This 'Dark Enlightenment' theory is a blatant case of pattern over-matching, as are many of the theories of 'AnonyMint' I'm reading.
My estimate is that he lives in the US. I can sense by the distorted world-view, surely a fault of the propaganda ministry of his country.
The guy is smart, make no mistake, but as it happen with most of the smart ones, when they start to see patterns and verify that their deductions were right, then they start over-matching relations among events. Many of them seems unable to control their environmental predictor in the brain. The verification process of a deduction, in the realm of society and politics, is a difficult task that has more to do with art than with science. This is because exact verification is impossible, especially at the bottom level of society (you and me).
The economic-focused details of his theories have something right in them, but even this is wasted in the surrounding confusion.

It is funny that these threads theorize so many weird and implausible things, all the while major historical events are unfolding right now.
It seems like for someone is better to look at the sun, instead of the country below, when they finally reach the mountaintop.


Edit:
I just realized how much of this 'warning: this is for high IQ audience' crap there is around here. Oh boy. What has happened for the last 50 years and is happening now is very simple to understand. So simple that it has been necessary to cover it in a fog of confusion.
Everybody can understand anything, if he want. Don't listen to people that tell you that you are too stupid to understand something. Maybe they are too stupid to explain it.

September was not half-way. Price was about $120 then.

If it now rises to $660, many are tempted to sell.

DON'T.

I've possibly misunderstood the data I assumed it reflected the number of unique address used, as in, in use, as opposed to used up.

I think more over the network effect adds value to bitcoin, if there is no way to measure it so be it, it's my opinion this graph reflects that growth. Now that it can me manipulated because we have related it to Metcalfe's law does little to prove otherwise


With regards to the above accounting accuracy of reported numbers Bitcoin is more accurate.
The metrics that I was referring to are the ones used in economic calculations like the GDP, and the CPI, the former is more favorable when we make ill use of our natural resources and create sick unhappy people, we measure that and say wow we're growing fast lets inflate the money supply. And the latter is manipulate to excluded the things the money inflation effects, mainly housing and energy, so politicians can say look we do a good job if you're unhappy it's because you're part of the 38.4 percent not taking your antidepressants we fort so hard to secure in Afghanistan.

In Bitcoin manipulating the data makes ill use of excess investment capital but it has no effect on the consumers ability to save, and has no impact on entrepreneurs who find more effective ways to distribute resources equitably.

Macroeconomics is for central planning, Bitcoin is for distributed planning, Austrian heavyweights have elegantly expected the futility in using the data to measure economic success, they give a great framework for why Bitcoin will make a more effective money. The quantitative analysis of the Bitcoin data just identifies market need more acutely, and gives one a competitive advantage in business, not in how to manipulate a centralized system.  

How do bankers determine if a particular loan is a good risk to take? They need to evaluate the borrower's income and repayment history and assets to see if the borrower is an appropriate risk. If they are then a loan will be given, if they are not a good risk then it will not. This is not an easy job to measure this kind of risk and it takes a lot of legwork.

I wrote it out line by line you fucking idiot, you called my logic sketchy and then refused to critique it.

Fishing stocks problem was caused by lack of ownership, solved by exercising rights private of ownership?

Fucking wow, just made my whole argument for me.

Start with 100 fiats. You own 100 fiats, and fiats are 100% of the world's economy

Mine 10 fiats worth of bitcoins. Trade your 10 fiats worth of bitcoins to someone else. Now there is 110 fiats worth of wealth in the world. Actual fiats take up only 90.9% of the world's economy. Bitcoins took over 9.1% of fiats in the world's economy.


I don't think fiats will exist for 100 more years. It will only take dollars and/or euros to collapse for fiats to end and the world to switch to bitcoin. Euro fiat is only about 25 years old, and dollar fiat is only about 45 years old. They are both very new, and historically fiats have an average lifespan of about 27 years.

When everyone exchanges their fiat for bitcoins, only you will still have any fiat. Good luck spending your fiat then.

Get back there and pick apart the argument, or stfu, your choice.

Wrong. That fiat is their's, not mine.

Speak for yourself. My bitcoins replaced my fiat.

A point that seems to be missed is that Bitcoin is already replacing fiat to the extent of approx $30 million per day. If bitcoin/crypto did not exist fiat would have to be used for most of that volume of transaction. It is a small beginning and currently the $ value and transaction volume is increasing incrementally at approx 3% per month average.


 

This freaking system is artificially drawing smart people in finance, when they could create new business and job instead. (Remind me a book called "smart people should build things")

I read your link, but there is no relation about how gold became a medium of exchange that we talked about.


A "gift economy" as he calls it, is nothing but the invention of debt. You can call it a "favor", it does not change the meaning.
But as long as the concept of debt exists, it surprise me that your article does not talk about how actors of such economy could keep track of their debt without the need of money.
Money was created as a solution to the problem of keeping track of debt without any convenient writing system.

The only way to keep track of favor, without money, is ink and paper, both which was not yet invented.

Adam Smith advocated that money what invented because of coincidence of need problem of barter economy.
It does not contradict the fact that a "gift economy" after barter could be existing for a while, but I find it highly dubious because without money and convenient writing you can't possibly keep track of debt (or favor as he calls).
It is more believable that a socialist economy (where all actors share what they hunt) was existing in a tribe, than such gift economy.
Also they do not explain why, people have started to exchange ornament as money instead of continuing such a "gift economy", if it was not to solve the accountability problem.

For the fishing stock : Does it need gov regulation ? no.
But the problem can only be solved if sea is privatized.

In a free market, a landlord has the right to impose quota on his territory to prevent over farming that would make his land worth less in the future.
If the price of tuna rises due to scarcity, the landlord have even more incentive to prevent over farming, thus equilibrium is restored.

It is like saying : do we need to protect cows ?
My response is no : On one hand you can just breed them, and on the other hand, it is not in the interest of the landlord to extinguish the treasure of his land.

You want to stop over fishing ? Privatize the sea, and see miracle happens.

There is no problem that can't be solved without relying on the free will of all parties.
It would not prevent "sea owners" to unionize with their free will to coordinate effort and impose uniform fishing quota on bigger scale.
Such union is essential to solve "prisonner's dilemna" (game theory) type of problems.

Adam Smith talks a little bit about the history of money in "Of the Origin and Use of Money" of The Wealth of Nation. He explains that coinage did not came from oblivion, and was not monopoly of the state.
Coinage was the response to a practical problem : Being paid by weighting gold nuggets -or gold ornament- was hard, the weight needed to be perfectly precise and any small difference or error could cost a lot to the buyer or seller, also there was no way to assert the fineness of gold.
This is where coins get used for the first time, and was not monopoly of the state, but from privately owned mint.

The payment by gold nugget, came itself by the intrinsic value of gold to make nice ornament with it. (In fact, the reason why some libertarian do not believe in bitcoin is because it lacks the intrinsic value -or use value in mises terminology-, that permitted gold to become a medium of exchange in the first place)
By today terminilogy, we can say that ornament was the killer app of Gold, this is what pushed Gold into the masses. And it is true, Bitcoin has no killer app for now. :p

in all seriousness, shorts were in real danger last night, we all felt it, it was about to pop, magic fairy bear mother may not come to your rescue next time, cover your shorts, cover your shorts now!

or not

wtv

your choice.

There will never be a market crash, a crash only happens when there is no money. Now there are too much money in banks (Most of the QE money went into commercial bank's pocket in exchange of their MBS), they could easily support the stock market price

Then the crash of fiat money itself is even less possible. In principle, FED printed 4x money since 2008, then the price of everything should rise 4x, there will be hyperinflation, then everyone will dump their fiat money and the fiat money will worth nothing over night. However, most of those money went into bank's pocket and they don't spend a dime, they save them back to FED and receive an interest to spend, thus made the real amount of money in circulation almost non-change, that's also the reason the economy never fully recovered

So, banks have all the money they need to push up the price of anything they want, but they will carefully select some product first so that average Joe can not benefit from it (If everyone get easy money, there will be uncontrollable inflation thus threaten the life of their fiat money)

This is a fucking straw man and has nothing to do with what I said.

IF THERE IS A FLAW IN MY REASONING THEN QUOTE THE FLAW AND EXPALIN IT!