it will go to sub 50.- And now? I still see a lot of blahblah; 'predictions' without dates. |
|
|
|
You responded with nothing more than a "See, We warned you, we were right" and point to the current market action as evidence that nobody needs bitcoin, as if the current price is proof of your correctness. Like it makes any difference.
... you're proposing there's a superior method to gauge the value of bitcoin other than the market exchange rate...?  Yes, of course there is. Otherwise the smart money (Soros, or all the early adopters here) couldn't make profit of an irrational market. The market doesn't represent the mood of the few. |
|
|
|
|
Severe idiots appeared at every price correction. They are 'right' from time to time, and then they disappear.
|
|
|
|
Most people I know believe money can only be defined by a government and only functions if it is "managed" by a central body with the power to "expand supply to grow with the economy". (Nevermind this is never actually implemented in practice.) And so refuse to trust in anything else. Most people know more about how electricity works than they understand how money works (this includes the people who issue and control the money). We know that electricity works in spite of how few people understand it. Bitcoin will be the same. It will be adopted because it works long before people really understand how and why it works. Yes. Most people believe that money is a 'thing'. But it isn't. Money is debt and never had been something different. Gold and Gold 2.0 are more or less liquid commodities. A second major argument of the book is that, contrary to standard accounts of the history of money, debt is likely the oldest means of trade, with cash and barter transactions being later developments. Debt, the book argues, has typically retained its primacy, with cash and barter usually limited to situations of low trust involving strangers or those not considered credit-worthy.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debt:_The_First_5000_Years |
|
|
|
Buy now or high chances to miss the boat.
Buy now & watch your account go lower everyday!  slow and steady is the way to go. haven't you heard to fable of tortoise and hare? 1000% increase followed 900% decrease < simple 50% steady increase Wow! 900% decrease? To below zero?  |
|
|
|
It's all voodoo, but if enough people buy into it then it becomes a self fulfilling prophecy. I remember in mid May lots of chartists made arguments that a bunch of things had just come together to stop the downward trend, bunches of lines were all coming together for the first time in months (I'm not an astrologer so it's above my understanding). Then boom on May 20th we had the run to $600 right as all these lines hit. Self fulfilling prophecy, but I've learned to listen to a few of them for impact on longer multi-month cycles. No, it's neither voodoo nor self fulfilling prophecy. It's the social mood and its patterns. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ugfRmFNmR28The supertheory of supereverything: http://www.socialmood.net/https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dPDFkQbNbwk |
|
|
|
I think a lot of people in here are under the misconception that closing price is completely uninformative in a market that is traded 24/7. It is not.
It might carry a bit less weight ...
I guess much less weight, if any, but who knows!? Nobody, since this is the first real 24/7 market on the planet. |
|
|
|
Just realized that bitcoin price has never closed below weekly lower bb in history. More than, price never hit lower-equal than -1 deviation on weekly timescale.
Hey Master! Bitcoin exchanges never close! They are open all the time. That's the difference to the old world.  |
|
|
|
Before the agricultural revolution, it took humanity about one million years on average to develop enough infrastructure/capability to support an additional one million humans living at subsistence levels. After the agricultural revolution, that changed to talking only a few hundred years. Now, after the industrial revolution, that takes 90 minutes on average.
There are huge side effects: http://www.worldwildlife.org/threats/soil-erosion-and-degradationThat's important but the kicker is overall economic growth, we're moving from a meme of more to a meme of better. The problem is the centers of control are working from the ideology of Co opting / controlling the supply of more. Monopolies have no value when people find alternatives, micro electronics, alternate energy and food security technologies like aquaponics (oh and money) are reshaping everything. Forget it, Adrian.
In economics, the Jevons paradox (/ˈdʒɛvənz/; sometimes Jevons effect) is the proposition that as technology progresses, the increase in efficiency with which a resource is used tends to increase (rather than decrease) the rate of consumption of that resource.[1] In 1865, the English economist William Stanley Jevons observed that technological improvements that increased the efficiency of coal-use led to the increased consumption of coal in a wide range of industries. He argued that, contrary to common intuition, technological improvements could not be relied upon to reduce fuel consumption.[2]
The issue has been re-examined by modern economists studying consumption rebound effects from improved energy efficiency. In addition to reducing the amount needed for a given use, improved efficiency lowers the relative cost of using a resource, which tends to increase the quantity of the resource demanded, potentially counteracting any savings from increased efficiency. Additionally, increased efficiency accelerates economic growth, further increasing the demand for resources. The Jevons paradox occurs when the effect from increased demand predominates, causing resource use to increasehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradoxI'm aware of Jevons_paradox, but much smarter people than me (Satosi) know it's only supply and demand that brings it into equilibrium. The divergence in usage as a result of innovation also express it's self in an economy as art and culture ultimately this is enriched experiences. We won't find a comfortable equilibrium with constant economic growth as managed under the target of central banks. With or without central banks: "a comfortable equilibrium with constant economic growth" is an oxymoron. An economy is a collectivist organisation (state bastard), and: "Essentially, the economy is an engine that transforms resources into waste." http://www.financialsense.com/contributors/ugo-bardi/2011/07/22/entropy-peak-oil-and-stoic-philosophy-part-2An economy is by extension part of an ecosystem, entropy is a feature, one which drives the evolution of life. Waste as president in you referenced material is a byproduct of an economy artificially stimulated by monetarist policy. The homo oeconomicus is an artificially stimulated homo sapiens. Monetarist policies are a byproduct of that artificial life. Touche, but I'm of the opinion we're seeing evolution in progress of a more powerful meme, it is taking hold in this very thread not only usurping the central bank (the armory of the monetarists) but its former long standing champion gold. But just after writing "waste = food" I realised there is one type of waste which is actually waste and that is spent uranium. The homo oeconomicus does not produce food. It's junk (food). The result of such an 'evolution in progress' at an artificially enforced (state, church, money) - and therefore exponentially increasing speed - is a species captured in an evolutionary cul-de-sac. At the moment we are watching the 'finale furioso'. Within the last 50 years, the bmi changed more than within one million years before. Crypto will terminate the economy and the society (which is organised violence / collectivism). It leads to the rebirth of the community and therefore the rebirth of the homo sapiens. |
|
|
|
Before the agricultural revolution, it took humanity about one million years on average to develop enough infrastructure/capability to support an additional one million humans living at subsistence levels. After the agricultural revolution, that changed to talking only a few hundred years. Now, after the industrial revolution, that takes 90 minutes on average.
There are huge side effects: http://www.worldwildlife.org/threats/soil-erosion-and-degradationThat's important but the kicker is overall economic growth, we're moving from a meme of more to a meme of better. The problem is the centers of control are working from the ideology of Co opting / controlling the supply of more. Monopolies have no value when people find alternatives, micro electronics, alternate energy and food security technologies like aquaponics (oh and money) are reshaping everything. Forget it, Adrian.
In economics, the Jevons paradox (/ˈdʒɛvənz/; sometimes Jevons effect) is the proposition that as technology progresses, the increase in efficiency with which a resource is used tends to increase (rather than decrease) the rate of consumption of that resource.[1] In 1865, the English economist William Stanley Jevons observed that technological improvements that increased the efficiency of coal-use led to the increased consumption of coal in a wide range of industries. He argued that, contrary to common intuition, technological improvements could not be relied upon to reduce fuel consumption.[2]
The issue has been re-examined by modern economists studying consumption rebound effects from improved energy efficiency. In addition to reducing the amount needed for a given use, improved efficiency lowers the relative cost of using a resource, which tends to increase the quantity of the resource demanded, potentially counteracting any savings from increased efficiency. Additionally, increased efficiency accelerates economic growth, further increasing the demand for resources. The Jevons paradox occurs when the effect from increased demand predominates, causing resource use to increasehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradoxI'm aware of Jevons_paradox, but much smarter people than me (Satosi) know it's only supply and demand that brings it into equilibrium. The divergence in usage as a result of innovation also express it's self in an economy as art and culture ultimately this is enriched experiences. We won't find a comfortable equilibrium with constant economic growth as managed under the target of central banks. With or without central banks: "a comfortable equilibrium with constant economic growth" is an oxymoron. An economy is a collectivist organisation (state bastard), and: "Essentially, the economy is an engine that transforms resources into waste." http://www.financialsense.com/contributors/ugo-bardi/2011/07/22/entropy-peak-oil-and-stoic-philosophy-part-2An economy is by extension part of an ecosystem, entropy is a feature, one which drives the evolution of life. Waste as president in you referenced material is a byproduct of an economy artificially stimulated by monetarist policy. The homo oeconomicus is an artificially stimulated homo sapiens. Monetarist policies are a byproduct of that artificial life. |
|
|
|
Before the agricultural revolution, it took humanity about one million years on average to develop enough infrastructure/capability to support an additional one million humans living at subsistence levels. After the agricultural revolution, that changed to talking only a few hundred years. Now, after the industrial revolution, that takes 90 minutes on average.
There are huge side effects: http://www.worldwildlife.org/threats/soil-erosion-and-degradationThat's important but the kicker is overall economic growth, we're moving from a meme of more to a meme of better. The problem is the centers of control are working from the ideology of Co opting / controlling the supply of more. Monopolies have no value when people find alternatives, micro electronics, alternate energy and food security technologies like aquaponics (oh and money) are reshaping everything. Forget it, Adrian.
In economics, the Jevons paradox (/ˈdʒɛvənz/; sometimes Jevons effect) is the proposition that as technology progresses, the increase in efficiency with which a resource is used tends to increase (rather than decrease) the rate of consumption of that resource.[1] In 1865, the English economist William Stanley Jevons observed that technological improvements that increased the efficiency of coal-use led to the increased consumption of coal in a wide range of industries. He argued that, contrary to common intuition, technological improvements could not be relied upon to reduce fuel consumption.[2]
The issue has been re-examined by modern economists studying consumption rebound effects from improved energy efficiency. In addition to reducing the amount needed for a given use, improved efficiency lowers the relative cost of using a resource, which tends to increase the quantity of the resource demanded, potentially counteracting any savings from increased efficiency. Additionally, increased efficiency accelerates economic growth, further increasing the demand for resources. The Jevons paradox occurs when the effect from increased demand predominates, causing resource use to increasehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradoxI'm aware of Jevons_paradox, but much smarter people than me (Satosi) know it's only supply and demand that brings it into equilibrium. The divergence in usage as a result of innovation also express it's self in an economy as art and culture ultimately this is enriched experiences. We won't find a comfortable equilibrium with constant economic growth as managed under the target of central banks. With or without central banks: "a comfortable equilibrium with constant economic growth" is an oxymoron. An economy is a collectivist organisation (state bastard), and: "Essentially, the economy is an engine that transforms resources into waste." http://www.financialsense.com/contributors/ugo-bardi/2011/07/22/entropy-peak-oil-and-stoic-philosophy-part-2 |
|
|
|
Before the agricultural revolution, it took humanity about one million years on average to develop enough infrastructure/capability to support an additional one million humans living at subsistence levels. After the agricultural revolution, that changed to talking only a few hundred years. Now, after the industrial revolution, that takes 90 minutes on average.
There are huge side effects: http://www.worldwildlife.org/threats/soil-erosion-and-degradationThat's important but the kicker is overall economic growth, we're moving from a meme of more to a meme of better. The problem is the centers of control are working from the ideology of Co opting / controlling the supply of more. Monopolies have no value when people find alternatives, micro electronics, alternate energy and food security technologies like aquaponics (oh and money) are reshaping everything. Forget it, Adrian.
In economics, the Jevons paradox (/ˈdʒɛvənz/; sometimes Jevons effect) is the proposition that as technology progresses, the increase in efficiency with which a resource is used tends to increase (rather than decrease) the rate of consumption of that resource.[1] In 1865, the English economist William Stanley Jevons observed that technological improvements that increased the efficiency of coal-use led to the increased consumption of coal in a wide range of industries. He argued that, contrary to common intuition, technological improvements could not be relied upon to reduce fuel consumption.[2]
The issue has been re-examined by modern economists studying consumption rebound effects from improved energy efficiency. In addition to reducing the amount needed for a given use, improved efficiency lowers the relative cost of using a resource, which tends to increase the quantity of the resource demanded, potentially counteracting any savings from increased efficiency. Additionally, increased efficiency accelerates economic growth, further increasing the demand for resources. The Jevons paradox occurs when the effect from increased demand predominates, causing resource use to increasehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox |
|
|
|
So Risto. If I understand you correctly you now think the failure risk of bitcoins is 50%? Sounds much more reasonable to me than the dramatically smaller risk for failure numbers you were speaking of half a year ago. Does this have to do with Monero entering the stage and the fact that you see chances growing for alternative coins or does it have to do with your view of bitcoin itself?
Yes, if "failure" is defined to mean "will not rise to $5000+ ever". Still if the probability for rising such is 50%, it is an incredibly good buy, and this is what I have been saying all along. I appreciate your posts, but did you know, that in reality there is no such thing as a 'probability'? The so-called "Master Argument" was apparently first formulated clearly by Diodorus. He argued that the actual is the only possible. He observed that if something in the future is not going to happen, it was therefore true in the past that it would not happen.
Modern philosophers like J. J. C. Smart like to think that the future is "already out there" in the relativistic space-time continuum of the "block universe."
Modern determinists/compatibilists on free will like to argue that just as the past cannot be changed, so the future cannot be changed. "Change it from what to what?," says Daniel Dennett. It doesn't really matter whether probability theory is true in the pure definition of reality. What matters is that it's accurate from an individuals perspective. This is true. I only find it interesting that we live in the illusion of an open future. |
|
|
|
I appreciate your posts, but did you know, that in reality there is no such thing as a 'probability'?
Explain why I am rich? Because you smelled the one and only possible future. In other words, you have a better nose than your competitors. |
|
|
|
If there is lack of demand for the product, it doesn't matter whether it's being halved It does matter, anyway. It would reduce the lack of demand by 1800 coins per day. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
