Martin Armstrong Discussion

[realr0ach]

The log target is $100k just sayin.. give it a month or so.

And you think things like transaction fees and load capacity have zero effect on that?  That price just magically always increases in a 45 degree line?  You're trying to apply Metcalfe's law to something that's already virtually topped out in terms of load capacity.  I mean, Hall Finney already said bitcoin is useless except as a settlement network years ago.  For something like Metcalfe's law to apply when it's a settlement layer, it means govts would have to adopt the thing as the world reserve currency, otherwise it's not exactly having any interaction at all with most of the world's inhabitants.

Do any of you people interact with other humans in real life?  Like 99% of the people I meet do not give one flying shit about bitcoin lol.  Far more people have some type of interest in gold or silver, but still most of them don't have any of that either.  However, when there is some type of economic implosion, all of those people will be fleeing straight to gold and silver.  Like my dentist, I told him to buy gold when it was $200 years ago and he actually did buy and made a lot.  I told him to buy bitcoin when it was $200 and he was like, "no thanks" lol.

[1713520210]

1713520210

[1713520210]

1713520210

[1713520210]

1713520210

[1713520210]

1713520210

[1713520210]

1713520210

[criptix]

The log target is $100k just sayin.. I also agree LTC and ETH are hinting at a catch up wave. Grinding to ensue for king.

I think the only reason LTC is alive is because of our chinese overlords - ETH 100% overtook Litecoins place under BTC.
Im seeing a ETH rise soon - ready to go long there anytime now.

[CornCube]

The log target is $100k just sayin.. give it a month or so.

Show me a chart that has that target projection drawn on it.

The adoption rate has to slow in percentage terms. Oak tree seeds grow to saplings quite rapidly, but not to the moon.

Although I can say that that slowing can be accounted for significantly in the longer duration of the U-bottom from 2013 – 2018 as compared to 2011 – 2013. So it’s not entirely implausible. Peak-to-peak appears to project less than $100k though.

John McAfee Bets His Manhood that BTC will reach $1 mil by 2020

He better prepare some hot sauce. No way BTC hits $1 million by 2020.

The more likely time frame for BTC to reach $1 million is 2024 – 2026.

[sidhujag]

The log target is $100k just sayin.. give it a month or so.

Show me a chart that has that target projection drawn on it.

The adoption rate has to slow in percentage terms. Oak tree seeds grow to saplings quickly rapidly, but not to the moon.

Although I can say that that slowing can be accounted for significantly in the longer duration of the U-bottom from 2013 – 2018 as compared to 2011 – 2013. So it’s not entirely implausible. Peak-to-peak appears to project less than $100k though.

John McAfee Bets His Manhood that BTC will reach $1 mil by 2020

He better prepare some hot sauce. No way BTC hits $1 million by 2020.

The more likely time frame for BTC to reach $1 million is 2024 – 2026.

Theres a thread on here i follow but mainly my own analysis. I predicted 10k would come when it was 400ish around the time roach was complaining about insivible hands shorting and when trump came I knew that was a catalyst. Log chart usually jumps by 2 by I knew 10k log4 was a tough nut and if we went above to 11 or more and retraced it was 2 log jumps again most likely. So it went to 11.3 and retraced and here we are targetting 25k which is quarter way to log 5. Alt flavor may catch to give btc a chance to breathe.

I saw the swings when 11xx hit during mtgox and planned accordingly.

[CornCube]

And you think things like transaction fees and load capacity have zero effect on that?  That price just magically always increases in a 45 degree line?  You're trying to apply Metcalfe's law to something that's already virtually topped out in terms of load capacity.  I mean, Hall Finney already said bitcoin is useless except as a settlement network years ago.  For something like Metcalfe's law to apply when it's a settlement layer, it means govts would have to adopt the thing as the world reserve currency, otherwise it's not exactly having any interaction at all with most of the world's inhabitants.

The transaction volume layer doesn’t need to be on the Bitcoin blockchain nor necessarily even offchain! And yes Bitcoin will be the NWO reserve currency as designed by the Zionists who control it.

You’re going to miss out on $1 million per BTC in 2026 with your silly tinfoil hat precious metals delusion.

Those mumbling at TMSR (trilema.com) represent millions of BTC.

It actually doesn’t matter who is running their client now. What matters is that millions of BTC believes Bitcoin has no value if it can be mutated, because the smart people understand that Bitcoin is more valuable as a reserve currency of the wealthy, because the wealthy matter and the masses (sheep to be harvested) do not (in a paradigm that is not decentralized, which proof-of-work can never be!). That is just economics. Even Trump understands it:

Most importantly, a big tax cut (from 35% to 20%) is planned for the corporations which will make the U.S. society richer, especially in the long run. Companies are the places that can use extra cash most effectively – partially as an investment allocated by some of America's best managers – which is why the lowering of their taxes is the best investment for the whole. Everyone who fails to get this simple point of trickle-down or supply side economics is just an economics (and history) crackpot. Try to cover it by your left-wing beliefs or anything else but it's actually crackpottery that is behind it.

However, the “bigger fish eat the little fish” paradigm doesn’t scale to only one big fish that ate everything (this is why the Zionists ultimately fail), i.e. even though wealth is power-law distributed, still 50% remains with the minnows (but they can’t organize themselves politically and thus precisely why we need true decentralization). Thus I still continue working on my altcoin protocol.

I will need to study the technological security of those instant offchain  “cross chain” swaps. I expect to find security weakness of the sort of game theory attacks I mentioned about Mt. Box settlement spikes on chain. In any case, any altcoin which enables Lightning Network (LN) is going to subject to the threat of volume spikes due to Mt. Box. If an altcoin is not threatened by that (because it can handle nearly any volume such as the design I am working on), then it doesn’t need LN any way!

Yes altcoins can already do transactions much cheaper than Bitcoin and that doesn’t matter. Bitcoin’s transaction volume demand will always continue to increase because BTC is the reserve currency of crypto and so everyone wants to bank their profits in their unit-of-account which is BTC.

Bitcoin’s transaction market share will drop precipitously, but it’s share of the economic pie of crypto will remain very significant and grow because of the reason I stated. BTC miners/whales do not care about transaction volume, they care about value of the transactions and thus the amount of fees that those whose transacts fit within 1MB block size can afford to pay. For example, when every BTC transaction is $10 million, then a $5000 fee per transaction will not be a problem.

[OROBTC]

...

Armstrong is going to add Bitcoin to his Socrates project (his supercomputer looking at financial cycles):

https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/world-news/cryptocurrency/bitcoin-is-it-here-to-stay/

He is doing so because his customers want him to.

[jbreher]

Armstrong is going to add Bitcoin to his Socrates project (his supercomputer looking at financial cycles):

Doesn't really understand it yet though. From your article: "Bitcoin should swap everything to shares...".

[realr0ach]

You’re going to miss out on $1 million per BTC in 2026 with your silly tinfoil hat precious metals delusion.[/size]

You're promoting a cuckold movement:

Bitcoin is a cuckold movement.  It's claimed to be decentralized yet it's entirely controlled by a couple companies like Bitmain and Blockstream - a corporation coin in other words.  There's not many excuses people can make for Bitmain, but people are going to claim Blockstream is "decentralized" or some nonsense, or that it's a "benevolent dictatorship".  I don't really care what you call it, it's still a technocracy and a technocracy is not decentralized.  

If people are going to claim bitcoin requires a round table group to constantly adjust and make changes to it daily, then that already shows it was a scam from the start since it was a dictatorial technocracy by default that would eventually just be absorbed by TPTB that already exist.  So the development/administrative side of bitcoin is designed to completely centralize into monopoly, while the mining side (PoW) is also designed to do the exact same thing. Anyone with any type of macro perspective is flat out lying if they claim it's possible to create a decentralized digital currency.  Their inevitable evolution will always be centrally administered slave instruments.  Gold and silver do not have these problems.

[Risk Mgmt]

seems we have TWO economies running -

a new rising Virtual world economy with no boundaries and

And the old Real world economy with borders and laws

As the Virtual Economy grows and more and more participate a need for ONe virtual currency increases.
 A single supporting legislation on Such Virtual economy will also be needed.

I’m not a expert in technology (I’m a Virtual World Refugee) I don’t know anything.
But biggest difference I see between crypto currencies and real world Paper / Metals is that the Cryptocurrencies  are not subject to geographical boundaries nor affected by central bank interest rates changes - and easily outside of Tax.

The young folks and next generation are very comfortable and spend more time in Virtual Economy than the Real World.   So I see this as a new empire but without borders.    In old times when An empire started - the architect/ Engineer/ resources miners were in high demand / law enforcement/ armies  - today I speculate that TECH sector wages are out pacing other sectors as they build this new empire - their law enforcement you can say are the System security / forensics experts / developers / miners / System database designers etc

Virtual World vs Real World


God Bless

[CornCube]

You’re going to miss out on $1 million per BTC in 2026 with your silly tinfoil hat precious metals delusion.

You're promoting a cuckold movement:

[…]

I told you upthread that fungible monetary systems are the property of Satan. You’re wasting your time idolizing shiny pieces of metal thinking that is a solution to anything.

We’re moving into a knowledge age. I will not repeat all the upthread explanations and links. Readers can scroll back.

[sidhujag]

You’re going to miss out on $1 million per BTC in 2026 with your silly tinfoil hat precious metals delusion.

You're promoting a cuckold movement:

[…]

I told you upthread that fungible monetary systems are the property of Satan. You’re wasting your time idolizing shiny pieces of metal thinking that is a solution to anything.

We’re moving into a knowledge age. I will not repeat all the upthread explanations and links. Readers can scroll back.

Gold still has its own issues with repatriation and trust of custodions. Crypto solves the problems in a much better way although its not perfect (ideal) its the closest we got (asymptotically)

[realr0ach]

I told you upthread that fungible monetary systems are the property of Satan.

Unless you're trying to channel Coincube over here, it's kind of ludicrous you claim to know what god is.  I define the prime mover of the universe as gravity + the non-uniform distribution of matter.  For the non-uniform distribution of matter to exist, an entropy source had to exist on the other side of the big bang.  That entropy source is what I define as "god".  Whether "god" is a just a math variable (random number generator), person, linux VM admin, or whatever you want to claim it is, is pretty much unknowable.  Instead of "god does not play dice", god might be dice.  

The ability to create real random numbers might be the ultimate power and the only real power god has.  That is, unless the universe is deterministic, and then it would just be a puppeteer or something and you're not actually thinking or making choices anyway.  I'm going to lean towards the idea that real randomness was enacted because it would be a pointless exercise otherwise unless everything you see is the equivalent of a video game or movie for someone else's entertainment, but the latter is also still a possibility.

[CornCube]

I told you upthread that fungible monetary systems are the property of Satan.

Unless you're trying to channel Coincube over here, it's kind of ludicrous you claim to know what god is.

Satan can be characterized as the collective failure of humans, e.g. as it says in the Bible that 666 is the number of a man.

The images of Satan as some devilish creature can be construed to be an attempt to visualize this collective failure. It doesn’t necessarily mean that Satan is that creature.

We should also define failure in this context. Failure is an integral facet of the inexorable universal trend towards maximum entropy. Fungible systems tend towards top-down, economies-of-scale, thus must eventually be destroyed by creative destruction in order for maximum entropy to progress. Yet they are expedient and necessary along the way. They for example harbor stability for a while.

[realr0ach]

I told you upthread that fungible monetary systems are the property of Satan.

Unless you're trying to channel Coincube over here, it's kind of ludicrous you claim to know what god is.

Satan can be characterized as the collective failure of humans, i.e. as it says in the Bible that 666 is the number of a man.

The images of Satan as some devilish creature can be construed to be an attempt to visualize this collective failure. It doesn’t mean that Satan is that creature.

Now you are really trying to channel Coincube.

[realr0ach]

I don't know what your argument is here.  Failure to help the universe limp towards heat death is a human malfunction?  I don't know what you're trying to say.  If there was a benefit in doing what you claim, then wouldn't you, yourself climb into a rocket launched towards space and then set it to explode soon after reaching orbit to spread pieces of Anonymint around and infect as many random parts of the galaxy as possible?  It seemed like you were trying to say there is some type of unified goal of all things to maximize entropy where none really exists.  You're definitely not practicing what you preach here or you would have to impersonate a late stage sun and blow yourself up.

[CornCube]

I don't know what your argument is here.  Failure to help the universe limp towards heat death is a human malfunction?  I don't know what you're trying to say.  If there was a benefit in doing what you claim, then wouldn't you, yourself climb into a rocket launched towards space and then set it to explode soon after reaching orbit to spread pieces of Anonymint around and infect as many random parts of the galaxy as possible?  It seemed like you were trying to say there is some type of unified goal of all things to maximize entropy where none really exists.  You're definitely not practicing what you preach here or you would have to impersonate a late stage sun and blow yourself up.

Failure in that context is just what it is, as so defined in my prior post. Fungible systems are long-tail fragile (but near-term antifragile¹) because they tend to centralized control. Period. Decentralized systems are near-term fragile (because they can lose focus/organization on some information) but long-term resilient and antifragile.

I’m not inserting a moralistic (universal goal) argument. Nature is a mix of near-term progress via top-down organization (e.g. species selection) and long-term resilience via decentralized fitness (e.g. cultural transfer):²

Only Dark Age I could imagine would be if we somehow made ourselves extinct by meddling in our genome. Our rate of technological+cultural evolution is moving much faster than the species selection process of evolution can anneal, so it is possible we could loose too much information and create a huge accidental extinction (a concept that argues against too much decentralization which @CoinCube had first pointed out to me with a biological model). The paradigm is Transhumanism.

¹ _{Credit @CoinCube with pointing that out years ago.}

² _{Note how species selection is also decentralized w.r.t. all species while being top-down w.r.t. to members of a species. Conversely note that cultural transfer is long-term resilient w.r.t. to members of the species but doesn’t necessary address inter-species fitness. Thus the perspective on what is top-down or decentralized is also relativistic, i.e. fractal patterns within patterns which oscillate between local effects and entanglement at a distance. This is what I want to explore next for a TOE.}


P.S. Fitness requires a relativistic interpretation of reality:

" ... an organism tuned to fitness might see small and large quantities of some resource as, say, red, to indicate low fitness, whereas they might see intermediate quantities as green, to indicate high fitness. Its perceptions will be tuned to fitness, but not to truth. It won't see any distinction between small and large — it only sees red — even though such a distinction exists in reality."

[realr0ach]

I don't know what your argument is here.  Failure to help the universe limp towards heat death is a human malfunction?  I don't know what you're trying to say.  If there was a benefit in doing what you claim, then wouldn't you, yourself climb into a rocket launched towards space and then set it to explode soon after reaching orbit to spread pieces of Anonymint around and infect as many random parts of the galaxy as possible?  It seemed like you were trying to say there is some type of unified goal of all things to maximize entropy where none really exists.  You're definitely not practicing what you preach here or you would have to impersonate a late stage sun and blow yourself up.

Failure in that context is just what it is, as so defined in my prior post. Fungible systems are long-tail fragile (but near-term antifragile¹) because they tend to centralized control. Period. Decentralized systems are near-term fragile but long-term resilient and antifragile.

I’m not inserting a moralistic (universal goal) argument.

¹ _{Credit @CoinCube with pointing that out years ago.}

Cryptocurrency either centralizes into complete control faster and more so than anything else, or you just have endless chain forks like bitcoin cash, bitcoin gold, etc (aka altcoins but bitcoin itself is already an altcoin since it's been forked numerous times).  This means there will either be no Schelling point whatsoever and everything dies from diffusion, or the only thing that lives will be federated chains run by the state.  This is why nobody should support anything to do with cryptocurrency.  All roads lead to subsidizing your own enslavement.  And this is why I prefer metals.

[realr0ach]

I'm also surprised I'm the only person I've seen (I talked about this many times before) that the jews naked shorting bitcoin is 1000x worse for bitcoin than it is for metals:

After launch of bitcoin at CBOE futures

Then bitcoin becomes a casino gulag where the house always wins and there is no reason to go near it instead of metals.  In metals they can only naked short it to cost of production.  In bitcoin, cost of production is fully floating and recursive based on it's own demand via hashrate, so they can literally naked short it to 0 instead of some type of cost of production floor because no such thing even exists in bitcoin.  Shorting metals below cost of production causes miners to stop bringing gold and silver to market, so it's counterintuitive because it would just create scarcity, so they don't do it (or at least not for long periods of time).  Shorting bitcoin below cost of production forces miners to turn off, thus lowering the temporary cost of production floor even further while the supply from miners recirculating coins remains unchanged.  This is why naked shorting is FAR MORE detrimental to bitcoin than metals.

If you don't want to live in an unwinnable casino gulag, metals wins again because shorting to cost of production just gives you a free money buying opportunity.

[CoinCube]

I told you upthread that fungible monetary systems are the property of Satan.

Unless you're trying to channel Coincube over here, it's kind of ludicrous you claim to know what god is.

Satan can be characterized as the collective failure of humans, e.g. as it says in the Bible that 666 is the number of a man.

The images of Satan as some devilish creature can be construed to be an attempt to visualize this collective failure. It doesn’t necessarily mean that Satan is that creature.

Just to clarify I have most certainly never claimed to know what God is. Infact I claimed the opposite that we not only do not know what God is with reason we can never know.  God is an apriori Truth.

Since my position was not understood below is my position on God. An empirical argument for religion.

Empiric Argument for Religion

1) Belief in God is logical in that the belief is internally consistent and cannot be falsified. This conclusion can be derived in numerous ways one of which is via the application of incompleteness theorem.
See: The #1 Mathematical Discovery of the 20th Century

2) All knowledge ultimately traces back to assumed axioms. Without knowledge, scientific enquiry including empiric enquiry is meaningless and we can’t analyse the world around us.

3) Our fundamental metaphysical first axioms are therefore a critical step in the formation of a sound empirical model of the universe and our place within it.
See: Metaphysical Attitudes

4) Human progress and civilization requires the growth of knowledge and is ultimately cooperation dependent. Our first premises and axioms directly impact the degree of cooperation that the system can support.
See: Superrationality and the Infinite

5) Competing first axioms such as nihilism may grant "freedom" to do whatever you want but for humanity as a whole this is an illusion and such axioms reduce overall freedom.
See: Freedom and God

6) Thus the first axiom of God is not only largely responsible for the progress we have made so far it in all is likely necessary for continued progress.
See: Religion and Progress
and
See: Faith and Future

7) Finally and least important accepting the first axiom of God appears to be correlated with good health.  
See: Health and Religion

8 ) For these reasons accepting the first axiom of God is a superior choice for the empiricist then accepting the first axiom of nihilism or refusing to define ones metaphysics.

Anonymints description of Satan above is very similar to my own limited understanding and interpretation.

[fuer44]

I told you upthread that fungible monetary systems are the property of Satan.

Unless you're trying to channel Coincube over here, it's kind of ludicrous you claim to know what god is.

Satan can be characterized as the collective failure of humans, e.g. as it says in the Bible that 666 is the number of a man.

The images of Satan as some devilish creature can be construed to be an attempt to visualize this collective failure. It doesn’t necessarily mean that Satan is that creature.

We should also define failure in this context. Failure is an integral facet of the inexorable universal trend towards maximum entropy. Fungible systems tend towards top-down, economies-of-scale, thus must eventually be destroyed by creative destruction in order for maximum entropy to progress. Yet they are expedient and necessary along the way. They for example harbor stability for a while.

Just to clarify I have most certainly never claimed to know what God is. Infact I claimed the opposite that we not only do not know what God is with reason we can never know.  God is an apriori Truth.

Since my position was not understood below is my position on God. An empirical argument for religion.

Empiric Argument for Religion

1) Belief in God is logical in that the belief is internally consistent and cannot be falsified. This conclusion can be derived in numerous ways one of which is via the application of incompleteness theorem.
See: The #1 Mathematical Discovery of the 20th Century

2) All knowledge ultimately traces back to assumed axioms. Without knowledge, scientific enquiry including empiric enquiry is meaningless and we can’t analyse the world around us.

3) Our fundamental metaphysical first axioms are therefore a critical step in the formation of a sound empirical model of the universe and our place within it.
See: Metaphysical Attitudes

4) Human progress and civilization requires the growth of knowledge and is ultimately cooperation dependent. Our first premises and axioms directly impact the degree of cooperation that the system can support.
See: Superrationality and the Infinite

5) Competing first axioms such as nihilism may grant "freedom" to do whatever you want but for humanity as a whole this is an illusion and such axioms reduce overall freedom.
See: Freedom and God

6) Thus the first axiom of God is not only largely responsible for the progress we have made so far it in all is likely necessary for continued progress.
See: Religion and Progress
and
See: Faith and Future

7) Finally and least important accepting the first axiom of God appears to be correlated with good health.  
See: Health and Religion

8 ) For these reasons accepting the first axiom of God is a superior choice for the empiricist then accepting the first axiom of nihilism or refusing to define ones metaphysics.

Anonymints description of Satan above is very similar to my own limited understanding and interpretation.

I am not familiar with this discussion. does this explain the science of economics and its relation to belief in God?
can you explain in detail to me?