Martin Armstrong Discussion

[r0ach]

But you say nothing about that. Fiat has been there for ages but have we seen anyone running to cash out for gold and silver massively?

lol, that's because the entire purpose of the fed is to naked short metals to oblivion in order to try and make their trash currency look more attractive, that and they use force to try and mandate their scam currency as unit of account.  If you wanted to abolish the US dollar, all you would have to do is stop the fed from manipulating metals and the market would organically do it by default.  It basically already is, just in a more slow motion state working through their fractional reserve inverse bubble which will boomarang right back into a giant blow off top.

Market makers are literally BANNED from being market makers in metals.  See the Hunt brothers as an example.  You are legislated against if you even try it.  Asking why the entire world doesn't stampede to metals is like asking why people in a war don't jump out of a trench and run into the front line to grab a dollar bill off the ground, because thousands of people will shoot you if you try it, that and most people are financially illiterate.

If you think Bitcoin can do better in this case of front line adventurers being able to grab the cash and run, that seems very unlikely.  It's much easier for the government to crack down on the internet than to turn every square foot of physical space in the real world into a police state.  Their only real attack vector for metals is fractional reserve, while Bitcoin has that same attack vector plus dozens more on top of it.

The security model of metals is two neutron stars colliding.  Unless you can replicate that or figure out how to economically turn the earth into an open instead of closed ecosystem, you're shit out of luck.  While the security model for cryptocurrency is Anonymint microwaving some hot pockets and typing on a keyboard.

[sidhujag]

Don't make the same mistake when there is a chance to invest in my Bitcoin killer altcoin project. There is indeed a solution to the technology problem which you think is insoluble. My 30,000 word, 200 cited references whitepaper will be available at that time so you can evaluate my claim. Also there appears to be (not 100% sure yet) a cure to my illness.

My philosophy on crypto is that there's no way possible it resides lower on Exter's pyramid than metals, so in this regard cryptocurrency will always be the bad money that drives out good money.  I know that's not what people want to hear, but fundamentally that is objective reality. 

In this example let's pretend no other cryptocurrency exists except Bitcoin.  People will simply wait for Bitcoin's market cap to top out whether it's from capacity, fees, full saturation, etc, then once they notice it has, all of that money will then run to the exits in a stampede to cash out for gold and silver since it's a superior store of value.  So in this regard, no matter how good you think you can do in creating some type of digital monetary contraption, in the end you will always be operating the equivalent of a pump and dump or elaborate casino arbitrage game.

It's kind of comical actually.  We're just moving the Wall Street casino into a new shell game for people to play musical chairs in, guessing where the top is going to be then everyone scrambles for the seat of actual sound money.

Ideal money will always win no matter what the historical conmection to gold there is in regards to linking it to god through the sun or whatnot. Ideal money will be most useful in advancing society.. cryptocurrency is more ideal that rate targeting fiat system we employ. Gold cannot be used as money in any meaningful way in todays economy unless its a backing to a cryptocurrency vehicle.. im which case you will lose the backing sooner or later just like we did in the 70s with fiat.

[r0ach]

Gold cannot be used as money in any meaningful way in todays economy unless its a backing to a cryptocurrency vehicle.. im which case you will lose the backing sooner or later just like we did in the 70s with fiat.

Germans use cash for almost everything and it didn't cause them to revert to the stone age.  There is nothing preventing the cash from being replaced by physical gold and silver (and maybe copper) coins utilized in it's native form.  Assuming cryptocurrency doesn't implode from the winner take all paradigm, it's entirely plausible every form of currency dies except physical gold and silver coins + Bitcoin for digital transations.  

It doesn't really have to be one or the other.  The market will demand some form of physical cash to exist and will demand some type of digital transfer mechanism to exist as well.  Physical BTC bearer bonds that are never actually checked or exposed to the system to determine if they're valid are kind of a dumb idea as a cash replacement and precious metals would probably easily defeat that use case.  

You also have the problem that physical BTC bearer bonds would be fee-free, hence maybe seeing a huge uptick in usage for a limited load system and undermine the security model of Bitcoin itself.  Imagine BTC transactions costing $100 each so people all decide to use physical BTC bearer bonds to skirt this drawback, or even mail or UPS them to each other and bypass the blockchain altogether.  People buy thousands of dollars in metals using the mail, so why not?

The blockchain of metals is two neutron stars colliding to create a permanent immutable ledger of supply for your local closed ecosystem.  It requires no overhead to exist or verify transactions, while also having unlimited TPS, making it obvious in having some use case as currency in all but the most dystopian locked in the matrix systems (which anonymint seems to refer to as progress).

The Satoshi quote of "no free lunch" is kind of erroneous as both fiat and Bitcoin require overhead just to exist at all while gold and silver do not.  This is probably the biggest Satoshi red herring that exists.  Nobody is forcing you to pay to store it in someone else's vault.  You cannot use the word "ideal money" to describe something that requires overhead just to exist when there are alternatives that don't.

Paper is always going to be Keynesian by definition, and even if you could somehow overcome that logic and eliminate the horde of parasitic technocrats, you'd still have to constantly reprint the bills, and using metal coins would eventually just be sending you back to gold and silver anyway.

[deisik]

The Satoshi quote of "no free lunch" is kind of erroneous as both fiat and Bitcoin require overhead just to exist at all while gold and silver do not.  This is probably the biggest Satoshi red herring that exists.  Nobody is forcing you to pay to store it in someone else's vault.  You cannot use the word "ideal money" to describe something that requires overhead just to exist when there are alternatives that don't

You obviously forget about trivial wear and tear that gold and silver coins are susceptible to. It is also a kind of overhead, and given the level of circulation these coins will be exposed to, it will be insurmountable. And I'm not even talking about deliberate debasement of coins either by governments or ordinary people who would try to chip a bit of metal from these coins every other day. And then you would hit directly into the modern variety of Gresham's law because prices of these precious metals change differently and the nominal value of coins will quickly cease to match the value of metal in them with all ensuing consequences...

In short, your idea of using such coins today seems to be pretty much stillborn

Paper is always going to be Keynesian by definition, and even if you could somehow overcome that logic and eliminate the horde of parasitic technocrats, you'd still have to constantly reprint the bills, and using metal coins would eventually just be sending you back to gold and silver anyway

Overhead in using gold or silver coins will be devastating up to a point where they are not usable altogether (see above)

[r0ach]

You obviously forget about trivial wear and tear that gold and silver coins are susceptible to.

This is mostly just an appearance thing unless people are clipping the coins, in which case vendors would probably either reject them or turn you in to local lawmen who had punishments for doing things like this like death (lol).  The US government also used to offer a service to turn your bullion into govt coins for free I think.  It's overall not a big deal since the things are still recognizable a thousand years later.  They don't actually require overhead to "exist".

[deisik]

You obviously forget about trivial wear and tear that gold and silver coins are susceptible to.

This is mostly just an appearance thing unless people are clipping the coins, in which case vendors would probably either reject them or turn you in to local lawmen who had punishments for doing things like this like death (lol).  The US government also used to offer a service to turn your bullion into govt coins for free I think.  It's overall not a big deal since the things are still recognizable a thousand years later.  They don't actually require overhead to "exist".

Why use gold and silver coins if we could just go back to gold exchange standard under which paper money was freely exchanged to gold at a fixed rate? I guess I know what you are going to reply, namely, that governments would inevitably end up printing more paper money than they have gold in their vaults. Very much like they diminished the content of precious metal in the coins they also happened to mint...

See the history of Roman Empire and their gold coins that ended up without any gold in them

[r0ach]

Very much like they diminished the content of precious metal in the coins they also happened to mint...

And the side effect was the free market valued the coins at it's metal content, so the soldiers then demanded a larger amount of 40% coins instead of a smaller amount of 90% coins to afford their daily expenses.  Hence, you are just bringing up the fact that the metals are immune to government manipulation since their actions actually accomplished nothing by tampering with them.  Rome didn't collapse because of sound money, they collapsed from completely unrelated reasons and then tried to tamper with sound money and discovered it was pointless.

You guys are not one-upping me on Rome no matter how much Martin Shillstrong propaganda you pull out.

[deisik]

Very much like they diminished the content of precious metal in the coins they also happened to mint...

And the side effect was the free market valued the coins at it's metal content, so the soldiers then demanded a larger amount of 40% coins instead of a smaller amount of 90% coins to afford their daily expenses.  Hence, you are just bringing up the fact that the metals are immune to government manipulation since their actions actually accomplished nothing by tampering with them.  Rome didn't collapse because of sound money, they collapsed from completely unrelated reasons and then tried to tamper with sound money and discovered it was pointless

But all kings and emperors which came after the Romans were doing basically the same. In fact, the Greeks had been doing exactly that even before the Roman Empire. So there is no reason to think that the history would not be repeated again if we are to return to gold or silver coins. The only way to solve this problem is to issue paper bitcoins and provide a mechanism that would allow independent control (e.g. through the blockchain) over which paper bitcoins correspond physical ones, thereby making online transactions with these bitcoins impossible...

I think it is a by far better idea than what you suggest

[r0ach]

(e.g. through the blockchain)

You might be onto something if Bitcoin actually had some type of Nash equilibrium, otherwise it's the same thing as centrally issued fiat.  With the exception that as soon as someone tries to tamper with it or implement something like inflation, instead of getting inflation, half the people reject it and the other half accept it and you get a rough consensus attack like Ethereum and it just dies.

Next we will have Ethereum PoS vs Ethereum PoW vs Ethereum Classic PoW vs Ethereum Classic PoS.  

Not sure how this is considered anti-fragile.  It's only anti-fragile if the coin had a working Nash equilibrium the day it was released and never forked or altered afterwards.  Bitcoin was released as some type of experiment that almost works but not really.  Now people are trying to cover up the fact that it doesn't actually work with the cover story of:  "hey guys, it works and has a Nash equilibrium...it just requires a permanent team of technocrats who will forever be fiddling with levers in an arbitrary manner just like the Keynesians do...but we will pretend that's a Nash equilibrium"

So you have a winner take all paradigm on the mining side, and a permanent technocracy on the client side that operates similar to how politicians work where they advocate needing permanent change to justify their own existence as a change maker.  So you centralize terminally in two directions at the same time with a joint rule of technocrats and Chinese slumlords who rule over everyone else.

I've honestly had it.  Bitcoin could go to $200,000 a coin but it won't be because it works as advertised.  It will either implode, skyrocket then implode, or just be co-opted by government and run as the digital slave system.  I cannot justify being all-in on Bitcoin anymore because it simply does not work, which is why I had to diversify a big chunk and buy the next best option which is silver.  The silver was essentially free since I made 800% on Bitcoin & Monero this year, so whatever.

No, I am not waiting to buy on a certain date because some guy named Armstrong believes we live in a deterministic universe and unicorns came down from the sky to give him a magical computer that cracks the code of life.  All this shit can go belly up in a black swan at any second.  It's like listening to the Heebs that think you can run the Torah through a number cruncher and print out a Nostradamus script.

[sidhujag]

Gold cannot be used as money in any meaningful way in todays economy unless its a backing to a cryptocurrency vehicle.. im which case you will lose the backing sooner or later just like we did in the 70s with fiat.

Germans use cash for almost everything and it didn't cause them to revert to the stone age.  There is nothing preventing the cash from being replaced by physical gold and silver (and maybe copper) coins utilized in it's native form.  Assuming cryptocurrency doesn't implode from the winner take all paradigm, it's entirely plausible every form of currency dies except physical gold and silver coins + Bitcoin for digital transations.  

It doesn't really have to be one or the other.  The market will demand some form of physical cash to exist and will demand some type of digital transfer mechanism to exist as well.  Physical BTC bearer bonds that are never actually checked or exposed to the system to determine if they're valid are kind of a dumb idea as a cash replacement and precious metals would probably easily defeat that use case.  

You also have the problem that physical BTC bearer bonds would be fee-free, hence maybe seeing a huge uptick in usage for a limited load system and undermine the security model of Bitcoin itself.  Imagine BTC transactions costing $100 each so people all decide to use physical BTC bearer bonds to skirt this drawback, or even mail or UPS them to each other and bypass the blockchain altogether.  People buy thousands of dollars in metals using the mail, so why not?

The blockchain of metals is two neutron stars colliding to create a permanent immutable ledger of supply for your local closed ecosystem.  It requires no overhead to exist or verify transactions, while also having unlimited TPS, making it obvious in having some use case as currency in all but the most dystopian locked in the matrix systems (which anonymint seems to refer to as progress).

The Satoshi quote of "no free lunch" is kind of erroneous as both fiat and Bitcoin require overhead just to exist at all while gold and silver do not.  This is probably the biggest Satoshi red herring that exists.  Nobody is forcing you to pay to store it in someone else's vault.  You cannot use the word "ideal money" to describe something that requires overhead just to exist when there are alternatives that don't.

Paper is always going to be Keynesian by definition, and even if you could somehow overcome that logic and eliminate the horde of parasitic technocrats, you'd still have to constantly reprint the bills, and using metal coins would eventually just be sending you back to gold and silver anyway.

Security is not free.. ideal money is one that offers highest quality transfer utility.. gold cannot.be that. Ideal would be one also would offer a demand based supply.. central rate targeting is thag but bitcoin is not so thats one knock against btc... maybe a coin that offers demand based elasticity in terms of supply might eventually be the one used while btc remains what gold is today and gold ends up used for jewelery and thats all.

[r0ach]

Here is my one-up of Anonymint's Bitcoin "digital kill switch" post.  We're taking this to a whole new level with:

Bitcoin as a function of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1727889.0

[iamnotback]

My track record of predictions over the years:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1726273.msg17295684#msg17295684

[r0ach]

My track record of predictions over the years:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1726273.msg17295684#msg17295684

You're kinda trying to rewrite history here.  You went through a i hate everyone in Monero and hope you die stage and then claim you told people to buy it, so it's more like you posted completely contradictory information on Monero.

Let's not even get into the Bitcoin and metals stuff...

This bear trap is why gold and crypto-currencies have not likely seen their lows yet and I am still expecting a selloff in gold to $850 or below and Bitcoin to below $150.

As for current metals situation, I think the best gold miners can put out gold around $900, while the not as good gold producers can put it out at $1200-1250, so it's mostly at cost of production already for the averaged unit.  While silver is also basically at cost of production for a lot of people:

https://srsroccoreport.com/forensic-evidence-why-silver-price-manipulation-will-end/

Unless the price of oil collapses more, which they seem to try and prevent from happening since it triggers further deflationary collapse, it doesn't seem that easy to push down metals much more.  As people have noticed, central bankers haven't let deflationary collapse occur since the great depression, so if it actually did happen, it would entirely be a conscious decision from insiders and have absolutely nothing to do with capital flows

The system is ALWAYS in this same fragile state, where the money required to service the debt is greater than the principal, so it's always sitting on the edge of deflationary collapse by default.  It's NOTHING new.  This is the basis of Keynesianism.  There is no aggregate market and the market just goes whatever way they send it.  Whether it dies by deflation or inflation is all due to a few heebs sitting in a room somewhere.

Someone is now going to respond with, "but Japan was unable to ignite inflation with QE so that can't be right".  Yes, QE does absolutely nothing in the near term for reasons explained in the following video by Richard Koo, but it does create hyperinflation later on:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8YTyJzmiHGk

So QE doesn't work, but things like direct fiscal stimulus on infrastructure does, ala building bridges to nowhere or Chinese ghost cities.  So don't tell me they can't ignite inflation if they want to; they easily can.  Everything is Keynesian and everything is the result of whatever Keynesian decision they make, not capital flows.  Martin Shillstrong knows all this but he just flat out lies and claim we live in a deterministic universe and that the price of metals is not manipulated (LOL).

It's right out in plain sight where they said in internal documents that they have to manipulate the price of metals in order to skirt the zero bound on interest rates.  Hence why you have charts that look like this with metals on sale for even lower than their already manipulated low prices in a giant inverse bubble that's going to eventually skyrocket:

[iamnotback]

You're kinda trying to rewrite history here.  You went through a i hate everyone in Monero and hope you die stage and then claim you told people to buy it, so it's more like you posted completely contradictory information on Monero.

It is a fact that I said to buy Monero before the blast off. My other criticisms of Monero were orthogonal to any analysis of the chart pattern. Please don't blame your conflation on me. That is your lack of mental acuity.

Btw, I also advised buying Monero earlier this year, before it had its massive rise.

I suppose someone probably already posted this chart. I had never looked at the long-term Monero chart before:

https://www.tradingview.com/chart/XMRBTC/3QZ1D3nD-The-Monero-Bear-Market-Is-Over/

That is impressive. Monero has broken out of the down wedge, which is very technically bullish. But that doesn't mean it can't fall back first to the historic support at 0.0017 BTC. And if BTC falls to < $150 as I expect, then that could mean Monero declining significantly and still be in the bullish formation as Bitcoin makes its final bottom and we start a new bull market in crypto (I subscribe to the theory that BTC is still declining from 2013).

There were numerous other posts of mine where I made the same recommendation about Monero at around that time.

[iamnotback]

Let's not even get into the Bitcoin and metals stuff...

This bear trap is why gold and crypto-currencies have not likely seen their lows yet and I am still expecting a selloff in gold to $850 or below and Bitcoin to below $150.

You are doing a good "pull the wool over the eyes" of deflecting everyone's attention away for your absolute stupidity to sell BTC recently in the $600s and buy silver at inflated prices that have now crashed, even I was imploring you to not do so and you were so boastfully being the condescending r0ach that you are.

The prediction in gold is coming true. The $150 in Bitcoin did happen. And that has already been explained numerous times, yet you refuse to acknowledge it. It was a theory that BTC might track gold down, and I did state that it was theory of correlation that might not be true.

...

I have also stated that I thought that when gold crashes below $1000 (and likely below $850) this year, then Bitcoin would also likely get caught up in the contagion and sell off to below $150 perhaps back to double-digits.

...

It is not certain that gold will elect the March 13/14 turning point to begin its collapse to the final bottom of the correction that began 2011. And it is not certain that crypto-currencies will follow.

...

[sidhujag]

Let's not even get into the Bitcoin and metals stuff...

This bear trap is why gold and crypto-currencies have not likely seen their lows yet and I am still expecting a selloff in gold to $850 or below and Bitcoin to below $150.

You are doing a good "pull the wool over the eyes" of deflecting everyone's attention away for your absolute stupidity to sell BTC recently in the $600s and buy silver at inflated prices that have now crashed, even I was imploring you to not do so and you were so boastfully being the condescending r0ach that you are.

The prediction in gold is coming true. The $150 in Bitcoin did happen. And that has already been explained numerous times, yet you refuse to acknowledge it. It was a theory that BTC might track gold down, and I did state that it was theory of correlation that might now be true.

...

I have also stated that I thought that when gold crashes below $1000 (and likely below $850) this year, then Bitcoin would also likely get caught up in the contagion and sell off to below $150 perhaps back to double-digits.

...

It is not certain that gold will elect the March 13/14 turning point to begin its collapse to the final bottom of the correction that began 2011. And it is not certain that crypto-currencies will follow.

...

Aahh makes sense why he is pushing his metals agenda now because hes become a metals bagholder now! Weird cause for longest time he was bullish btc and would complain about hidden forces manipulating btc so it wont rise.. now that it does he misses the train go figure!

 Btw you are incorrect about 150 happening.. i actually made you a friendly bet that because you were bearish i was bullish... and i was right it has gone up since then we havent seen 150 that was way before. Now that you are bullish i feel as if we will go back down.. just more liquidity to be had going down.

I have seen you switch stances as you called for btc back in january to make new lows while 2015.75 was happening... and you even gloated as 700 top was set and said your prediction was coming true ridiculing others for not following. None of that stuff came true so i suggest you leave the gloating and predicting and do stuff that will positively affect our commmunity like the whitepaper and coding for your new system i for one am eager to see it.

[r0ach]

You are doing a good "pull the wool over the eyes" of deflecting everyone's attention away for your absolute stupidity to sell BTC recently in the $600s and buy silver at inflated prices that have now crashed, even I was imploring you to not do so and you were so boastfully being the condescending r0ach that you are.

I didn't "abandon" BTC for silver, I simply think it's not a good idea to have every single cent of your wealth in BTC, which I did for years and don't really feel comfortable doing so anymore.  You can't even sleep at night doing that.  I use metals more as a savings account and Bitcoin as a checking account now and sleep like a rock.  

As I said before, there is no logical person on earth who is ever going to claim Bitcoin is lower on Exter's pyramid than metals, so Bitcoin will generally always be the bad money that drives out good money in that regard.  Silver and gold are still asymmetric trades so where you buy it at doesn't make a huge difference.

It's funny because some random commentator who doesn't even know how Bitcoin works described it perfectly on Zerohedge once.  That Bitcoin might give you some gains in the good times, but when you actually need it when things go bad it's going to fail you at the time you need it the most.  Metals are the exact opposite.  When I see people claim you should hold zero metals and only Bitcoin, they honestly belong in an insane asylum.

It is a fact that I said to buy Monero before the blast off. My other criticisms of Monero were orthogonal to any analysis of the chart pattern. Please don't blame your conflation on me. That is your lack of mental acuity.

[iamnotback]

The breakup of the USA is well underway as Armstrong's computer predicted long ago:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1703293.msg17305796#msg17305796
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1624708.msg17291598#msg17291598
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1703293.msg17300454#msg17300454

You can read more of my posts in those threads which expound.

Enemy #1 are the leftists. Identify them and ostracize them. The conservatives need to defend themselves because the leftists are jealous and ready to absolutely burn everything to the ground. If they can't have what you have, then nobody can have anything. That is their attitude. They will not stop until everything is destroyed. They are irrational lunatics. Stop fooling yourself into thinking this is not war. It is war. And you better be getting more diligent about it.

[r0ach]

Enemy #1 are the leftists

The useful idiots known as anarchists are as bad or worse and why that is so:

The point is, Bitcoin isn't supposed to be a system of "no governance"; the Nash equilibrium is supposed to be the governance.  Therefore, an actual functioning Bitcoin would have nothing to do with anarchy because anarchy symbolizes a power vacuum, while a Nash equilibrium is generally the polar opposite.  

If the Nash equilibrium doesn't actually exist, then Bitcoin would be nothing more than something like the anarchist movement in Russia, where useful idiots known as anarchists were used as a tool to destabilize a nation and create a power vacuum, ceding power so that another entity can walk in and take the reins.  I would refer to just about everything that happened in Russia then a Zionist plot, but there's obviously delusional SJWs who refuse to admit more mafias than the Italian mafia exist.

This means Bitcoin with a non-existent or questionable Nash equilibrium is going to be more of a tool of destruction or espionage than anything, just like what we witnessed in Russia and other useful idiot anarchist movements since.

[iamnotback]

I didn't "abandon" BTC for silver, I simply think it's not a good idea to have every single cent of your wealth in BTC, which I did for years and don't really feel comfortable doing so anymore.  You can't even sleep at night doing that.  I use metals more as a savings account and Bitcoin as a checking account now and sleep like a rock.

I wouldn't put 100% of net worth in any one asset. Who could sleep at night if they had all their savings invested in a speculative asset.

Near-term (until 2018 at least) for savings I would choose the US dollar.

Whether I would buy gold, food, ammo, other crypto that isn't yet available, or real estate in 2018ish, depends on my observations at that time. I will not make decision prematurely that doesn't need to be made now.

Silver would be a highly speculative asset, thus I'd prefer crypto. You are trying to get the best of both: huge upside and reliable store-of-value. I expect you will be disappointed.