Martin Armstrong Discussion

[sidhujag]

@r0ach here is your silver crypto.

A chart communicates more effectively than 1000 words...

I already bought some litecorn once I saw the bullflag.  Looking at charts for it isn't necessary.  I don't like Ton Vay's logic at all, though.  There is no guaranteed skyrocketing curve of BTC.  The thing could stall out at any second from lack of scalability.  Bitcoin is a currency not money.  It's value will be determined by raw transaction throughput keeping it afloat, not people hoarding it pretending it's gold or silver, because it's not.  The public hoarding bitcoin with no scalability attached to it is nothing more than a rat trap.  Eventually amounts like 0.01 would become uneconomical to even spend.

Also, did you read my FSK link?  Outside of DARPA/NSA or some esoteric cryptographer like Wei Dai, I've never seen anyone fit the profile for Satoshi as much as that guy:

http://fskrealityguide.blogspot.com/2007/09/agorist-philosophy-overview.html

Nah he doesnt type the same.. your off by a mile check the comments section. To me nash fits the bill perfectly.. been saying it for a few years seems people catching on

Seems a little too old.

Hes perfect for the role.. someone who did work for nsa.. hated them and also knows.game theory and studied it with crypto for his.whole life.

http://fuk.io/who-is-satoshi-nakamoto-the-truth/

[iamnotback]

Bitcoin is a currency not money.

Incorrect. You don't understand finance. The tail doesn't wag the dog. Read this.

Bitcoin is not a medium-of-exchange. It is a unit-of-account and a store-of-value. Litecoin will be the medium-of-exchange. Small blocks will make Bitcoin for settlement amongst power brokers of finance.

[r0ach]

Bitcoin is a currency not money.

Incorrect. You don't understand finance. The tail doesn't wag the dog. Read this.

Bitcoin is a currency not money.  If you don't agree, YOU don't understand finance.  It's a Rube Goldberg machine and nothing more.  No random bullshit made up of completely arbitary variables created by humans is money.  Money represents goods and services or the ability to do work.  It's required to be connected to some type of commodity or energy resource if you're abstracting the system away from barter, otherwise the system is easily gamed and implodes as always.

Bitcoin is not a real commodity, it's a poor immitation like some type of tranny.  The sunk cost in so called "creating" a bitcoin in the past does not transfer into delivering anything tangible into the future.  It's more like a steady state system that can catastrophically fail and vaporize all imaginary "wealth" attached to it at any time - the glaring trait of all currencies past and future.  One of the main reasons the noble metals are valued (gold and silver) are the anti-corrosive properties to defeat time itself, which guarantees you the ability to transfer that unit of account from the past to future, UNLIKE bitcoin.

Such a thing like bitcoin is obviously not money and it's clear you're shilling for your own self interests now when you talk about LITECOIN of all fucking things, which you've never talked about before at all.  You bought Litecoin yesterday and suddenly it's the new best thing on earth.  Come the fuck on.  You might be able to fool Orobtc and Sidhujag, but you're not fooling r0ach with this nonsense.

[iamnotback]

My response to Anonymints claim where he says bitcoin is money and I say it's only a currency:

Bitcoin is not a real commodity

@r0ach was already referred to the relevant work of Nash and he is quite proficient at ignoring the reality:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1837136.msg18394149#msg18394149
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1837136.msg18422543#msg18422543

Because @r0ach is an obstinate fool who wears a tinfoil hat blindfold that prevents him from comprehending (and perhaps even reading) what Nash wrote, especially what Nash wrote about what makes gold valuable and why it is not as ideal as Bitcoin.

[r0ach]

Because @r0ach is an obstinate fool who wears a tinfoil hat blindfold that prevents him from comprehending (and perhaps even reading) what Nash wrote, especially what Nash wrote about what makes gold valuable and why it is not as ideal as Bitcoin.

LOL, not as ideal as bitcoin you say?  So by extension you are also claiming gold is not as ideal as dogecoin, clamcoin, solidcoin, asiacoin, and scamcoin4000.  Due to lack of scalability, there is no valid Schelling point for bitcoin.  But that's besides the point, because even if it did scale, it doesn't do what the whitepaper claims or acts in a decentralized manner in the first place.

Like i told the other hipster earlier:

Money has NUMEROUS different traits that have to be satisfied, and the only trait being so called "digital" helps is it's portability.  Congratulations, you have exceled at around 10% of the required traits.  Bitcoin is a currency and not money.  Just because being digital allows you to dump it fast (portability), does not make it money or superior to anything else.

[CoinCube]

And someone didn't want to accept my statement that bitcoin is a currency and not money so I had to explain in greater detail why:

Bitcoin is a currency not money.  If you don't agree, YOU don't understand finance.  It's a Rube Goldberg machine and nothing more.  No random bullshit made up of completely arbitary variables created by humans is money.  Money represents goods and services or the ability to do work.  It's required to be connected to some type of commodity or energy resource if you're abstracting the system away from barter, otherwise the system is easily gamed and implodes as always.

Bitcoin is not a real commodity, it's a poor immitation like some type of tranny.  The sunk cost in so called "creating" a bitcoin in the past does not transfer into delivering anything tangible into the future.  It's more like a steady state system that can catastrophically fail and vaporize all imaginary "wealth" attached to it at any time - the glaring trait of all currencies past and future.  One of the main reasons the noble metals are valued as money (gold and silver) are the anti-corrosive properties to defeat time itself, which guarantees you the ability to transfer that unit of account from the past to future, UNLIKE bitcoin.

The distinction between money and currency is one that is blurry and arbitrary.

Many tend to think of money as something that is tied to a physical commodity and everything else as currency but that is not really accurate.

The reality is that all money/currency is an arbitrary construct created by man to facilitate trade and savings. Paper currencies have a long track record of failure. This failure is due to the inherent flaws of mankind rather then a fundamental problem with paper money.

We choose to embrace things like fractional reserve lending, defect spending, and unfounded entitlements all of which lead to fiscal instability and undermine the currency system leading to eventual failure.

Gold and Silver are simply attempts to take human weakness out of the picture by tying the concept of money to something that cannot be easily forged or mass produced. This works to a degree but it historically also ultimately fails to restrain us from eventually debasing and destroying the currency system. We see this in Rome and also in our recent past as we were not long ago on a gold standard.

Bitcoin is a new attempt to separate destructive human weakness from a money/currency system. The new mechanism is decentralization and computer algorithm to replace flawed human judgment. If it will succeed long term remains to be seen but we know paper currency consistently and repeatedly fails and we know precious metal currency repeatedly fails so now we will learn how well digital currency works.

How this scaling debate plays out will be important to watch. The 95% requirement for implementation as seen in some of the Bitcoin update proposals is a very wise threshold to use. If Bitcoin ever becomes a simple voting mechanism where 51% of hashing power is able to implement widely accepted changes to the protocol over the objections of the other 49% then human error has returned to the forefront. Bitcoin would then become the same system we already have.  A complex fiat voting system.

[miscreanity]

Bitcoin is not a medium-of-exchange. It is a unit-of-account and a store-of-value. Litecoin will be the medium-of-exchange. Small blocks will make Bitcoin for settlement amongst power brokers of finance.

It's been a long time coming

Bitcoin is the individual's method of garnering a similar handle on wealth. Ripple and other systems will develop into more effective fiat replacements, allowing Bitcoin to act as a settlement currency - gold's digital analog.

[iamnotback]

I wonder if BU is aware of the legal implications of a hard fork, forcing a community of investors to accept an incompatible change to the technology they invested in.

If BU succeeds, every Bitcoin holder can probably sue them for their losses.

cool story.

can i sue Blockstream if Bitcoin loses marketshare to Ethereum
due to the high fees they are promoting?

No, they are not changing the commodity, and they are open about what they are doing

changing bitcoin from p2p cash as envisioned by Satoshi into a settlement network, nah thats not changing it at all

Who ever mines BU will lose all the money they spent on mining it. So that 50% threshold means nothing. Any fork of Bitcoin will be attacked ruthlessly by those who have enough resources to destroy any miners foolish enough to try.

The large miners/pools know this. The April's fool joke is on anyone who believes that signaling means anything on Bitcoin. It doesn't.

I've awoken from my inactivity period to take my part in this pursuit.

Although economically we all understand BU has and never shall have any standing, a fork is incumbent and it's outcome is still obscure.

Core hasn't been keeping the system updated, and their refusal of further updates and generally increasing the Block size is alarming and drives support away. The bitcoin unlimited bound failure doesn't lift any responsibility away from the core devs...

That said, I am here to pledge my computing power and spare time onto the complete disruption of the forked blockchain, transaction, nodes and miners. I will play my role, when the day comes I expect others to join me.

Just to side-step here, I am of the opinion this form has gone a bit nutty on this whole fork partisanship and ideology.

Pledging to commit basically crimes and exploits is a tad extreme for a mere cryptocurrency. Like most early adopters I feel my allegiance going towards this new concept, the anonymous decentralized peer to peer market and economy.

The meme has sprouted and the revolution begun. Advocating for the founder's "view" is almost laughable, satoshi would have never thought of such widespread adoption and implying so is absurd.
Conservationism in revolution is an oxymoron. As much as you can be emotionally attached with whatever made early adopters millionaires and gave you a platform for incredible and astonishing innovation, the technology is bound to become obsolete and if you don't simply move on you're in fault...

Please all bear in mind I am not stating this is the end, or idk giving technical opinions in evaluation of the bitcoin's intrinsic value, forks or whichever.
All I'm stating that as sacks of silver carried on your belt, bitcoin too will one day fade away in favor of something more efficient.

Both of you have what you think are good intentions, but you fail to recognize the most salient fact.

When you two are blind to the most salient fact, then all your other conclusions are unfortunately ignorant nonsense. Not be disrespectful, but you really need to pay attention.

If anyone can mutate the main blockchain, then the money is no longer immune to manipulation. And thus it is no longer a stable metric which achieves the absolutely critical goals of Nash's ideal money which is what gives crypto-currency is reason to exist in the first place.

I know this is very difficult for you to wrap your mind around, because you think adoption = success, but you are mathematically incorrect.

Read again very carefully the two posts I linked in the quote below. Click the links within those two post and click the links in the posts that you clicked to. In other words make sure you understand all the detailed reasoning.

In finance, the tail doesn't wag the dog, rather in finance it is always the stable value of the reserves which determines whether person who is providing the finance has an accurate mathematical estimate of the quality of the reserves and thus whether they are maximizing their ROI. And in finance, the most valuable set of reserves dominates any system with less value. Until you understand finance and understand how MPEx made his million "Buttcoins" by simply providing liquidity to the speculation power brokers, then you understand nothing about money.

So if you mutate Bitcoin, you remove all its value. Period. That is why the whales will never allow you to do so, and @dinofelis and I analyzed in great detail how small blocks enables the whales to destroy any miners who attempt to fork Bitcoin. You can't mutate Bitcoin, because the tail doesn't wag the dog. Also small blocks keeps the riff-raff out of Bitcoin, because democracy is a manipulation given that the cost of voting (i.e. politics) is not free. By allowing users to vote on Bitcoin's changes, it is the same as turning Bitcoin into a fiat system that will be manipulated into another hell. We've been there done that all over the world and totally fucked up our world with it. We can instead put that clusterfuck into Litecoin and then the discipline can be maintained with Bitcoin's financial dominance of Litecoin.

There is a way to get scaling and that is to mutate Litecoin. And approximating 9/10th of the value created by scaling Litecoin will end up back in Bitcoin (after Litecoin's price rises back to $100 since it is so highly undervalued given it is the only option for moving forward). So there is absolutely no justifiable reason for your idiocy and squabbling. It is pure ignorance, that's all. Please rectify your ignorance so we can move forward.

My response to Anonymints claim where he says bitcoin is money and I say it's only a currency:

Bitcoin is not a real commodity

@r0ach was already referred to the relevant work of Nash and he is quite proficient at ignoring the reality:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1837136.msg18394149#msg18394149
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1837136.msg18422543#msg18422543

Because @r0ach is an obstinate fool who wears a tinfoil hat blindfold that prevents him from comprehending (and perhaps even reading) what Nash wrote, especially what Nash wrote about what makes gold valuable and why it is not as ideal as Bitcoin.

[iamnotback]

Paper currencies have a long track record of failure. This failure is due to the inherent flaws of mankind rather then a fundamental problem with paper money.

We choose to embrace things like fractional reserve lending, defect spending, and unfounded entitlements all of which lead to fiscal instability and undermine the currency system leading to eventual failure.

Gold and Silver are simply attempts to take human weakness out of the picture by tying the concept of money to something that cannot be easily forged or mass produced. This works to a degree but it historically also ultimately fails to restrain us from eventually debasing and destroying the currency system. We see this in Rome and also in our recent past as we were not long ago on a gold standard.

Once again you ruin your analysis by conflating morality and opportunity cost. Morality is your hammer and everything is a nail. Humans aren't doing everything they do because they are weak. They are acting rational from an opportunity cost analysis. Tragedies-of-the-commons are the result of rational localized actions in which the aggregate result is irrational. Morality is not a solution, because it is never absolute truth and is always manipulable as well. Gold is an inferior measure of value because for example regional distribution/control of mines is not equitable or non-manipulable (well everything fungible is manipulable as I explained in my recent mini-essay). I explained in that essay that I am working on a solution that will supercede morals and absolute values.

You are correct that voting would make Bitcoin another fiat system. But it isn't because humans are weak. It is because of the economics of voting. See my prior post.

[CoinCube]

Paper currencies have a long track record of failure. This failure is due to the inherent flaws of mankind rather then a fundamental problem with paper money.

We choose to embrace things like fractional reserve lending, defect spending, and unfounded entitlements all of which lead to fiscal instability and undermine the currency system leading to eventual failure.

Gold and Silver are simply attempts to take human weakness out of the picture by tying the concept of money to something that cannot be easily forged or mass produced. This works to a degree but it historically also ultimately fails to restrain us from eventually debasing and destroying the currency system. We see this in Rome and also in our recent past as we were not long ago on a gold standard.

Once again you ruin your analysis by conflating morality and opportunity cost. Morality is your hammer and everything is a nail. Humans aren't doing everything they do because they are weak. They are acting rational from an opportunity cost analysis. Tragedies-of-the-commons are the result of rational localized actions in which the aggregate result is irrational. Morality is not a solution, because it is never absolute truth and is always manipulable as well. Gold is an inferior measure of value because for example regional distribution/control of mines is not equitable or non-manipulable (well everything fungible is manipulable as I explained in my recent mini-essay). I explained in that essay that I am working on a solution that will supercede morals and absolute values.

You are correct that voting would make Bitcoin another fiat system. But it isn't because humans are weak. It is because of the economics of voting. See my prior post.

So you are saying my conclusions are correct but the methodology to reach it is flawed.

Ok that is possible I suppose. Another possibility is that I am reaching correct conclusions because my methodology is sound.

What appears rational for a limited frame of reference may not be from a more lofty perspective.

From the perspective of the cell it appears rational (in the short run) to grow uncontrollably. From the perspective of the organism this is not an ideal situation. From the perspective of the the individual it appears rational to kill tribesmen who compete with him for community resources. From the perspective of the tribe things look different. This line of thought extrapolates forward as one achieves higher levels of cooperation.

Choosing something that is only rational from a limited frame of reference but not in the larger picture is ultimately not rational behaviour it is error either made from ignorance or purposeful vice. We rarely care, plan, or sacrifice for any outcome that occurs outside of the immediate future especially those that occur outside our life expectancy. Failing to do so often makes our behaviour irrational regardless of whatever handwaving we use to justify it.

It is this flaw that I refer to as weaknesses upthread. However you can substitute it for the phrase "human stupidity" if you wish.

Tragedies-of-the-commons are the result of localized actions in which the aggregate result is irrational carried out by individuals acting in error because their frame of reference or time horizon is excessively limited.

[iamnotback]

...

Tragedies-of-the-commons are the result of localized actions in which the aggregate result is irrational carried out by individuals acting in error because their frame of reference or time horizon is excessively limited.

And the only solution is to remove the constant marginal utility (i.e. non-diminishing utility of economies-of-scale) of the power of aggregate action. Morality is yet another economies-of-scale aggregate action, which is thus just as flawed as any other. Here is a real world example of winner-take-all economies-of-scale.

I am not arguing against the importance of top-down organization, and I've pointed out this distinction to you numerous times that if top-down organization doesn't have a constant marginal utility of economies-of-scale, then it is self-limiting and multiple top-down structures are in fact a decentralized structure.


I wrote as @anonymous:

O/T assigned a descriptive model where nodes or their connections are assumed to have unequal value without any model for why they do. Eric posited a generative model wherein communication has a space-time frictional cost. Subsequent commentary has pointed out that the more generalized generative model is that networking (in the generalized conceptualization of communication and/or group formation) has a myriad of genres of opportunity cost (e.g. even political opportunity cost in cooperative games theory), so this can account for preferences in group formation which may in some cases be independent of physical transport costs.

Something else occurred to me while reading the O/T paper before reading Robert Willis's thoughts, and I think combining the opportunity cost generalization with the following insight might model his point. Note that if the possible connections between nodes are limited by opportunity cost weighted compatibility of groups of nodes, then we can approximate a model of the network as connections between groups (aka clusters) of nodes. In this case, the equations for relative value of network mergers changes such that it is possible for the value proposition to invert between small and larger networks, if the larger network has fewer groupings (on an opportunity cost potential connections weighted basis). O/T mentioned clusters but in the context of their descriptive model of assumed unequal value. The key point of opportunity cost is that value is relativistic to the observer. The highly relativistic model is capable of higher-order effects such as those described by Robert Willis. Demographics matter.

I want to investigate whether Verlinde's entropic force emergent information based gravitation model is applicable and perhaps a generative mathematical foundation.

The solution is the Inverse Commons.

I am designing a blockchain to enable the Inverse Commons on a much greater scale. Because Bitcoin's long-term failure mode is aggregation into one whale who controls everything (precisely as predicted in the Bible), because of the constant marginal utility of a stable reserve in finance.

[iamnotback]

Satoshi our great NWO master:

What you describe, what you are suggesting, perhaps, is that a benevolent Satoshi has great power to do good, and that, conversely, a malevolent Satoshi has a nuclear bomb in regard to his private keys.

If you wanted to utilize Bitcoin reserves which could not be visibly spent until it was time to enslave the world, how would you do it?

What if you could print paper high powered SDRs implicitly backed by Bitcoin. And then create Basel rounds that progressively ratchet the old banking system to default by requiring Tier 1 reserves of this quality.

@traincarswreck there is no such thing as a stable fungible value. It can't exist as it violates the laws of physics. That is Nash's error. And there is no such thing as a plurality of asymptotically fungible stable values. That is a fantasy in the mind of a crazy, brilliant man who didn't quite figure out his error. His mistake was not realizing that his ideal would only be plausible in the non-fungible case. He was close to realizing that.

Nash was on the right track though. We can have an asymptotic plurality of stable values, when they are all non-fungible. And my project will bring that theory into existence.

Bitcoin will be destroyed. Mankind will prosper. And I will prove you are wrong. But it won't happen overnight. It will take a while yet.

Fungible money will die. Slowly but it will wither away.

That is what my Rise of Knowledge, Demise of Finance points out. Yeah atoms are heavily but they don't get heavier. Relative value will decline (the absolute value will always have mass but that is irrelevant as I had pointed about to Eric Raymond on his blog, c.f. the Dark Enlightenment thread).

There are no stable values in a relativistic universe. But this is a good thing, otherwise we would not exist because the past and the future would collapse into indistinguishable (the light cones of relativity would overlap) if there could be any absolute reference point because relativism wouldn't exist.

End of story.

I am tired of talking. The discussion is redundant. I will reply to @dinofelis' other errors then end my participation in this thread. Adios amigos.

P.S. thanks to all for the discussion.

No one believes you.

Any one who whoreships fungible value can never believe me, for their entire thesis is destroyed. So they will just have to be destroyed. It is their destiny.

Love of money, is the root of all evil.

Love of knowledge and production is glorious and fruitful.

I am a true capitalist. The financiers (especially the whale-most of all financiers) are leeches and parasites.

[r0ach]

Gold and Silver are simply attempts to take human weakness out of the picture by tying the concept of money to something that cannot be easily forged or mass produced. This works to a degree but it historically also ultimately fails to restrain us from eventually debasing and destroying the currency system.

This is the most misleading statement about the viability of metals ever.  Just because someone attempts to debase the currency does not mean gold or silver has "failed" in any way.  It's valued by it's metal content, not anything else.  Contrary to whatever lies Armstrong will tell you, when they debased silver by 50% in Rome, the soldiers just asked for twice as much pay, and so did the merchants for their goods.  Yes, a king or whoever can sometimes trick people with debasement over a short period of time, but never the long run.

Oh yea, Martin Scamstrong is once again claiming gold will go below $1000 HAHA.  This time he's not even giving any real reason for it, he just claims "gold needs to crash to give it the energy to soar past $2300.  Translation: he doesn't have any and wants to buy some and has deluded himself into believing he's important can move the market with propaganda.  Meanwhile, govts of the world are price insensitive buyers and are buying the stuff by the ton and don't even care if the price skyrockets.  They'll just print and buy more for free.

[sidhujag]

Gold and Silver are simply attempts to take human weakness out of the picture by tying the concept of money to something that cannot be easily forged or mass produced. This works to a degree but it historically also ultimately fails to restrain us from eventually debasing and destroying the currency system.

This is the most misleading statement about the viability of metals ever.  Just because someone attempts to debase the currency does not mean gold or silver has "failed" in any way.  It's valued by it's metal content, not anything else.  Contrary to whatever lies Armstrong will tell you, when they debased silver by 50% in Rome, the soldiers just asked for twice as much pay, and so did the merchants for their goods.  Yes, a king or whoever can sometimes trick people with debasement over a short period of time, but never the long run.

Oh yea, Martin Scamstrong is once again claiming gold will go below $1000 HAHA.  This time he's not even giving any real reason for it, he just claims "gold needs to crash to give it the energy to soar past $2300.  Translation: he doesn't have any and wants to buy some and has deluded himself into believing he's important can move the market with propaganda.  Meanwhile, govts of the world are price insensitive buyers and are buying the stuff by the ton and don't even care if the price skyrockets.  They'll just print and buy more for free.

My friens gatorinla on forex factory had a touch of 700ish then 400ish on gold as targets. It rarely moves on without those toucbes.

[CoinCube]

Gold and Silver are simply attempts to take human weakness out of the picture by tying the concept of money to something that cannot be easily forged or mass produced. This works to a degree but it historically also ultimately fails to restrain us from eventually debasing and destroying the currency system.

This is the most misleading statement about the viability of metals ever.  Just because someone attempts to debase the currency does not mean gold or silver has "failed" in any way.  It's valued by it's metal content, not anything else.  Contrary to whatever lies Armstrong will tell you, when they debased silver by 50% in Rome, the soldiers just asked for twice as much pay, and so did the merchants for their goods.  Yes, a king or whoever can sometimes trick people with debasement over a short period of time, but never the long run.

The monetary aspect of metals is valued not by the metal content but by what one can get for the metal at any given time in terms of goods and services in trade.

If a metal based monetary system cannot prevent recurrent debasement of the unit of measurement either via direct physical debasement or via the addition of financial paper instruments then it has failed as a sound monetary system. Metals have repeatedly failed in history though they are superior to paper instruments which fail much faster. The concept that you can retain some value by hiding non debased pure metal via burying it in a hole while the overall currency system and economy implode does not constitute success. You can retain value with any asset you can hide, protect, and trade.

Saying a ounce of gold is always worth an ounce of gold is true but meaningless. A pound of fish is also always worth a pound of fish. Monetary utility can be assigned to any asset be it metal, paper, or digital. Gold and silver are very good forms of money but they are not perfect and they fail in the face of poor human decision making. If they didn't fail we would be using gold or silver today to purchase things.

[OROBTC]

...

CoinCube

Go ahead and heft a tube of 20 Gold Eagles, and then tell me that...  

I read somewhere that "someone" has a theory that gold is somehow hard-wired into humanity as something considered of great value.  Hey, could be.


r0ach

Zero Hedge had an item the other day that Armstrong thinks that Au will go to a bit below $1000 and then slingshot up to $2300.  Often in volatile markets you get a sharp move, then the REALLY BIG MOVE the other way (so a dip to $1000 would precede the big move up).

Could not tell you how valid that notion is as I have not done the research.

[OROBTC]

...

iamnotback

FOFOA once wrote a piece claiming that gold is one of the very few things with a constant marginal utility.  I explored that idea at a blog piece I wrote years ago.  My contention is that gold has a very slightly declining marginal utility, that the 100th ounce bought has less marginal utility than the first, but performs much better than the 100th BMW car...

Almost everything has a marginal utility that is less than gold.

I even postulated that the marginal utility of gold followed the ln(x) curve.  I got some nice comments on that piece!

PM me for link or just look hard via Google.

[CoinCube]

...

CoinCube

Go ahead and heft a tube of 20 Gold Eagles, and then tell me that...  

I read somewhere that "someone" has a theory that gold is somehow hard-wired into humanity as something considered of great value.  Hey, could be.

My father owed me some money that I lent him for a down payment on some property. He did not have the cash to pay me back so he gave me this instead.



Heavy as heck. Hard to store and move end the end only worth about $12,000 in terms of what it can be easily and quickly sold for.
It was a huge pain to lug to the post office and I ended up paying $250 for shipping and insurance to send it on its merry way.

I sold it and bought 12 bitcoins instead at @998 each when it dipped last week. My bitcoin's on their paper wallet are very light, and easy to store. Had he paid me in gold I probably would not have sold.

[iamnotback]

@CoinCube, haven't you heard the wisdom, "no pain, no gain".  

If I can't feel it in my grubby hands, then it ain't cool enough to be real money.  

Btw, check out the math I found which unequivocally proves that Bitcoin is evil. The correspondence to the predictions in Revelation is somewhat disturbing.

[iamnotback]

The evidence becomes even more convincing that Nash was Satoshi.