Bitcoin Forum
September 21, 2018, 03:07:27 AM *
News: ♦♦ New info! Bitcoin Core users absolutely must upgrade to previously-announced 0.16.3 [Torrent]. All Bitcoin users should temporarily trust confirmations slightly less. More info.
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Poll
Question: I personaly assess that  (Voting closed: July 24, 2016, 06:04:32 PM)
Shelby is indeed very smart and above most here - 34 (34%)
Shelby is indeed very smart but often wrong - 11 (11%)
Shelby would like to be smart but he isn't - 9 (9%)
Shelby is just average but acts very smart - 7 (7%)
Shelby is actually not smart - 9 (9%)
Shelby might be smart or not, why would I care - 3 (3%)
Shelby might be Satoshi Nakamoto - 10 (10%)
Shut the fork up and leave me alone with Shelby - 2 (2%)
Shit, the voting options suck - 15 (15%)
Total Voters: 100

Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 »  All
  Print  
Author Topic: Shelᖚy (TPTB_need_war) Psychoanalysis. Smartest Man in the Altcoin Discussions?  (Read 8662 times)
TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420
Merit: 255


View Profile
April 20, 2016, 11:47:06 AM
 #141

And reading between the lines, can we expect a project with smooth and TPTB_need_war pair programming and altcoinUK as a project manager?

On altcoinUK as the manager, absolutely 0% chance. No disrespect, but one thing I don't want are managers (as opposed to organizers). I prefer a lean approach where every worker is their own manager. altcoinUK as an investor or as a coder perhaps (but also not pursing this as he has retired from coding and I am shooting for crowdfunding donations instead of investors at this stage if possible). On the potential of smooth and I working on the same project, this potential always exists in open source projects as we are all free to choose what we want to contribute to. As to the likelihood of smooth and I partnering to create a project (CC or otherwise), smooth and I talked before in mid-2015 about that (and not since) and it is not outside the realm of possibility but it isn't likely. I think probably the main reason is because smooth's focus afaics is for any project to be strictly modelled in the open source model, and I am instead wanting to combine aspects of closed source and open source and using some commercial marketing concepts. I get the impression this is foreign to smooth's desires, as ostensibly evident by his recent statement about the advantages of Monero:

in the long run, moneros inflation is irrelevant tho... what matter is when all top 10 coin has anonymity implemented, how would xmr will stay relevant Huh

ASIC-resistant pure-PoW coin with many independent miners, fair launched, healthy distribution (objectively shown by high available liquidity), vibrant and inclusive open source project that demonstrably attracts developers, integrated into a privacy-centric development effort including the privacy-enhanced cryptocurrency and I2P router development, deployed and proven dynamic block size scalability, 2-year project and code maturity, well-defined governance, strong experienced core team with diverse skills, proven forum funding system (crowdfunding).

I just looked at the top 10 coins. None have a very strong subset of these qualities. There is no risk to Monero's differentiation in the foreseeable future.

Quote
honestly i want to hear more good news from xmr community regarding their wallet, as i too once xmr holder and convert all of them when i realize xmr dev seem ignoring investors call for improvement.

I guess you are not aware of the active project underway, funded by the community, to complete development of a brand new GUI wallet. If you were I doubt you would characterize that as 'call for improvement' being ignored.

However, since the plans for my project include many sub-projects, it is possible to imagine that those aspects which are pure open source, could possibly be fit to smooth's ostensibly preferred model.

There are other issues as well, such as the very high level of remuneration smooth normally receives, but this is also flexible I think depending on whether the project is purely open source, donation model or not. I think though that smooth is probably quite busy already with his community role for Monero and lead developer for Aeon.

Also there are many talented people and interesting projects for smooth to work with on. There is no super strong reason he should choose to work with me on my projects. I haven't shown much coding yet. "Talk is cheap, show me the code" said Linus Torvalds. And I had been chronically ill for 4 years (and slightly ill for 7 - 10 years), so that is another risk (although I indicated I am hopefully making strides with the Oregano oil).

So actually I find the presumption or implication of the question to be a bit embarrassing for myself.


Edit: the anonymity of smooth is a hindrance to doing crowdfunding and Seedr IPO. Investors can't evaluate an anonymous lead developer.

1537499247
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1537499247

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1537499247
Reply with quote  #2

1537499247
Report to moderator
1537499247
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1537499247

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1537499247
Reply with quote  #2

1537499247
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1537499247
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1537499247

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1537499247
Reply with quote  #2

1537499247
Report to moderator
TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420
Merit: 255


View Profile
April 20, 2016, 08:27:15 PM
 #142

Formal education is the way we perpetuate our mistakes forward. When I hire, I do not look at fake degrees. I look at the person and their thinking process. Samuel Butler (1835–1902) the iconoclastic Victorian-era English author, defined genius as “a supreme capacity for getting its possessors into trouble of all kinds.” If your child does not do well in school because they are bored rather than incapable of understanding such subjects, then they may be what people call a genius. Geniuses are often misunderstood in classrooms and are typically poor students whom teachers dislike because they are non-conformists. Studies at the University of Chicago and the University of Minnesota have found that teachers smile at children with high IQs and frown upon those with creative minds. When we had young people coming into the company who had to take their Series 7 exam, they would ask me questions. I quickly responded, “Do not ask me anything for if you do as I say you will flunk. Just memorize the answers, put them down, and then forget them and we will begin your REAL education in markets.”

The intelligent yet uncreative students accept conformity, never rebel, and complete their assignments quickly and perfectly. The creative child questions everything and accepts nothing. They are much more manipulative, imaginative, and intuitive growing up. They will often play one parent against another. In school, teachers dislike them because they will harass the teacher with questions that expose the illogical dogma they teach.

These genius children are often viewed as wild, naughty, silly, undependable, and lacking in seriousness or even promise. They even said that of Albert Einstein. Their behavior is typically distracting and they will often appear lazy, bored, and lacking any effort to try to advance, but in truth, they are absorbing everything around them. Such children will also give unique answers to banal questions because they are connecting the dots around them. Other children who are linear thinkers will typically reject these children which can cause them to be loners.

Ellis Paul Torrance (1915-2003) was an American psychologist who studied this subject and found that 70% of pupils rated high in creativity were actually rejected by teachers when picking a special class for the intellectually gifted. In a Stanford study, M.G. Goertzel, V. Goertzel, and T.G. Goertzel concluded that teachers would have excluded virtually everyone we consider to be a genius from Einstein and Edison to Picasso and Mark Twain. There is even a book on this called “The Price of Greatness: Resolving the Creativity and Madness Controversy” by Arnold M. Ludwig (1995) which explores the lives and achievements of over 1,000 extraordinary men and women. This book sought to answer the age-old questions about the relationship between mental illness and greatness. It also goes into factors that predict creative achievement in people. You will find a long list of very colorful stories about some of the most eminent artists, scientists, social activists, politicians, soldiers, and business people of our time.

Formal education is terrible. More than 60% of graduates cannot find employment in their field of study. Degrees are only useful to get jobs in brain-dead institutions that lack creativity themselves. Encourage your children to see the world dynamically and look for the connection between the dots. In ancient times, the key education was apprenticeship where you learned the field from the people actually doing the work rather than by those who lack experience. As they say, there are those who do and those who teach. I have been asked to teach at three of the leading universities. The problem is that I have no time. Those of us who really do things would find it boring and unfulfilling to simply stand up and teach a small class of kids. I might as well be a rock star singing the same song for 40 years (which is why rock stars need drugs to constantly do the same thing until they die).

TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420
Merit: 255


View Profile
April 23, 2016, 09:24:10 PM
 #143

I can detect my health is really improving a lot, because I am starting to get back the energy (and thus mental locomotion, intense focus, and clarity) to make research level insights again.

Research level insight first published on Rust’s forum by myself:

https://users.rust-lang.org/t/high-order-function-with-type-parameter/3112/30

(Don't know if anyone else made this point in the prior art, I presume probably yes)

P.S. I doubt Bitcoin core devs can do the above, because programming language typing is not their area of specialization (especially the number theorists/cryptographers). We have different talents and specializations, so we need to learn to respect each other.



Margin long BTC at maximum leverageI am hedged because I am spending that cash on my expenses so I can have the time to do more important programming which is my best chance for having a good income again.

Haha. You don't have much confidence in my programming and marketing abilities.

As you know, maximum leverage can fail even if the prediction is correct, due to volatility, margin calls, and timing.

I'll take my 33% chance with my programming and marketing over the 5% chance of a maximum leverage position.

There are only three types of people in the world:  poor people, margin traders, and poor margin traders.

Haha. Good one. True. And I am always highly leveraged on my projects. And I've hit at least 3 homeruns already in my life. Being sick from 2006 to present (chronically since 2012), blinding of one eye end of 1999 with many months of followup surgeries, and a maelstrom of broken marriage/kids issues from 2001 forward, toppled my juggernaut applecart.

But I think I've got the Hotwheels back on the cart now...hopefully age 51 isn't too grandpa-esque...

SwedishGirl
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 392
Merit: 250


Looking for shmexy coins!


View Profile
April 26, 2016, 08:52:22 AM
 #144

Smart, but a paranoid sociopath would have been my choice.
TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420
Merit: 255


View Profile
April 26, 2016, 06:08:39 PM
 #145

Smart, but a paranoid sociopath would have been my choice.

...

Someone has accused me of being Anonymint 3 times, Fontas twice, and Come from Beyond once.

I thought the same by the way. But Anonymint is too much the paranoid sociopath, so although intelligence is on the same high level, I concluded you are not the same person.

Please put your comments in the "Shelᖚy (TPTB_need_war) Psychoanalysis. Smartest Man in the Altcoin Discussions?" thread. Any slander you want to post is acceptable there.

I'm reporting your post to the moderator. You don't even factually substantiate your vicious ad hominem attack.

I was not aware of the existence of such thread, but I now posted my comment there as well. Unlike yourself I am not comfortable writing walls of text and prefer to say things in a few sentences rather than in a few pages. I would leave it to others to decide whether my statement is accurate or not.

I never knew that writing a lot is a symptom of sociopathy.  Roll Eyes

TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420
Merit: 255


View Profile
April 26, 2016, 06:22:32 PM
 #146

Quote
You need to learn macroeconomics.

thanks for your opinions ... if they were rare (or even correct) they might be worth something, indeed you are prolific.

You're welcome to try to refute Michael Pettis (PhD professor in China) who has been consistently correct in his predictions on China while being the skeptic that everyone thought should be ignored. Now he is respected because he was correct all along. Read his blog so you won't be so ignorant...or remain blissfully Dunning-Kruger as it is your prerogative.

Try not to be such a tosser ... as from past experience a debate with you is worthless, to both sides concerned, good luck. Michael Pettis is knowledgeable on bitcoin mining?

There is no debate, Chinese miners are killing it, that's all you need to know ... nothing in chinese macro-economics is going to change bitcoin mining in the foreseeable future, you're just out-to-lunch crazytalking again, seeking out conflict?
Yeah don't bother your wasting his precious time anyway while he "codes" the bitcoin killer... lol

Hey you two butthurt trolls, I was addressing the bolded statements as quoted below. I was obviously not refuting anything about China's control over mining. Duh.  Roll Eyes  (that is obvious below even if you hadn't seen the numerous times I have mentioned that China is taking over Bitcoin mining)

Smells like a lot of hurt white Western butt in here because they couldn't build computer hardware better, faster, cheaper than the chinese. Western white males measure themselves on technological success and they are getting pasted on the bitcoin hardware stakes so far ... time to up their game if they want to stay competitive. Harden up dudes.

Is this technology or more manufacturing brute force.   China is leading as they can turnover and make the cheapest hardware fastest which leads them to immediately use it for mining advantages.
But yes the West has lost of its great past in skilled manufacturing

Saw this posted, seemed a very well balanced discussion on progression of the bitcoin difficulty vs miners etc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ieP8kxaklUk

The technology of mass-production manufacturing is THE race, for now anyway. Who knows bitcoin itself may have originated out of an Asian mind ... not that it matters.

You need to learn macroeconomics.

Pegging the Yuan to the dollar, they were able to steal from their citizen's savings to subsidize a negative profit manufacturing industry. Read China expert Michael Pettis.

China bit off the dying Industrial Age. However there are network effects that come from this, such as moving up to developing software, etc..

But their manufacturing domination and oversupply (making the rest of the world uncompetitive by artificially depressing the international value of their own wages via the peg) was due to corruption and will cause China to have a meltdown until 2020, when they have finished rebalancing.

I agree with not whining. Compete. Hard to compete in manufacturing when China was gobbling up debt by repressing savings deposit interest rates and otherwise subsidizing their oversupply in manufacturing capacity. The reason Singapore exists is to hide profits offshore for these well connected fatcats who own the State SOCs (state owned enterprises).

TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420
Merit: 255


View Profile
April 28, 2016, 10:10:23 PM
 #147

No possible doubt Shelᖚy is the smartest Man here. Absolutely no doubt his IQ is over 150.

The strange thing about him is that he's an EXTROVERTED GENIOUS, and it's very difficult for these two words to coexist in harmony:

As any other genious, Shelᖚy doesn't care and hates vulgar things from "inferior" people (althought he doesn't say it in public).

The "problem" is that he has an extroverted nature: he needs attention from others, he wants to share things with people, he needs appreciation from people.

And when this two concepts coexist together, the result is an individual as Shelᖚy: A genious that tries to communicate with other people but most times cannot do it because of the notorious "level" difference. Then, when he cannot communicate the way he would like to, he starts getting attention by "trolling" vulgar people (he basically tells them how idiot and wrong they are, with solid arguments).

The question is how is possible for Shelᖚy to be happy (in the sense of spiritual happiness).

The project he's working on pretends to fill this impossible spirit he has. He wants to create a thing that changes millions of people, and he wants to be recognized for it. That's all.


BUT Shelᖚy, you cannot do it alone, even if you have a +300 IQ. To be truly recognized, you must get people into your cause.

WHAT IS YOUR CAUSE?

Quoted from the other thread From-Above created about me:

I can never become anonymous again. If ever I earn a lot of money, my life will be somewhat destroyed as it is improved. It would be best for me to not earn too much money. Too much money makes you a target for the rest of your life. What I'd probably do if ever I have too much money, is start giving it away to projects I believe in. On the simplification on the communication side, this is sometimes very difficult to accomplish. It consumes times and effort. For some polished documents, it is worthwhile. My knowledge of "moon math" is not as high as other experts in crypto, but it is sufficient for my role. All major crypto projects hire a mathematician/cryptographer specialist. Note I could likely have become a mathematician, but my other interests and priorities interfered with that focus. I am not a polymath genius as in a Leonardo Da Vinci, Shakespeare, or Galileo. I am more at the level of a Mark Twain or George Washington. I just have a passion for what I like to do, and I like to juggle conceptual paradigms.

Thinking about my rarity given for example my recent discovery of the solution to a previously unsolved major problem in computer science, I would suppose that in terms of rarity in the fields I show a talent for, I am some where in the realm of 1 in 1000 to 1 in 100,000 of the general population, so thus my specialized IQ is in the realm of 150 to 170. But note that the "g" of IQ is not testing for specialized talent, but rather general talent, so it is not correct to compare "g" rarity to specialized talent rarity. I have noted in other posts that my IQ tests for "g" have ranged from the 120s to 140s afaik (with the most official test occurring when I was in elementary and I was sick that day from having my eyes dilated right before the exam and also I was not at all interested in the crap they were asking me questions about). My SAT test indicates a 131 IQ but note I was a slacker and full-time middle distance track athlete, so I didn't really prepare for it. Just suffice it to say that in terms of where my interests, passions, and talent lie, I am quite rare. But aren't we all in some way?

Some more evidence:

http://unheresy.com/Essence%20of%20Genius.html (published my solution to a question on an IQ test that indicates I would score above 148 IQ on that test)

Unfortunately, your posted answer of 59 lines is wrong:-(

Please elaborate.

The general approach you take is correct of course, but you get several details wrong.
I'll give you some time to identify them yourself...


I see I did take that in account in my solution. Thus I don't see the error you allege. Please elaborate on the error you claim.

What is the maximum number of areas created with L lines?

You are counting infinite regions which are not bounded:

http://mathforum.org/library/drmath/view/55008.html

Those have no definable "area" as the question pertains. Thus I claim you are wrong and even the designers of the question are wrong if they expected your answer.

This isn't the first time I corrected the answer on an IQ test.  Wink


Edit: tromp has a high IQ. That is quite clear. And he is afaik more formally trained in math than I am. I am not going to claim I am smarter than him. IQ is overrated any way, as was explained upthread.




And supporting VultureFund's point about how I get frustrated:

TPTB, do you happen to also have Asperger's syndrome? Reading your responses makes me think of a less genius version of Von Neumann... some people can be so smart and fail to see very simple things right in front of them.

It exhibits a very low IQ to not even fathom that a developer who is focused on technological issues and is off in his programming cave focusing there, may not care about the useless shit you P&D gamblers waste your time on.

So not conceiving of that obvious scenario due to your low IQ, you would then propose the ludicrous idea that I have Asperger's syndrome, when in fact I have demonstrated in this forum and in my career the ability to communicate socially with a wide range of people.

Just because I smash trolls like yourself as I am doing in this post, doesn't mean I am anti-social. Illogical. Your low IQ is evident for everyone now.



Let me make it simpler. All the coins mentioned above will fail. Only own them for the P&D gambler's gains.

Summarizing all detailed arguments for layman is something on my future todo list. I really don't think you are going to understand unless we have a 1 month lecture series that every speculator needs to pass with a grade of at least a B. For example, how do I explain esoteric computer science topic of "dependent typing" to a layman  Huh

The ignorance is strong with this one.

Don't take advice from someone who clearly does not know what he is talking about.

A 13 year old programmer knows more than this guy.

The guy who solves a 50 year old major problem in computer science and who is designing a new computer programming language is what is known as a 1 in 50 rarity top programmer:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1219023.msg14715888#msg14715888

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1219023.msg14685179#msg14685179

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1219023.msg14698495#msg14698495

There aren't any 13 year old programmers on the planet who can match my computer science expertise. If you randomly picked 100 programmers, there is a good chance I am in the top 2.

TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420
Merit: 255


View Profile
April 28, 2016, 10:31:14 PM
 #148

It is interesting to note how men relate to each other. We don't allow another man to have a position of superiority unless we identify him as an alpha-male who we can trust to lead and accomplish what we want (and also we prefer if he appears to be humble so that our attention isn't focused on his superiority in a particular field or if we can pigeonhole his superiority to one field and maintain in our own ego that he is not superior in all fields).

Some relevant essays:

http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=1404 (Ego is for little people)

http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=3000 (about beta-males versus alpha-males in competition for women which determines evolutionary impact)



In movies like "Margin Call", which is a pretty accurate representation of our civilization, the smartest people tend to be involved in creating Rube Goldberg financial products to siphon wealth from the majority.

Because that is the easiest way to become filthy rich. And little people with big egos feel that money is their most important achievement.

Some few of us realize that most significant accomplishments require extensive sacrifice and hard work over a long period of time. But if it is a labor of love, then it fit those of us who want a more difficult challenge. Genghis Kahn would be a prime example, and I've read some statistic that something on the order-of-magnitude of 1 in every 5 people have his genetic code because he fathered so many children. The hard work was the wars he waged to unify Mongolia and advance the economy of his people by doing so.

Edit: I am not referring to Vitalik in either case above. He is smart math geek who got in over his head and is more like a kid in a candy store and fantasizing about technology but doesn't have enough experience yet to see the pitfalls in advance.

TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420
Merit: 255


View Profile
May 03, 2016, 12:14:45 AM
 #149

Anyone taking this guy seriously on anything he says is pretty delusional.

You would have a more intelligent conversation with a 13 year old programmer.

OP fails, offer something better then - oh wait you can't.

He often ends things with "oh need months to explain" "too complex to explain" etc when in reality he is the type to over complicate even something simple beyond understanding and would fail explaining why 2+2=4 to anyone.

In other words - he is full of shit.

If you believe you are correct, then since I am not anonymous and my reputation is at stake, please provide your real identity so your personal reputation will be destroyed when you are proven to have been embarrassingly wrong in your ad hominem statements.

Btw, this isn't helping you. Astute readers can read and ascertain the level of my competence. Your remaining days of being not totally ignored are numbered.

Note I have flagged your post to the moderator since it is ad hominem trolling a technical thread. You provided no technical arguments.



[1] Find my posts in this thread and note that TierNolan is one of the original inventors of the DE protocol, but it had a jamming flaw until I fixed it: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1364951.0

How altruistic you are anonymint! Yes so jealous Smiley

Why do you assume my point was about altruism  Huh Maybe I am just pointing out that I am more important than you belittle me.



Exactly. MA does worse than a coinlip on average. His reverals target "forecasting" is so hilarious I can't understand how he is able to even publish shit like that  Grin I'll bet he counts on that enough people reading do not understand trading and markets at all, or backtesting.

well my financial astrologist does the same thing... planets affect moods. He says dow 32k with usd and us equities rising together (which already started). Hes bearish gold. Has never really been that wrong.

Hey idiots as I had explained before in the quote below, the point is the investor can react to the market action with greater than 50% odds. You guys are too dumb to understand that a prediction for a static point in time with no conditionals, is a point sample and point samples are subject to aliasing error; thus MA does not provide such ridiculous point sample predictions. You try to force his statements to be point sample predictions, thus it is unsurprising that you see his statements as a failure. I won't bother to explain fundamental relevant science to you such as the Shannon-Nyquist Sampling Theorem, Fractals, and Chaos Theory, because you are too dumb to understand.

Armstrong is for smart people. The low IQ trolls need not apply.

The benchmarks stated that the USA dollar and and USA stocks had to start moving in unison as another criteria and if this wasn't the case, then the benchmark low would be pushed out in time until they do.

Thus none of his predictions have failed. Those who expect him to say "this will happen on this date" are building a strawman illogic, because MA never predicts such. His method is to provide a "if this, then that" analysis of the computer model's outputs.

[...]

MA's model provides key dates and it provides indications such as "Panic Cycle", "Directional Change", etc. on each asset analyzed. His model also provides "if this, then that" benchmarks on price reversals in both directions.

From this, the speculator can watch the market and try to interpret how the real world is matching the model and then infer decisions with a much better than 50% probability.

Something important does always happen on the ECM turn dates. For example:

[...]



I'd add that the Elite have less control than you suggest...

Who is you? I had written the same point:

Edit: you also believe in the totality of the elite's "monopoly" control.

TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420
Merit: 255


View Profile
May 03, 2016, 05:52:20 AM
 #150

Details of USA Securities Law is covered in the following thread:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1218399.0

Making AMPS publicly available for sale to non-accredited USA investors makes the unregistered investment securities illegal even if issued by foreigners.

Alt currencies are not investments in the eyes of existing law anyway.

With that strawman statement which does not address the points of the Howey test, you obviously do not comprehend the thread that was provided to you. You probably didn't even read it or read it carefully.

Verbal handwaving is not technical explaining. It is clever marketing to fool n00bs, but I know better.

If you are the guy who doesn't get it, and almost everyone else does

No one understands the details including yourself. For if you did, you would explain it here in sufficient technical detail so as to be unambiguous statements.

You are BS and you know it.

We need sufficient technical detail so that we can verify if the system will do what he is claiming it will do.


It has been in commercial operation for a couple years.

You are referring to components of the system such as Special K or Microsoft's use of process calculi, but the devil is in the details. This usage of some components of his research has no bearing on whether any of this is applicable to Synereo. Without the details, we can't tell you exactly why you are wrong.

And you certainly don't know the technical details either.

Any way, I don't have more time to waste on your nonsense.

So, again, please cease and desist with the negative misinformation and claims.
Ask your father for a refresher on Libel & Slander.

Sue me in the USA (which is the only jurisdiction which you can enforce on me). Hahaha. So we can go in court and talk about selling illegal unregistered investment securities. There is nothing slander nor libel in demanding proper disclosure with all the technical details explained so that laymen investors can evaluate if this AMP token is a worthwhile investment.

Any way, this is all a waste of my time because Synereo will fall and JAMBOX will not. And JAMBOX isn't selling and hyping tokens. Talk to me again in 6 - 9 months. Until then, any thing other than technical details from you is hot air.

Lol, Synereo with a $9 million marketcap and only $0.016 million ($16,000) of probably fake (insiders buying from themselves) daily volume. You snakeoil salesmen having a hard time getting fools to buy this fake market cap now.

Stop wasting everyone's time with your ridiculous allegations.  Nobody takes you seriously.  Your stupid "Jambox" will be a total failure just like you are.

TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420
Merit: 255


View Profile
May 05, 2016, 02:03:45 AM
 #151

Click this quote to read what Gmaxwell and others will respond:

Wholly shit! I am contemplating the possibility that Craig has revealed that who ever created Bitcoin put a backdoor in it!

As I already explained, the signature Craig has provided proves either he has cracked something about the way Bitcoin uses SHA256 or he has Satoshi's private key. Afaics, there are no other mathematical possibilities.

But note this small detail:

You'll note that Bitcoin, for reasons known only to Satoshi, takes the signature of hash of a hash to generate the scriptSig. Quoting Ryan:

Well that isn't so insignificant of a detail when you think more about it in this context.

A cryptographic hash function has a property named collision resistance. Collision resistance is related to preimage resistance in that if we have a way to quickly find collisions, then if the preimage is collision then we also break the preimage resistance for that particular hash value.

Collision resistance is normally stated as the number of hash attempts required to find a collision or the number of rounds to break collision resistance with reasonable hardware. Normally this is exponentially less than computing the SHA256 hash function 2256 times. For SHA256, there are collision resistance attacks up to 46 of the 64 rounds of SHA256 (and 52 of 64 rounds for preimage attack).

So what happens to collision (and preimage in this context) resistance when we hash the hash? Well all the collisions from the first application of hash become collisions in the second hash, plus the new collisions in the second application of the hash thus increasing the number of rounds that can be attacked.

It seems likely that Craig has identified the back door that was placed in Bitcoin as explained above, and used his supercomputer access to find a preimage of SHA256.

If am correct, this is major news and Bitcoin could crash.

I urge immediately peer review of my statements by other experts. I have not really thought deeply about this. This is just written very quickly off the top of my head. I am busy working on other things and can't put much time into this.




And with his access to a supercomputer, it is plausible he was able to reverse the hash in order to find a text that matched the signature that was already on the blockchain.

Hahahaha nope.

Read and weep idiot.



I have now reviewed your analysis and have concluded you are talking out of your ass.

Please provide technical justification.

It's increasingly obvious that despite not being able to present actual cryptographic proof Wright is putting a lot of effort into obfuscation and trying to sway the public opinion, whether it's for his business interests or something else.

You do not seem to understand the math. Either Craig broke SHA256 or he has Satoshi's private key.

You do not seem to understand that linking to your own post doesn't prove anything. Can you post the public key, the message Wright signed, and the signature for everyone to see and verify?

The analysis was provided by others already. The review of that is ongoing here.

You, my friend are peerless; there can be no review of your work.

Do you enjoy being a troll?

You trolls can eat your words now.

As much as you enjoy quoting yourself.
I'm as much a troll as you are an investigator.

I empathize as I know jealously is an affliction of the incapable.

Enjoy your life.



If that's close to your mindset then I gotta say that this is the most speculative FUD I've seen.

Btw, I did write in the OP that I am busy on other work and that I hadn't studied the issue very deeply. Yet in this case, you've just put your foot in your mouth as is appropriate for having disingenuous motives.

I step out to walk the dog and eat lunch, and not surprising those who want to discredit my reputation spring into action. You should stick to the facts and not do ad hominem that will burn your own arse...

Let me get this straight. Not only are you taking Gavin's word for the signed message, but on top of that you're also jumping to the conclusion that Craig discovered and exploited a backdoor in bitcoin no one was aware of up to date.

Please if you are going to troll, at least don't make such a huge blunder. Obviously I am not writing about how Craig ostensibly fooled Gavin by apparently misspelling 'signature'.

I am writing about the fact that he provided a signature which matches a Satoshi address and which afaik also signs the hash of a Sartre text. Whether this is correct or not, it is entirely unrelated to what he demonstrated to Gavin.

Yes I am theorizing on how he could have possibly found a preimage for the hash. I think that is a prudent mental exercise, unless someone can show that he hasn't provided a preimage.



Analysis of what? Please post the facts being analyzed, i.e. the public key, the message Wright signed, and the signature. The thread you linked to doesn't have that.

Your laziness isn't my fault. You find all the links if you click the link I provided to you upthread:

The three things that I asked for are nowhere to be found in the link you provided. There is only your own speculation.

So just to establish the facts - you DON'T have one or more of the following: the public key, the message Wright signed, the signature. Your claims that Wright cracked SHA256 are baseless.

Are you fucking blind?

If you click any of these links in the link I provided to you several times, you will end up finding the links to the analysis done by others which has all the information you asked for:


....

Craig Wright’s chosen source material (an article in which Jean-Paul Sartre explains his refusal of the Nobel Prize), surprisingly, generates the exact same signature as can be found in a bitcoin transaction associated with Satoshi Nakamoto.

The likelihood that a private key will generate two identical signatures when signing two different sources – a Bitcoin transaction on the one hand, and a Sartre text on the other – is so infinitesimally small that it is unlikely.

The only contention remaining is whether the Sartre text hashes to the hash Craig signed. Apparently no one has bothered to check that, even they are so damn quick to declare him a fraud without checking it.

alani123
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1792
Merit: 1038


View Profile
May 05, 2016, 04:17:21 AM
 #152

Apparently TPTB_need_war thinks it's a good idea to send private messages swearing at people who disagree with him. Roll Eyes Hypomanic reaction much?
TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420
Merit: 255


View Profile
May 05, 2016, 05:11:34 AM
 #153

Apparently TPTB_need_war thinks it's a good idea to send private messages swearing at people who disagree with him. Roll Eyes Hypomanic reaction much?

Another troll...

Come on man, I'm not attacking your reputation, I just think that what you're assessing is ridiculous. This isn't an ad hominem, I didn't even talk about you.

Can you look in the mirror and say that with a straight face Huh

If that's close to your mindset then I gotta say that this is the most speculative FUD I've seen.

You need to learn some interpersonal skills.

Why are you lying on your profile claiming to be a female?

Also sending me PMs with foul language and threats doesn't really help you make a point.

Why are you lying? I didn't send you any threat. I sent you a private message with quoted copy of the message I posted in this thread and nothing more in the body of the message (so you would be aware I replied), and I put in the Subject "go fuck yourself" to let you know my feelings about your slimly and technically irrelevant ad hominem attack.

Come on man, I'm not attacking your reputation, I just think that what you're assessing is ridiculous. This isn't an ad hominem, I didn't even talk about you.

Can you look in the mirror and say that with a straight face Huh

If that's close to your mindset then I gotta say that this is the most speculative FUD I've seen.

You need to learn some interpersonal skills.

Why are you lying on your profile claiming to be a female?
Yes, it's a comment on what you're talking about in this thread and how you perceive the matter, not your character or person. Jumping to conclusions again.  Tongue

Man you have a serious deficiency with definitions.

If you want to talk about the technical subject matter, you don't need to involve how I perceive the matter. What I perceive is irrelevant. Show the technical rebuttal. Your involvement of what you misperceive to be my mindset is ad hominem. Do you need help with comprehending definitions?

TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420
Merit: 255


View Profile
May 05, 2016, 06:00:15 AM
 #154

Lol. I doubt that.

Your whole argument is based on something that hasn't even been performed publicly yet.
Your theory is based on a few pieces of code on CSW's blog and other people's word.
We still have to wait to see how CSW will actually sign the keys.

Your theory is based purely on speculation of what we think happened, instead of what we know.
If we know the signature (in theory) and the address (according to BBC), then what was the message?

Quoted as documentation of your ignorance of the technical details.

Eventually you trolls will learn not to fuck with me.

Yes, you were the first to discover that CSW discovered a "backdoor" in Bitcoin.
Your understanding of the technical details here is greatest over all others.  Roll Eyes

And the first to:

1. Explain to Gmaxwell (in his CoinJoin thread from 2013) that he couldn't use a blacklist to fix jamming of CoinJoin
2. Solve the jamming problem of decentralized exchange.
3. Design a technical solution to the inherent centralization in Satoshi's proof-of-work.
4. Which included being the first to explain technically why Satoshi didn't solve the Byzantine Generals Problem.
5. The first to explain why Z.cash's Equihash is likely not ASIC resistant.
6. First to solve a  decades old unsolved fundamental problem of computer science programming language theory.

Get off my lawn you jealous troll. You are wasting my and the readers' time.

TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420
Merit: 255


View Profile
May 06, 2016, 03:33:45 AM
 #155

I will proceed to explain once you confirm that do not understand why Merkle–Damgård construction is relevant? Either explain or admit you don't know. So I can proceed to teach you something. You are wasting my scarce time with your stalling/deception tactics and trolling.

No, you're the one wasting my time. I don't have to explain anything. You do. And you're not. I can only assume by your lack of explanation that you can't produce one.

Next time you will realize not to fuck with me, because I know a lot more than you assume.

I assume you know nothing, so knowing more than that isn't much of an accomplishment. But please go ahead and demonstrate your accomplishment. We're all waiting.

I'll interpret your reply as an ostensibly intentional veiled admission that you could not answer the question. So I will proceed to explain the sort of theoretical analysis that I was interested in discussing in the thread that the "forum-Hitler" Gmaxwell nuked.


Tangentially note the disclaimer that I wrote in the OP of the thread which was nuked:

Does anyone know what black hole Bitcoin core (Blockstream) developer Gmaxwell moved the quoted thread to?

[...]

I urge immediately peer review of my statements by other experts. I have not really thought deeply about this. This is just written very quickly off the top of my head. I am busy working on other things and can't put much time into this.

I had written in that nuked and vaporized thread a post (my last or nearly last post in that nuked thread) which explained that at the moment I wrote that quoted OP, I had been mislead by sloppy writing on the news sites (and also the linked sites of the protagonists) into thinking that the hash of the Sartre text was already confirmed. For example, I provided this quote:

Craig Wright’s chosen source material (an article in which Jean-Paul Sartre explains his refusal of the Nobel Prize), surprisingly, generates the exact same signature as can be found in a bitcoin transaction associated with Satoshi Nakamoto.

Being at is was by that time late in the evening for my timezone and I had been awake roughly 18 hours already, and I was skimming in an attempt to make some quick feedback on this potentially important event, so I could return to my work asap. In the nuked thread, I quickly realized that the Sartre text hadn't been verified to match the hash, so I actually stopped posting in the nuked thread for a few hours. Then when I came back to thread, it didn't exist so I could no longer follow up or read what had been elucidated. Thus note my original focus was on how the hell could Craig have achieved that match, so he must have broken the hash. I had recalled that I had theoretically doubts about the double hashing which I had never bothered to discuss with anyone. It had been 2+ years since I did that research on cryptographic hash functions, so I had to decide if I was going to go dig back into that research or not. I figured I'd sleep on it and then be able to think with a clearer, rested mind about the implications of the revelation (to me) that the hash had not been verified to match the text because the portion of the text had not been sufficiently specified (again the "undisclosed" term didn't make sense to me in quick skimming because I had read on the blog that the Sartre text was referred to).

But instead of being able to sleep on it and then decide whether to let it go or dig back into my past research, my thread was nuked and I was under attack. Remember I don't back down from anyone when I think I am justified. When I think I am wrong, I mea culpa.



So now back to the subject matter of whether double hashing could theoretically lead to any weakening of the second preimage and/or collision security of the SHA-256 cryptographic hash function.

Afaik, there is no research on this question. If anyone is aware of any, please kindly inform me.

First I will note the Merkle–Damgård construction (which SHA-256 employs) is subject to numerous generic attacks and even though afaik none of these are currently known to be a practical threat against a single hash of SHA-256, we can perhaps look to those generic attacks for potential clues as to what a double-hashing might enable which a single-hash application perhaps might not.

Note in the pseudo-code for SHA-256 that what distinguishes a double-hashing from doubling rounds (i.e. "Compression function main loop:") or repeating the input text in double the block chunks (i.e. "Process the message in successive 512-bit chunks:"), is that the h0 - h8 compression function state which is normally orthogonal to the input block chunks instead gets transmitted as input to a block chunk in the second hash application (i.e. "Produce the final hash value (big-endian):") after being added to the output of the compression function (i.e. "Add the compressed chunk to the current hash value:"). And the h0 - h8 compression function state is reset to a constant (i.e. "Initialize hash values:").

The reason I think this might be theoretically significant is because we should note that the way cryptographic hash functions are typically broken is by applying differential cryptanalysis. Differential cryptanalysis is attempting to find some occurrence of (even higher order) differences between inputs that occurs with more frequent probability than a perfectly uniform distribution. In essence, differential cryptanalysis is leveraging some recurrent structure of the confusion and diffusion and avalanche effect of the algorithm.

Not only does the double-hashing introduce a constant  h0 - h8 midstream thus introducing a known recurrent structure into the middle of the unified algorithm of a double-hashing, but it shifts the normally orthogonal compression function state to the input that it is designed supposed to be orthogonal to. On top of that, the additions of the h0 - h8 state at the midpoint, can possibly mean the starting state of the midpoint is known to have a higher probability of zeros in the least significant bits (LSBs). This last sentence observation comes from some research I did when I created a much higher bandwidth design variant of Berstein's ChaCha by fully exploiting AVX2 SIMD, that was for a specific purpose of creating a faster memory hard proof-of-work function. In that research, I had noted the following quote of an excerpt in my unfinished, rough draft, unpublished white paper written in late 2013 or early 2014 (and kindly note that the following might have errors because it was not reviewed for publishing and was merely notes for myself on my research understanding at that time 2+ years ago):

Quote from: shazam.rtf
Security

Addition and multiplication modulo (2^n - 1) diffuse through high bits but set low bits to 0. Without shuffles or rotation permutation to diffuse changes from high to low bits, addition and multiplication modulo (2^n - 1) can be broken with low complexity working from the low to the high bits [5].

The overflow carry bit, i.e. addition modulo minus addition modulo (2^n - 1), obtains the value 0 or 1 with equal probability, thus addition modulo (2^n - 1) is discontinuous i.e. defeats linearity over the ring Z/(2^n) [6] because the carry is 1 in half of the instances [7] and defeats linearity over the ring Z/2 [8] because the low bit of both operands is 1 in one-fourth of the instances.

The number of overflow high bits in multiplication modulo ∞ minus multiplication modulo (2^n - 1) depends on the highest set bits of the operands, thus multiplication modulo (2^n - 1) defeats linearity over the range of rings Z/2 to Z/(2^n).

Logical exclusive-or defeats linearity over the ring Z/(2^n) always [8] because it is not a linear function operator.

Each multiplication modulo ∞ amplifies the amount diffusion and confusion provided by each addition. For example, multiplying any number by 23 is equivalent to the number multiplied by 16 added to the number multiplied by 4 added to the number multiplied by 2 added to the number. This is recursive since multiplying the number by 4 is equivalent to the number multiplied by 2 added to the number multiplied by 2. Addition of a number with itself is equivalent to a 1 bit left shift or multiplication by 2. Multiplying any variable number by another variable number creates additional confusion.

Multiplication defeats rotational cryptoanalysis [9] because unlike for addition, rotation of the multiplication of two operands never distributes over the operands i.e. is not equal to the multiplication of the rotated operands. A proof is that rotation is equivalent to the exclusive-or of left and right shifts. Left and right shifts are equivalent to multiplication and division by a factor of 2, which don't distribute over multiplication e.g. (8 × 8 ) × 2 ≠ (8 × 2) × (8 × 2) and (8 × 8 ) ÷ 2 ≠ (8 ÷ 2) × (8 ÷ 2). Addition modulo ∞ is always distributive over rotation [9] because addition distributes over multiplication and division e.g. (8 + 8 ) ÷ 2 = (8 ÷ 2) + (8 ÷ 2). Due to the aforementioned non-linearity over Z/(2^n) due to carry, addition modulo (2^n - 1) is only distributive over rotation with a probability 1/4 up to 3/8 depending on the relative number of bits of rotation [9][10].

However, multiplication modulo (2^n - 1) sets all low bits to 0 orders-of-magnitude more frequently than addition modulo (2^n - 1)—a degenerate result that squashes diffusion and confusion.

[5] Khovratovich, Nikolic. Rotational Cryptanalysis of ARX. 2 Related Work.
[6] Daum. Cryptanalysis of Hash Functions of the MD4-Family.
     4.1 Links between Different Kinds of Operations.
[7] Khovratovich, Nikolic. Rotational Cryptanalysis of ARX.
     6 Cryptanalysis of generic AR systems.
[8] Berstein. Salsa20 design. 2 Operations.
[9] Khovratovich, Nikolic. Rotational Cryptanalysis of ARX.
     3 Review of Rotational Cryptanalysis.
[10] Daum. Cryptanalysis of Hash Functions of the MD4-Family.
    4.1.3 Modular Additions and Bit Rotations. Corollary 4.12.

So now put those aforementioned insights about potential recurrent structure at the midpoint of the double-hashing, together with the reality that a Boomerang attack is a differential cryptoanalysis that employs a midpoint in a cipher to form new attacks that weren't plausible on the full cipher. Bingo!

I'll refrain from providing my further insights on specifics beyond this initial sharing. Why? Because I've been treated like shit by Gmaxwell and you all here grant him too much Hitler-esque control over the Bitcoin Technical Discussion subforum where these sort of discussions are supposed to occur, so I will take my toys else where. Enjoy your echo chamber.

Do I have an attack against Bitcoin's double-hashing? I leave that for you to ponder.

TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420
Merit: 255


View Profile
May 06, 2016, 03:48:23 AM
 #156

TPTB_need_war, you cannot prove nor disprove that the Sartre text Craig Wright supposedly hashed is a collision for SHA256.

I asked you to not do what you just did above:

Don't cherry pick my context to make inane non-rebuttals which side-step my holistic set of points.



You also pointed out that he supposedly has access to a supercomputer. Even with access to a supercomputer, he would not be able to find a collision as other researchers have already tried. Simply having a lot of computing power does not mean that he can find a collision.

Alternatively, Craig could have found a vulnerability in sha256, in which case a lot more things than just Bitcoin is screwed. If Craig did not responsibly disclose such a vulnerability and instead exploited it, this would be incredibly sketchy and dishonest behavior.

The point is that with a supercomputer together with a new cryptoanalysis break, the two together might be required to accomplish the attack. I want you to know that if China's pools see nearly all the mining shares, then they are viewing about 268 of SHA-256 hashing power per annum which may or may not be fulcrum. Don't presume you know all the theoretical attacks that are possible.

The theory that the sha256 double hash is weaker than sha256 is false. It has been proven that performing multiple iterations of a hash is more secure than just one iteration. Specifically, many websites will store users passwords in the form of a multiple iteration hash.

You've made at least two mathematically illiterate errors in that quoted text:

1. Testing that double-hashing fulfills some criteria you have prechosen, says nothing about security against cryptoanalysis which your criteria has not considered.
2. Securing a password by iterated hashing (because it requires the dictionary attacker to perform the iteration cost on each dictionary trial) says nothing about the increased vulnerability of collision cryptanalysis. You are conflating two separate issues of security.  Roll Eyes

I am done speaking to these amateurs. Waste of my time.

TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420
Merit: 255


View Profile
May 06, 2016, 05:38:59 AM
 #157

Although it may turn out to be false alarm. It is still interesting to see what other high level techs will say about this double hashing and possible vulnerability.

Let's await the discussion and hope it is comprehensible even in part to the layman. It's got to be more interesting than the usual spam that clutters the main alt board.

Amen, and a little reminder as to why alts serve a purpose, at least the ones that didn't copy/paste BTC.

Here is a few morsels of technical kryptonite for the "meme image self-masturbation" trolls[ducks]cock-suckers to gag on:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1459846.msg14766916#msg14766916

So they want to play hardball... okay I know that game too...

Whose cock are you sucking today boiz? Gmax? Bitalik? Sincereo? Duckefeller? Cat got your tongue or mouth too full of yummy finger-licking-good semen?

The low-life anonymous scum that is here on BCT:

Feel sorry for the kids. Half-Filipino......half-petrified.  Cry

What kind of man talks about another man's kids on a public forum hiding behind anonymity. That isn't a man. I dare him to say that to my face. You run out of ammunition to attack my reputation with, so you involve my kids who have nothing to do with anything that is going on here on this putrefied forum.

RAJSALLIN
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 634
Merit: 500


CHIEF GROWTH OFFICER OF GLOBAL ENTERPRENEUR


View Profile
May 06, 2016, 09:25:45 AM
 #158

Don't have the time or energy to read this thread but I'd like to say that Anonymint is one of few here I'd like to meet in person.

His intellect is high, much higher than most here (including myself).

Too bad his coin never made it though. Would have been big.

             ▄▄
          ▄▄████▄▄
       ▄▄████▀▀████▄▄
    ▄▄████▀      ▀████▄▄
 ▄▄████▀            ▀███▀
████▀                  ▀  ▄▄
███                      ▄██
███                      ███
███   ███▄        ▄███   ███
███   █████▄    ▄█████   ███
███   ███▀███▄▄███▀███   ███
███   ███  ▀████▀  ███   ███
███   ███    ▀▀    ███   ███
███▄  ███          ███  ▄███
 ▀███▄███          ███▄███▀
   ▀█████          █████▀
     ▀███          ███▀
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██


▄█████████████████████▄
███████████████████████
█████████████████▀▀▀███
███████████▀▀▀      ███
█████▀▀▀       ▄    ███
██▄         ▄█▀    ████
█████▄    ▄█▀      ████
████████▄█▀       █████
██████████  ▄     █████
██████████ ███▄  ██████
███████████████████████
███████████████████████
▀█████████████████████▀


▄█████████████████████▄
███████████████████████
██████████████▀▀▀██████
████ ▀███████     ▀▄███
████   ▀▀█▀▀      ▄████
█████              ████
██████             ████
███████▄          █████
███████▀        ▄██████
███▀▀        ▄▄████████
███████████████████████
███████████████████████
▀█████████████████████▀


▄█████████████████████▄
███████████████████████
████████████▀▀▀▀███████
██████████▀     ███████
██████████   ██████████
████████▀▀   ▀▀████████
████████       ████████
██████████   ██████████
██████████   ██████████
██████████   ██████████
██████████   ██████████
███████████████████████
▀█████████████████████▀


▄█████████████████████▄
█████▀▀         ▀▀█████
███    ▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄    ███
██   ████▀▀▀▀▀██▀▀   ██
██  ███▀       ▀  █  ██
██  ██▀  █████  ▀██  ██
██  ██  ███████  ██  ██
██  ██▄  █████  ▄██  ██
██  ███▄       ▄███  ██
██   ████▄▄▄▄▄████   ██
███    ▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀    ███
█████▄▄         ▄▄█████
▀█████████████████████▀


▄█████████████████████▄
██████████████▀████████
████████████▀ ▄ ▀  ▀███
███████████ ▄███▄  ▄███
███████████ ███████████
██▀  ▀█▀▀     ▀▀█▀  ▀██
██     ▄▄     ▄▄     ██
███▄  ████   ████  ▄███
████   ▀▀     ▀▀   ████
█████  ▀▄▄   ▄▄▀  █████
███████▄▄ ▀▀▀ ▄▄███████
███████████████████████
▀█████████████████████▀


▄█████████████████████████▄
███████████████████████████
████▀▀▀▀███████████████████
███      ██████████████████
████▄▄▄▄███████████████████
████    ██    █▀    ▀██████
████    ██            █████
████    ██    ▄███▄    ████
████    ██    █████    ████
████    ██    █████    ████
████    ██    █████    ████
████    ██    █████    ████
▀█████████████████████████▀
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
sockpuppet1
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 28
Merit: 0


View Profile
May 11, 2016, 11:36:16 AM
 #159

But fine, go ahead and give credence to Chicken Little.  It's not the first time he's gone off on some half baked rant about how we're all doomed and it certainly won't be the last time that he's been completely wrong about it.  Credibility.  Equals.  Zero.

The paid propagandists such as DooMAD will come here...

We are always being turned against each other and take our eyes off the true source of the our problems.

DooMAD I don't know how you can look at yourself in the mirror.

...One for each personality disorder you suffer from?) likely to contain unrealistic and purely hypothetical scenarios that may be closer to fiction than any semblance of reality, along with false logic and copious amounts of clutching at straws.

Please do continue to destroy yourselves with your socialist delusions, while the Minsky Moment of global collapse approaches:

2018 Kaboom!

https://www.docdroid.net/file/download/i3f8uVF/stanley-druckenmiller-the-end-game.pdf (<-- see page 7)

http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21698240-it-question-when-not-if-real-trouble-will-hit-china-coming-debt-bust

With fondest memories Roll Eyes of your banned spiritual leader who I hope was hit by door on his way out.

Butt is a bit sore, but it is from sitting in the programming chair 18 hours a day.

Oh and remember during 2013 to 2015, I was sharing the predictions of Martin Armstrong which called for a massive lurch towards global clusterfuck on 2015.75 (Sept 30/Oct 1 2015), we'll the prediction was entirely correct (click the following Quote to read more):

[...]

Something important does always happen on the ECM turn dates. For example:

1. On March 13/14 2016, the deadcat bounce of Baltic Sea index (measure of the world's trade activity) rolled over and started to decline again.

2. On 2015.75, was precisely the event that began WW3 and the stage of the conflict that sent the migrants invading Europe:

Putin invaded Syria precisely on September 30, 2015, which was to the day of 2015.75. That warned that whatever takes place right on the day becomes the main focus. Putin then withdrew precisely on pi day. So what is taking place from the Middle East will break the back of Europe economically as governments seek to raise taxes to pay for the pretend “refugees” as well as extremists who have infiltrated Europe and destabilized its borders and security. This is unwinding the entire freedom of movement within Europe which was the cornerstone of the EU concept. With borders resurfacing, Brussels begins its decline.

Even 9/11 took place right on our pi target from the peak in the ECM. This is starting to demonstrate that there is, in fact, a cycle to this type of activity that is following the 8.6 frequency. The Madrid attack on the train was March 11, 2004, or 2004.19. If we project target dates from the USA 9/11 incident, we arrive at 2004.16, which was March 1 or 10 days earlier before the attack. We have been running various terrorist attacks through our models. The list is indeed long (see Wikipedia). Nonetheless, it appears that certain groups do fall into unique cycle frequencies. This appears to enable one to determine which group was behind what.

2002.780 Indonesia Bali Oct 12, 2002
2002.810 Moscow October 23, 2002
2003.372 Morocco, Casablanca May 16, 2003
2003.361 Riyadh Saudi Arabia May 12, 2003
2003.887 Turkey, Istanbul November 20, 2003
2004.191 Madrid March 11, 2004
2004.668 Beslan, Russia September 1 – 3, 2004


Let’s face the facts. The Economic Confidence Model works with such precision it is often mind-numbing. This is monitoring human activity as a coherent, collective economic entity of “civilization” that materializes by people coming together. I suppose it makes sense that we are influenced collectively to respond with a cyclical rhythm. It appears the same is reflected in terrorist activity.

3. From my March, 2009 essay:

I don't know if anyone else has commented already, that Martin Armstrong's "It Is Just Time" prediction made back in October 2008, for a major turn event on March 19, nailed the exact day (after) the Fed announced to start buying government bonds directly.

He had also predicted ahead of time the turn that coincided with the peak in the precious metals prices last March 2008.

Google "Martin Armstrong", for the remarkable story about how accurate his computer model predictions have been, and him being in the maximum security prison without a trial, together with the Shoe Bomber and the Unibomber, alledgedly because of his unwillingness to share his model with the CIA.
sockpuppet1
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 28
Merit: 0


View Profile
May 11, 2016, 12:02:10 PM
 #160

the putrified nature of any forum, comes from abusive, divisive, and threatening individuals like you.

Quoting that because I don't want it to be lost in the future when historians and the press are documenting the man who built an altcoin that displaced Bitcoin.
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 »  All
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!