Martin Armstrong Discussion

[realr0ach]

I'm a technologist.

Technology is just a tool like a hammer, though; a means to an end but not the end.  This makes the word technologist, transhumanist, and all derivatives like that kind of like saying you're a stapler.  It's not hard to make the argument humans have no purpose (nihilism), but if you think the opposite, there's definitely not going to be any purpose found in being a stapler.  

That's my theory for the Fermi paradox, that human direction is entirely based around primitive things like reproduction and if you genetically engineer that out or somehow evolve past that, you likely lose the will to live at the same time and then just disappear.  The less depressing version of events would be that once achieving that stage you have reached some type of level of transcendence and no longer need to be around here.

[1715291996]

1715291996

[1715291996]

1715291996

[1715291996]

1715291996

[realr0ach]

Where's the Sidhujag cure to fix this problem that makes bitcoin worthless?

I already talked about why it's not fixable, because anyone that can create a miner and have it spit out rewards to you while on cruise control without you doing anything is the same thing as INTEREST.  Then instead of one man one vote, you get to scale your interest generating machine to one man infinite votes.  The only way to stop that would be forcing people to do manual labor to solve blocks (captchas), but people would just create bots to solve the captchas and you're back to square one.

Or this other rather impossible to fix problem?

The r0ach report 29: Bitcoin is similar to the double slit experiment in practice - It only works if you don't use it

http://steemit.com/bitcoin/@r0achtheunsavory/the-r0ach-report-29-bitcoin-is-similar-to-the-double-slit-experiment-in-practice-it-only-works-if-you-don-t-use-it

At it's heart, bitcoin is nothing more than a variable number multisig. With current mining centralization, it's probably a 2 of 3 or 3 of 5 multisig. So the only question is how big of a multisig is needed for it to be considered "decentralized"?

The fact that bitcoin is nothing more than a multisig in practice also makes it kind of bogus because a multisig is obviously not an open entropy system. For it to be an open entropy system, instead of using 6 confs, you would probably need to use literally infinite confs. That's kind of how bitcoin is a con in practice, because given an infinite timeline, you can attempt to make the claim bitcoin is a decentralized, open entropy system, but if you actually try to use it on a finite timeline, it morphs into nothing more than a centralized multisig. People claim that's "probabilistic", but no, it's just a centralized multisig when a finite timeline is applied.

So there you go folks, the only way for bitcoin to properly function is by not using it because the act of a human using it applies a fixed timeline and makes it's mechanics fall apart.

(and anonymint is going to argue the confs can be rolled back at any time during the middle of this process making whatever number of confs pointless in the first place)

[`abe]

the dollar staying above useful assets in value doesn't make a lot of sense.   If we come up with free energy then perhaps strange things happen otherwise we'll see price of wheat, energy and other 'stuff' we do use rise above dollar.   If US growth were superior to world growth (demanding those items) why aren't they repaying any debt, why not close the budget deficits, where is the employee pay growth.   The dollar is not strong, dont really believe it imo

[sidhujag]

Where's the Sidhujag cure to fix this problem that makes bitcoin worthless?

I already talked about why it's not fixable, because anyone that can create a miner and have it spit out rewards to you while on cruise control without you doing anything is the same thing as INTEREST.  Then instead of one man one vote, you get to scale your interest generating machine to one man infinite votes.  The only way to stop that would be forcing people to do manual labor to solve blocks (captchas), but people would just create bots to solve the captchas and you're back to square one.

Or this other rather impossible to fix problem?

The r0ach report 29: Bitcoin is similar to the double slit experiment in practice - It only works if you don't use it

http://steemit.com/bitcoin/@r0achtheunsavory/the-r0ach-report-29-bitcoin-is-similar-to-the-double-slit-experiment-in-practice-it-only-works-if-you-don-t-use-it

At it's heart, bitcoin is nothing more than a variable number multisig. With current mining centralization, it's probably a 2 of 3 or 3 of 5 multisig. So the only question is how big of a multisig is needed for it to be considered "decentralized"?

The fact that bitcoin is nothing more than a multisig in practice also makes it kind of bogus because a multisig is obviously not an open entropy system. For it to be an open entropy system, instead of using 6 confs, you would probably need to use literally infinite confs. That's kind of how bitcoin is a con in practice, because given an infinite timeline, you can attempt to make the claim bitcoin is a decentralized, open entropy system, but if you actually try to use it on a finite timeline, it morphs into nothing more than a centralized multisig. People claim that's "probabilistic", but no, it's just a centralized multisig when a finite timeline is applied.

So there you go folks, the only way for bitcoin to properly function is by not using it because the act of a human using it applies a fixed timeline and makes it's mechanics fall apart.

(and anonymint is going to argue the confs can be rolled back at any time during the middle of this process making whatever number of confs pointless in the first place)

For our lifetimes it is adequate. It is a paradaigm shift for money. It solves the generals problem without completing it in a way where 51% consensus is required to attack it. Incentives for attacks not to occur are builtin and are functioning as it has been proven since 2009. There will be no paradaigm shift ontop of bitcoin for a long time. Competing currencies will have to settle for other niches (other than the complete sov) which bitcoin wins hands down.

[thejaytiesto]

Where's the Sidhujag cure to fix this problem that makes bitcoin worthless?

I already talked about why it's not fixable, because anyone that can create a miner and have it spit out rewards to you while on cruise control without you doing anything is the same thing as INTEREST.  Then instead of one man one vote, you get to scale your interest generating machine to one man infinite votes.  The only way to stop that would be forcing people to do manual labor to solve blocks (captchas), but people would just create bots to solve the captchas and you're back to square one.

Or this other rather impossible to fix problem?

The r0ach report 29: Bitcoin is similar to the double slit experiment in practice - It only works if you don't use it

http://steemit.com/bitcoin/@r0achtheunsavory/the-r0ach-report-29-bitcoin-is-similar-to-the-double-slit-experiment-in-practice-it-only-works-if-you-don-t-use-it

At it's heart, bitcoin is nothing more than a variable number multisig. With current mining centralization, it's probably a 2 of 3 or 3 of 5 multisig. So the only question is how big of a multisig is needed for it to be considered "decentralized"?

The fact that bitcoin is nothing more than a multisig in practice also makes it kind of bogus because a multisig is obviously not an open entropy system. For it to be an open entropy system, instead of using 6 confs, you would probably need to use literally infinite confs. That's kind of how bitcoin is a con in practice, because given an infinite timeline, you can attempt to make the claim bitcoin is a decentralized, open entropy system, but if you actually try to use it on a finite timeline, it morphs into nothing more than a centralized multisig. People claim that's "probabilistic", but no, it's just a centralized multisig when a finite timeline is applied.

So there you go folks, the only way for bitcoin to properly function is by not using it because the act of a human using it applies a fixed timeline and makes it's mechanics fall apart.

(and anonymint is going to argue the confs can be rolled back at any time during the middle of this process making whatever number of confs pointless in the first place)

For our lifetimes it is adequate. It is a paradaigm shift for money. It solves the generals problem without completing it in a way where 51% consensus is required to attack it. Incentives for attacks not to occur are builtin and are functioning as it has been proven since 2009. There will be no paradaigm shift ontop of bitcoin for a long time. Competing currencies will have to settle for other niches (other than the complete sov) which bitcoin wins hands down.

I am of the opinion that bitcoin is something big enough that for a completely new iteration of technology to happen that would leave it oudated and objectively useless compared to this new one (and therefore one would be stupid to have a big part of your networth there when something objectively better in every aspect exists), it would require at least several decades to come, but at the same time I remain openminded. Who is to say someone else cannot come up with another breakthrough in a shorter time? Better keep an eye on alternative projects as they come. Crypto is a booming field, millions all over the world are trying to beat bitcoin and come up with something epic. It could be someone here, or it could be someone we have no idea about that releases it out of nowhere satoshi style. The job is to do research on all these alts trying to find the hidden gem. If you are not a genius creating your own project then the next best thing to do is to act as a pirate trying to find the next treasure. Of course one would need to be near genius to discern all these complex new cryptos that end up being scammy or flawed but you must do whatever you can to find out, outsource analysis to other people expert in the crypto field if needed. In the small chance a big discovery happens that it's implemented and works, you want to have some BTC exposure there, because the gains could be massive, and one thing I know: we all like gains.

[CoinCube]

I'm a technologist.

Technology is just a tool like a hammer, though; a means to an end but not the end.  This makes the word technologist, transhumanist, and all derivatives like that kind of like saying you're a stapler.  It's not hard to make the argument humans have no purpose (nihilism), but if you think the opposite, there's definitely not going to be any purpose found in being a stapler.  

That's my theory for the Fermi paradox, that human direction is entirely based around primitive things like reproduction and if you genetically engineer that out or somehow evolve past that, you likely lose the will to live at the same time and then just disappear.  The less depressing version of events would be that once achieving that stage you have reached some type of level of transcendence and no longer need to be around here.

Well said as you know I am a fan of the non stapler theory of life.

Regarding the Fermi paradox I think our technology is too primitive to conclude such a paradox actually exists.

For example we do not currently know if magnetic helicity can be used to encode information in fully ionized plasma. If the answer is yes then it may only be only our understanding that is lacking.

[sidhujag]

Where's the Sidhujag cure to fix this problem that makes bitcoin worthless?

I already talked about why it's not fixable, because anyone that can create a miner and have it spit out rewards to you while on cruise control without you doing anything is the same thing as INTEREST.  Then instead of one man one vote, you get to scale your interest generating machine to one man infinite votes.  The only way to stop that would be forcing people to do manual labor to solve blocks (captchas), but people would just create bots to solve the captchas and you're back to square one.

Or this other rather impossible to fix problem?

The r0ach report 29: Bitcoin is similar to the double slit experiment in practice - It only works if you don't use it

http://steemit.com/bitcoin/@r0achtheunsavory/the-r0ach-report-29-bitcoin-is-similar-to-the-double-slit-experiment-in-practice-it-only-works-if-you-don-t-use-it

At it's heart, bitcoin is nothing more than a variable number multisig. With current mining centralization, it's probably a 2 of 3 or 3 of 5 multisig. So the only question is how big of a multisig is needed for it to be considered "decentralized"?

The fact that bitcoin is nothing more than a multisig in practice also makes it kind of bogus because a multisig is obviously not an open entropy system. For it to be an open entropy system, instead of using 6 confs, you would probably need to use literally infinite confs. That's kind of how bitcoin is a con in practice, because given an infinite timeline, you can attempt to make the claim bitcoin is a decentralized, open entropy system, but if you actually try to use it on a finite timeline, it morphs into nothing more than a centralized multisig. People claim that's "probabilistic", but no, it's just a centralized multisig when a finite timeline is applied.

So there you go folks, the only way for bitcoin to properly function is by not using it because the act of a human using it applies a fixed timeline and makes it's mechanics fall apart.

(and anonymint is going to argue the confs can be rolled back at any time during the middle of this process making whatever number of confs pointless in the first place)

For our lifetimes it is adequate. It is a paradaigm shift for money. It solves the generals problem without completing it in a way where 51% consensus is required to attack it. Incentives for attacks not to occur are builtin and are functioning as it has been proven since 2009. There will be no paradaigm shift ontop of bitcoin for a long time. Competing currencies will have to settle for other niches (other than the complete sov) which bitcoin wins hands down.

I am of the opinion that bitcoin is something big enough that for a completely new iteration of technology to happen that would leave it oudated and objectively useless compared to this new one (and therefore one would be stupid to have a big part of your networth there when something objectively better in every aspect exists), it would require at least several decades to come, but at the same time I remain openminded. Who is to say someone else cannot come up with another breakthrough in a shorter time? Better keep an eye on alternative projects as they come. Crypto is a booming field, millions all over the world are trying to beat bitcoin and come up with something epic. It could be someone here, or it could be someone we have no idea about that releases it out of nowhere satoshi style. The job is to do research on all these alts trying to find the hidden gem. If you are not a genius creating your own project then the next best thing to do is to act as a pirate trying to find the next treasure. Of course one would need to be near genius to discern all these complex new cryptos that end up being scammy or flawed but you must do whatever you can to find out, outsource analysis to other people expert in the crypto field if needed. In the small chance a big discovery happens that it's implemented and works, you want to have some BTC exposure there, because the gains could be massive, and one thing I know: we all like gains.

Yea it would have to solve the generals problem is a completely new way without any security tradeoffs and not allow any sybil or finny attacks.

[realr0ach]

It solves the generals problem

We all know bitcoin does not solve byzantine generals.  Maybe there's another universe where Satoshi solved byzantine generals and Anonymint is not a stapler.

[sidhujag]

It solves the generals problem

We all know bitcoin does not solve byzantine generals.  Maybe there's another universe where Satoshi solved byzantine generals and Anonymint is not a stapler.

Satoshi explaining how: https://www.mail-archive.com/cryptography@metzdowd.com/msg09997.html

Feel free to refute this formal proof: https://socrates1024.s3.amazonaws.com/consensus.pdf

[realr0ach]

It solves the generals problem

We all know bitcoin does not solve byzantine generals.  Maybe there's another universe where Satoshi solved byzantine generals and Anonymint is not a stapler.

Satoshi explaining how: https://www.mail-archive.com/cryptography@metzdowd.com/msg09997.html

Feel free to refute this formal proof: https://socrates1024.s3.amazonaws.com/consensus.pdf

I don't feel like typing up a long response explaining why now since I've already done it before, but you quoted ANDREW MILLER.  He grew up with a guy I know and unless he's changed his mind, I'm pretty sure he doesn't believe Satoshi solved byzantine generals either.  As for his papers he's written, he was trying to get a PhD or something at the time and had to write up a bunch of crap to try and prove he's smart to the rest of academia.  I mean, he's not dumb or anything, but he was just a grad student when he wrote that stuff and you're pretending like you're referencing Stephen Hawking over here.  Like I said, I've also seen him state Satoshi didn't solve byzantine generals too.

A lot of people are also disingenous on this subject and change the phrase to "Satoshi solved a form of byzantine generals".  Meaning he didn't, but they're going to claim it's some type of breakthrough when it's really not by moving the goalposts.

[realr0ach]

It's amazing people don't understand bitcoin isn't fungible and never will be fungible even if you do mix the outputs (and yea, of course Monero is also not fungible for the same reason):

Fungibility is simply the property that any unit of some substance is functionally equivalent to all other units of that substance.

Don't play stupid.  You know damn well bitcoin is not fungible nor money by definition, and that an "evolving protocol" is also never going to be fungible even if you do mix the outputs.  I bet you've also made conflicting statements before about segwit claiming that it's really a fork or something even though the wallets are technically compatible, thus fit within your definition of equivalence in fungibility.  

If you assume each transaction type has completely different surface attacks vectors like attempting to turn segwit transactions into anyone can spend transactions or what have you, how could they possibly be fungible?  This is the never ending cycle of a so called "evolving protocol".  Just about nothing in it is fungible.  There's also not much difference in a hard fork and soft fork if both alter fungibility.

[sidhujag]

It's amazing people don't understand bitcoin isn't fungible and never will be fungible even if you do mix the outputs (and yea, of course Monero is also not fungible for the same reason):

Fungibility is simply the property that any unit of some substance is functionally equivalent to all other units of that substance.

Don't play stupid.  You know damn well bitcoin is not fungible nor money by definition, and that an "evolving protocol" is also never going to be fungible even if you do mix the outputs.  I bet you've also made conflicting statements before about segwit claiming that it's really a fork or something even though the wallets are technically compatible, thus fit within your definition of equivalence in fungibility.  

If you assume each transaction type has completely different surface attacks vectors like attempting to turn segwit transactions into anyone can spend transactions or what have you, how could they possibly be fungible?  This is the never ending cycle of a so called "evolving protocol".  Just about nothing in it is fungible.  There's also not much difference in a hard fork and soft fork if both alter fungibility.

Gold isnt fungible because bars can be blacklisted along with 100x other things that bitcoin is better at than gold. Also we can engineer a solution to our problems. Zcash is anon use that then wash your money and head back to bitcoin as sov. Maybe CT will be soft forked in making.bitcoin anon.. maybe.another breakthrough will break the fake walls you keep throwing up trying to convince yourself that the market is wrong and you are right. Well ive already explained how your so dead wrong you missed the bus crying foul and continue to do so while we are hard at work fixing messes types like you have created and put us in.

Perhaps take those rose coloured glasses off and try to think on how to solve your problems through crypto and you may end up on the right side afterall

[CornCube]

I'm a technologist.

Technology is just a tool like a hammer, though; a means to an end but not the end.  This makes the word technologist, transhumanist, and all derivatives like that kind of like saying you're a stapler.  It's not hard to make the argument humans have no purpose (nihilism), but if you think the opposite, there's definitely not going to be any purpose found in being a stapler.

Very well said. As you know I am a fan of the non stapler theory of life.

Anyone who speaks in terms of an "end" goal is ignorant of the fact that the Universe must be relativistic and without a definable end goal, lest we wouldn't exist in any sense other than a prescripted recording. I've explained why numerous times in my archives.

A technologist is always furthering the maximum division-of-labor which is entirely consistent with the fundamental law of thermodynamics which states that entropy (inexorably) trends to maximum.

There's no one goal. We're all working on slightly different goals. Some may share some like-mindedness.

@CoinCube, I disagree with the claim that top-down morass is a requirement for, or even a provably more, long-term competitive strategy. Go ahead and tie all your shoelaces together with your brethren.

[realr0ach]

It's amazing people don't understand bitcoin isn't fungible and never will be fungible even if you do mix the outputs (and yea, of course Monero is also not fungible for the same reason):

Fungibility is simply the property that any unit of some substance is functionally equivalent to all other units of that substance.

Don't play stupid.  You know damn well bitcoin is not fungible nor money by definition, and that an "evolving protocol" is also never going to be fungible even if you do mix the outputs.  I bet you've also made conflicting statements before about segwit claiming that it's really a fork or something even though the wallets are technically compatible, thus fit within your definition of equivalence in fungibility.  

If you assume each transaction type has completely different surface attacks vectors like attempting to turn segwit transactions into anyone can spend transactions or what have you, how could they possibly be fungible?  This is the never ending cycle of a so called "evolving protocol".  Just about nothing in it is fungible.  There's also not much difference in a hard fork and soft fork if both alter fungibility.

Gold isnt fungible because bars can be blacklisted along with 100x other things that bitcoin is better at than gold. Also we can engineer a solution to our problems. Zcash is anon use that then wash your money and head back to bitcoin as sov. Maybe CT will be soft forked in making.bitcoin anon.. maybe.another breakthrough will break the fake walls you keep throwing up trying to convince yourself that the market is wrong and you are right. Well ive already explained how your so dead wrong you missed the bus crying foul and continue to do so while we are hard at work fixing messes types like you have created and put us in.

Perhaps take those rose coloured glasses off and try to think on how to solve your problems through crypto and you may end up on the right side afterall

Your brain either doesn't work or you're like the #1 liar on the entire forum.  Gold is an element on the periodic table, it's not "A BAR".  Of course gold is fungible.  You're trying to apply externalities such as government that are irrelevant to the definition at hand.  Yes, the govt can make a law outlawing oxygen too. Does it mean oxygen is not fungible now?  No.  The periodic table does not recognize the authority of a man claiming to be god (govt).

It would be like me claiming that if one person wants to receive bitcoins on a USB stick and another wants to be paid by bitcoins in a paper wallet that bitcoin is not fungible entirely due to the preference of one person.
Bitcoin is not fungible and never will be for numerous reasons, but the above reason is not one of them and you're trying to apply that to metals when it's an invalid comparison. 

You also pretend that bitcoin does not require a container or medium to express it's existence and only metals do (in the form of a bar or coin).  You pretend bitcoin magically exists in the clouds.  Newsflash:  There's no such thing as "cloud computing", there's only you uploading your shit to someone else's computer you don't control.

[CoinCube]

Anyone who speaks in terms of an "end" goal is ignorant of the fact that the Universe must be relativistic and without a definable end goal, lest we wouldn't exist in any sense other than a prescripted recording. I've explained why numerous times in my archives.

You have no grounds to conclude that the universe is not prescripted. Our existence as prescripted entities would in no way negate our validity or our intrinsic value.

There are definitely reasons to believe that the universe actually is prescripted

See:
The Illusion of Time : Past, Present and Future all exist Together
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=vrqmMoI0wks

and

Time is NOT real: Physicists argue EVERYTHING happens at the same time
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.express.co.uk/news/science/738387/Time-NOT-real-EVERYTHING-happens-same-time-einstein/amp

How much time has passed from the perspectives of a single photon travelling outward from the moment of the Big Bang?

Answer: None our moment and the moment of the Big Bang are identical from that perspective.

@CoinCube, I disagree with the claim that top-down morass is a requirement for, or even a provably more, long-term competitive strategy. Go ahead and tie all your shoelaces together with your brethren.

I believe I showed mathematically that top-down control is a requirement to be competitive.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=365141.msg4897280#msg4897280

[sidhujag]

It's amazing people don't understand bitcoin isn't fungible and never will be fungible even if you do mix the outputs (and yea, of course Monero is also not fungible for the same reason):

Fungibility is simply the property that any unit of some substance is functionally equivalent to all other units of that substance.

Don't play stupid.  You know damn well bitcoin is not fungible nor money by definition, and that an "evolving protocol" is also never going to be fungible even if you do mix the outputs.  I bet you've also made conflicting statements before about segwit claiming that it's really a fork or something even though the wallets are technically compatible, thus fit within your definition of equivalence in fungibility.  

If you assume each transaction type has completely different surface attacks vectors like attempting to turn segwit transactions into anyone can spend transactions or what have you, how could they possibly be fungible?  This is the never ending cycle of a so called "evolving protocol".  Just about nothing in it is fungible.  There's also not much difference in a hard fork and soft fork if both alter fungibility.

Gold isnt fungible because bars can be blacklisted along with 100x other things that bitcoin is better at than gold. Also we can engineer a solution to our problems. Zcash is anon use that then wash your money and head back to bitcoin as sov. Maybe CT will be soft forked in making.bitcoin anon.. maybe.another breakthrough will break the fake walls you keep throwing up trying to convince yourself that the market is wrong and you are right. Well ive already explained how your so dead wrong you missed the bus crying foul and continue to do so while we are hard at work fixing messes types like you have created and put us in.

Perhaps take those rose coloured glasses off and try to think on how to solve your problems through crypto and you may end up on the right side afterall

Your brain either doesn't work or you're like the #1 liar on the entire forum.  Gold is an element on the periodic table, it's not "A BAR".  Of course gold is fungible.  You're trying to apply externalities such as government that are irrelevant to the definition at hand.  Yes, the govt can make a law outlawing oxygen too. Does it mean oxygen is not fungible now?  No.  The periodic table does not recognize the authority of a man claiming to be god (govt).

It would be like me claiming that if one person wants to receive bitcoins on a USB stick and another wants to be paid by bitcoins in a paper wallet that bitcoin is not fungible entirely due to the preference of one person.
Bitcoin is not fungible and never will be for numerous reasons, but the above reason is not one of them and you're trying to apply that to metals when it's an invalid comparison.  

You also pretend that bitcoin does not require a container or medium to express it's existence and only metals do (in the form of a bar or coin).  You pretend bitcoin magically exists in the clouds.  Newsflash:  There's no such thing as "cloud computing", there's only you uploading your shit to someone else's computer you don't control.

You seem to be confused on what fungibility means. Its okay you do that alot. So gold bars are not intetchangeable if they are blacklisted. They can be easily repatriated and confiscated. Want to melt your bar and lose that serial number? Go.ahead sell your shit at a discount and probably goto jail when caught and lose your gold. Therefor gold is not fungible should it ever theoretically be the basis of monetary policy. There is a reason we left gold standard and hoping to go back is just that hoping.. whereas bitcoin already offer the people a paradaigm shift in asset ownership which never existed and allow for trustless payments with real fungibility. (Use mixers or wait till dexs come then wash with liquid alt coin). You seem to be confused about what we are doing here. You certainly do not have an engineers brain. Whatever job you do in this world do not quit. Your no good at this.

Lets play your fairy tale out. So gold std is here. A war happens. Im china. I demand all gold to print more. I add sensors all over and track those holding any form of thr metal and jail and fine those that cant verify gold didnt come from blacklisted source. Ofcourse you cant they are not verifiable at all. Not like they are digital tokens! So no noone wants to accept jewelerry or operate in black market where its highly discounted tending towards 0. Thus not fungible.

[roach_lost]

Another debunking of Sidhujag bullshit.  Why IOTA and Byteball are useless, but more importantly, why bitcoin so-called triple entry accounting is fake and doesn't even exist.

The r0ach report 27: No, DAGs (IOTA + Byteball) are not useful, and Bitcoin so called "triple entry accounting" isn't real

http://steemit.com/bitcoin/@r0achtheunsavory/the-r0ach-report-27-no-dags-iota-byteball-are-not-useful-and-bitcoin-so-called-triple-entry-accounting-isn-t-real

You still havent read the szabo article I linked to you many times. Do that first. Iota i agree on.. spectre protocol is much better (aviv's project). But your wrong on so many levels its hard to know where to start with u other than telling you to read more.

LOL, the Szabo view makes the erroneous assumption that PoW doesn't centralize more by the day resulting in something resembling a federated chain.  So yea, his stupid economic view might work if everyone pretends a federated chain is "decentralized".  The so called fundamentals are all lies pushed by people who know it but lie anyway, while the price is entirely a fraud as well.  People like the Winklevoss have 200,000 coins they bought for next to nothing they can send to Coinbase and use as margin collateral to 10-50x the price overnight (the same thing that was done to create the artificially high Ethereum price on Poloniex).  

Do you really think it's a good idea for people to be able to rig markets by putting up collateral that not only has no real value due to not being a real commodity, but it's a completely imaginary asset that doesn't exist in the first place?  That's an even bigger scam than the fraudulent Wall Street markets that existed before it.  And it's not just bitcoin, they can create an infinite amount of coins and do this over and over.  How is that not a scam? lol.  These markets are all just fraud bubbles and the only type of assets that have real value are ones that exist in the real world you can take physical delivery of.

https://i.imgur.com/CcFznrj.png

Physical delivery of what? Of the subsequent force which will take your precious metals away whenever the sovereign wills it? Believing you can actually hold, accumulate and defend precious metals against the sovereign is as naive as believing crypto has any real value to anyone else but the sovereign. In the absolute you are correct regarding value but, do you forget that real value can only be held long enough by the sovereign?  While the sovereign holds true value you (by design) are only allowed to hold a shadow of value on the wall of the cave in which the sovereign allows you to exist. Even when you enlighten yourself to the extreme, you cannot escape the cave just because you are one of the very, very, very few that realized they live inside a cave. This last sentence would be true for anyone who becomes extremely enlightened at any point in history.

Knowing this, why do you keep thinking that you can organize enough peers to escape the cave? There is just going to be another sovereign with another cave waiting for all of you and this one will know you to be a "radical" (or better, competition) and will make sure to squash you like a cockroach right away. At this point all of your complaining about useful idiots would be ultimately ironic since you will have become a great dead hero for all useful idiots. As has happened with many others before, dying as a great useful idiot and becoming an inspiration for generations of useful idiots is, sadly, the last stop on the path you walk.

[sidhujag]

Another debunking of Sidhujag bullshit.  Why IOTA and Byteball are useless, but more importantly, why bitcoin so-called triple entry accounting is fake and doesn't even exist.

The r0ach report 27: No, DAGs (IOTA + Byteball) are not useful, and Bitcoin so called "triple entry accounting" isn't real

http://steemit.com/bitcoin/@r0achtheunsavory/the-r0ach-report-27-no-dags-iota-byteball-are-not-useful-and-bitcoin-so-called-triple-entry-accounting-isn-t-real

You still havent read the szabo article I linked to you many times. Do that first. Iota i agree on.. spectre protocol is much better (aviv's project). But your wrong on so many levels its hard to know where to start with u other than telling you to read more.

LOL, the Szabo view makes the erroneous assumption that PoW doesn't centralize more by the day resulting in something resembling a federated chain.  So yea, his stupid economic view might work if everyone pretends a federated chain is "decentralized".  The so called fundamentals are all lies pushed by people who know it but lie anyway, while the price is entirely a fraud as well.  People like the Winklevoss have 200,000 coins they bought for next to nothing they can send to Coinbase and use as margin collateral to 10-50x the price overnight (the same thing that was done to create the artificially high Ethereum price on Poloniex).  

Do you really think it's a good idea for people to be able to rig markets by putting up collateral that not only has no real value due to not being a real commodity, but it's a completely imaginary asset that doesn't exist in the first place?  That's an even bigger scam than the fraudulent Wall Street markets that existed before it.  And it's not just bitcoin, they can create an infinite amount of coins and do this over and over.  How is that not a scam? lol.  These markets are all just fraud bubbles and the only type of assets that have real value are ones that exist in the real world you can take physical delivery of.

Physical delivery of what? Of the subsequent force which will take your precious metals away whenever the sovereign wills it? Believing you can actually hold, accumulate and defend precious metals against the sovereign is as naive as believing crypto has any real value to anyone else but the sovereign. In the absolute you are correct regarding value but, do you forget that real value can only be held long enough by the sovereign?  While the sovereign holds true value you (by design) are only allowed to hold a shadow of value on the wall of the cave in which the sovereign allows you to exist. Even when you enlighten yourself to the extreme, you cannot escape the cave just because you are one of the very, very, very few that realized they live inside a cave. This last sentence would be true for anyone who becomes extremely enlightened at any point in history.

Knowing this, why do you keep thinking that you can organize enough peers to escape the cave? There is just going to be another sovereign with another cave waiting for all of you and this one will know you to be a "radical" (or better, competition) and will make sure to squash you like a cockroach right away. At this point all of your complaining about useful idiots would be ultimately ironic since you will have become a great dead hero for all useful idiots. As has happened with many others before, dying as a great useful idiot and becoming an inspiration for generations of useful idiots is, sadly, the last stop on the path you walk.

Because all companies including cities and urban centers are organic and make up thr global market which goed thru ups and downs.and we are at a point where its not ppl vs soveriegn its market gravitating towards perception of efficiency and cost savings. More productivity and higher gdp results. Usually these kinds of shifts are required to really get out of a market depression to new bursts of prosperity in the economic sense.

The belief that you will not have fungible store of money makes it less attractive to counterparts where this belief.does not exist. May or may not be technically true but its perception althouhj may become true.because it has benefit of being engineered to specification rather than conform monetary policy to nature engineered rules which may not be optimal to achieve this next phase of growth in our evolution as humans.

[realr0ach]

Bitcoin top call success:

I technically called the bitcoin top 11 months ago in the following post if you count segwit as 2MB blocks:



The rationale for this post is that bitcoin doesn't actually function as a store of value.  It's so called value is entirely based around flow and not stock.  It cannot derive value from anything besides the utility it provides to facilitate turnover in commerce.  I estimated the point at which bitcoin is forced to morph from a general commerce system to a mostly settlement layer, and that is the point at which the invisible hand of the market crushes it because there are far better stores of value to use as a settlement layer like gold and silver.

The purpose of a real settlement layer is to do things like store generational wealth without having to worry if the bottom dropped out of it over night.  The value of things like gold and silver is NOT based entirely on flow like bitcoin. They can derive value more from stock, while bitcoin can't.  If you stash away a pile of imaginary bitcoins for 10 years, you have no idea if the value will be higher, lower, or completely zero when you come back to them.

Technically, increasing the TPS of bitcoin is beneficial to price, but that's only if you can trick people into believing it's decentralized when it's not actually possible to create a decentralized digital currency.  The only core reason for most of bitcoin's commerce right now is an attempt at regulatory arbitrage.  Due to the extreme centralization of bitcoin, the govt will easily destroy that use case causing it's lack of fundamentals to be exposed, nullifying anything people attempt to do with TPS or propaganda claiming it's decentralized when it's really not.

Post where I made that prediction:

https://steemit.com/bitcoin/@r0achtheunsavory/the-roach-report-vol-10-why-bitcoin-is-currently-a-roach-motel

[sidhujag]

Bitcoin top call success:

I technically called the bitcoin top 11 months ago in the following post if you count segwit as 2MB blocks:



The rationale for this post is that bitcoin doesn't actually function as a store of value.  It's so called value is entirely based around flow and not stock.  It cannot derive value from anything besides the utility it provides to facilitate turnover in commerce.  I estimated the point at which bitcoin is forced to morph from a general commerce system to a mostly settlement layer, and that is the point at which the invisible hand of the market crushes it because there are far better stores of value to use as a settlement layer like gold and silver.

The purpose of a real settlement layer is to do things like store generational wealth without having to worry if the bottom dropped out of it over night.  The value of things like gold and silver is NOT based entirely on flow like bitcoin. They can derive value more from stock, while bitcoin can't.  If you stash away a pile of imaginary bitcoins for 10 years, you have no idea if the value will be higher, lower, or completely zero when you come back to them.

Technically, increasing the TPS of bitcoin is beneficial to price, but that's only if you can trick people into believing it's decentralized when it's not actually possible to create a decentralized digital currency.  The only core reason for most of bitcoin's commerce right now is an attempt at regulatory arbitrage.  Due to the extreme centralization of bitcoin, the govt will easily destroy that use case causing it's lack of fundamentals to be exposed, nullifying anything people attempt to do with TPS or propaganda claiming it's decentralized when it's really not.

Post where I made that prediction:

https://steemit.com/bitcoin/@r0achtheunsavory/the-roach-report-vol-10-why-bitcoin-is-currently-a-roach-motel

Now your sounding like armstrong and his failed short term predictions. In hindsight your 101st prediction looks pretty good if you dont tell ppl about your other 100 failed predictions including your call for a top at 600 where you moved most of your equity into gold and silver. Keep trollolling though its good for you. Bitcoin will be near a new high soon anyway so dont worry.