rpietila Wall Observer - the Quality TA Thread ;)

[creekbore]

Thats how math works.

OK,  I'm no mathematician.
But, sincerely, thanks for taking the timeout to explain it    <----not dour

[1714110134]

1714110134

[AnonyMint]

AnonyMint is concerned about mass adoption, because he wants to save the world.  More power to him.  Being in the world, I think it could use some saving.  But his particular form of mass adoption is not necessary or to be expected during the time between now and the next two or three hype cycles.  IRS treatment of bitcoin can be harmful to mass adoption in the medium term, but good for institutional adoption in the near term.

Medium-term I'm concerned about those who are adopting Bitcoin now, and that they have no anonymity and they can't spontaneously mine it any more (without a serious investment in mining). And I am concerned that the mass adoption of Bitcoin will come in the form of off chain  (to fix the slow transaction speed and other issues which INTENTIONALLY won't be fixed on chain) and government control over mining and off chain coin supply, and that we Bitcoin adopters won't have any other option. We will be trapped in the new digital slavery NWO. My perspective is viewed by many as extreme and paranoid.

For next week or two, I think the tax ruling can deflate the confidence of some of the n00b investors who bought at $600 - $1000 if the price breaks down through $400. Capitulation would then come when they lose resolve to hodl. I could be wrong about this bottom call. I have presented some ways of looking at the chart of adoption to support my short-term perspective.

I also presented a new theory of the adoption curve being log-logistic instead of logistic. They key distinction is the rate of adoption would be declining since the launch of Bitcoin and not after 50% have adopted. The chart of n seems to support my view, but (from eyeballing it only) there are not enough data points yet to reliably conclude.

Because of my negative view on the potential outcome of Bitcoin on us, I have a very bad taste in my mouth if I buy BTC as an investment. I feel like I am a traitor to humanity and I would be better served to invest my time in an alternative instead. So it would take a very low bottom price to maybe cause me to potentially incriminate myself (assuming totalitarian effects of debt crisis subsequently emerge). I realize I am being somewhat irrational if my goal is to maximize return on capital. Also no man is an island.

I suppose I am not appreciating Risto as much as I used to because he preaches what I believe to be the NWO coin, and he uses hyperbole such as claiming it is at a fraction of adoption of world's population as if he can be sure how Bitcoin can morph to be compelling to masses. The only way I see it doing that is with government blessing. And this outcome is not the way investments usually work. Yeah it is always "different this time". Yet I am trying to not let this affect my feelings about any person. Frankly I need to do less talking and more working. (Mea Culpa)^1000000.

Correction: Note if I remember correctly Risto wrote 99.5% of adoption remaining, which would mean 200 x 2 million = 400 million target. Actually that is not too far from my expection of the current white male demographic target market. That is qualitatively not mass adoption by the entire world. That is 1 in 17 people in world. So I am not clear if Risto is arguing for mass adoption as a currency or for white male adoption as an investment bubble? His numbers are straddling the two. My expectation is either Bitcoin will top out as an investment bubble at up to one or two hundred million, or it will be prodded by the government to become the digital fiat. I don't see another outcome for Bitcoin, because I see no relevant development at all on the block chain protocol.

Certain developers who you know their name spend more time meeting with the CIA and the Council on Foreign Relations than developing the protocol improvements.

Since when should a programmer be a political liaison  

Fishy smell.

[Siegfried]

Propaganda. Have you followed what Larry Summers said? They want digital currency so they can easily confiscate. The establishment is supporting Bitcoin because they can more easily track where all the money is.

I have not, but will look for it when I have time. I think the overall reaction of the government towards cryptos is going to turn out to be very complex. And fascinating. And one thing to keep in mind, is that there will be no unified reaction, because "the government" is run by lots of people with conflicting agendas. With campaigns funded by more people with different agendas. And varying degrees of technical sophistication.

They are trial ballooning different ways to bring the world onto a digital ledger so they can confiscate by pressing a button. Off chain on Bitcoin will be the mechanism to achieve this control.

They have nothing to fear from Bitcoin, because one pool already controls 50% of the mining. They could easily blacklist coins tomorrow if they needed to.

Now they just to manage their baby well to keep you all supporting their desired outcome of slavery.

Proof is in the facts. Bitcoin is not decentralized. You all are controlled by propaganda. The mining is already controllable by the government.

The key now is to manage it so you all don't wake up and move to an anonymous coin. To keep you all locked in by your greed and the thought the largest market size is best.

I have contemplated what sort of technical battle would ensue if the government decided to take explicit control of the blockchain.

For the sake of argument, suppose the government announced that all miners had to be "licensed" or "approved" or some such thing. How could the crypto community fight this? I suppose the community could fork the blockchain to make a branch run only by miners that were not government sponsored. Perhaps, there could be some underground network of anarcho-miners who are required to pledge their allegiance to the Ghost of Satoshi to become part of the network. There would ALWAYS be people willing to risk their lives to run this network. So I don't think the government could kill the network. What they could do, is prosecute people who are caught using the "unapproved" bitcoin blockchain. They'd probably have to crack down pretty hard. And whether they would be successful, I dunno.

Another question: what if two (or more) governments battle for control of the blockchain, so no one gets 51%? Does that mean Satoshi wins?

The U.S. government moves very slowly. If Bitcoin succeeds, the time in which that will happen will be too short for the government to fully recognize the threat and issue an effective policy to oppose it before it (Bitcoin) becomes deeply entrenched in the economy and its benefits are widely perceived. At the point, the political opposition to such a move would be too great.

[aminorex]

Mass adoption vs. nation fiat question, some quick thoughts:

The characteristics required for adoption vary with the scenario.  A global fiat failure scenario, a national fiat failure scenario - which varies dramatically between cultures and jurisdictions, or an incremental adoption within the nominal status quo scenario. 

A challenge to refutation is an unfair gauntlet to throw down, in part because it would be an interminable debate, deciding which specific characteristics of a national fiat were necessary and sufficient under each of a wide range of scenarios.

The point is made, and taken, that for some set of characteristics, the result is that the crypto has become no better than, or even worse than, the fiat which its adoption might displace.  Whether that set of characteristics is a proper subset of the characteristics required for such a displacement under *all* scenarios seems naively unlikely.  Whether it is a proper subset under the eventual scenarios which actually unfold will then depend on unfolding events.

But now I feel like I'm contributing to a thread hijack.  Unless Risto addresses the topic, it should probably be moved to one of AnonyMint's threads.

[BTCtrader71]

The U.S. government moves very slowly. If Bitcoin succeeds, the time in which that will happen will be too short for the government to fully recognize the threat and issue an effective policy to oppose it before it (Bitcoin) becomes deeply entrenched in the economy and its benefits are widely perceived. At the point, the political opposition to such a move would be too great.

That is my impression. But it is also what I wish to be true, and I frequently try to remind myself to be careful not to be swayed by wishful thinking into self deception.

[AnonyMint]

P.S. one of the reasons to hide this discussion in a TA thread is I think the (powers) have (that be) workers who read this forum. Also because the core of the adoption is here. You all are the leaders.

Mass adoption vs. nation fiat question, some quick thoughts:

The characteristics required for adoption vary with the scenario.  A global fiat failure scenario, a national fiat failure scenario - which varies dramatically between cultures and jurisdictions, or an incremental adoption within the nominal status quo scenario.  

A challenge to refutation is an unfair gauntlet to throw down, in part because it would be an interminable debate, deciding which specific characteristics of a national fiat were necessary and sufficient under each of a wide range of scenarios.

The point is made, and taken, that for some set of characteristics, the result is that the crypto has become no better than, or even worse than, the fiat which its adoption might displace.  Whether that set of characteristics is a proper subset of the characteristics required for such a displacement under *all* scenarios seems naively unlikely.  Whether it is a proper subset under the eventual scenarios which actually unfold will then depend on unfolding events.

But now I feel like I'm contributing to a thread hijack.  Unless Risto addresses the topic, it should probably be moved to one of AnonyMint's threads.

How can this be a threadjack when Risto often uses adoption to support his bottom calls in this thread?

It seems it is difficult to separate FA and TA when discussing Bitcoin. A relationship between a proxy for adoption n and price p was shown in this thread.

The only characteristic of fiat that we need to look at is centralization as it subjugates all (relevant) structure w.r.t. to the masses. The Iron Law of Political Economics guarantees that. And it is nearly impossible for the participants to see that. That is why it is so scary of a beast.

So the implosion of the friction and thus the order only occurs when they perish, because they will continue to repeat the mechanism which they do not understand to be a cause of their suffering. This can be verified in a petri dish, as an organism will reproduce until it consumes all of its food or oxygen. Due to the lack of a pre-frontal cortex, it is unable to comprehend the connection of reproduction to unsustainability. Unfortunately, even though humans have a pre-frontal cortex, they do not comprehend that debt, insurance, bonds, fractional reserve money, and centralized governance, cause the demand (and thus production) of resources to be overconcentrated in sectors of the ecosystem that create a less productive future.

    “It amazes that otherwise bright people can’t understand the simple concept that economic collapse doesn’t convert collectivists into anarchists.”

Thus the people are blind to the mechanism which is enslaving them and reducing their prosperity. Thus, since they will not change the mechanism, centralization of governance will grow stronger from the current financial crisis, and will diminish only when the involved organisms perish. Entropy is continuously culling the center of the bell curve so that knowledge can advance.

You are very astute at "multivariate abstraction" (apparently superior to me, as you already corrected me on n^2 has more structure than p, kudos), but you may not be as insightful at boiling it back down to external relevance. And you've noted this is an area you need to be careful on not deluding yourself.

[AnonyMint]

I am going to try to stop posting and get some real work done. I have said that in the past and failed to sustain. Hopefully I can discipline myself.

I appreciate that some here have been cordial (even amicable) and participated in an open discussion, including Risto for allowing the discussion.

This issue is highly charged. Most of you are very sure that you've already found the Holy Grail, whereas I think you've found the cloak of the Grim Reaper. (Drama much don't I, eh ... Primadonna display feels revolting ... those who talk don't build) Again I note the importance of Bitcoin as a backbone for any other effort to improve matters.

Propaganda. Have you followed what Larry Summers said? They want digital currency so they can easily confiscate. The establishment is supporting Bitcoin because they can more easily track where all the money is.

I have not, but will look for it when I have time.

http://armstrongeconomics.com/2013/11/17/negative-interest-rates-eliminating-cash-the-summers-solution/
http://armstrongeconomics.com/2014/01/24/electronic-money-coming-everywhere-sooner-than-you-think/
http://armstrongeconomics.com/2014/01/25/electric-money-will-eliminate-bank-runs/

I think the overall reaction of the government towards cryptos is going to turn out to be very complex. And fascinating. And one thing to keep in mind, is that there will be no unified reaction, because "the government" is run by lots of people with conflicting agendas. With campaigns funded by more people with different agendas. And varying degrees of technical sophistication.

It looks like many heads, but there is a unified body behind the curtain when it comes to threatening their control over money (that is fundamental to the existence of society as it has been formulated lately). I believe there will be only more centralization.

Unless... somebody fucks with them with anonymity and other shit they aren't able to deal with... in that respect I agree that real complexity might arise...

They are trial ballooning different ways to bring the world onto a digital ledger so they can confiscate by pressing a button. Off chain on Bitcoin will be the mechanism to achieve this control.

They have nothing to fear from Bitcoin, because one pool already controls 50% of the mining. They could easily blacklist coins tomorrow if they needed to.

Now they just to manage their baby well to keep you all supporting their desired outcome of slavery.

Proof is in the facts. Bitcoin is not decentralized. You all are controlled by propaganda. The mining is already controllable by the government.

The key now is to manage it so you all don't wake up and move to an anonymous coin. To keep you all locked in by your greed and the thought the largest market size is best.

I have contemplated what sort of technical battle would ensue if the government decided to take explicit control of the blockchain.

For the sake of argument, suppose the government announced that all miners had to be "licensed" or "approved" or some such thing. How could the crypto community fight this? I suppose the community could fork the blockchain to make a branch run only by miners that were not government sponsored. Perhaps, there could be some underground network of anarcho-miners who are required to pledge their allegiance to the Ghost of Satoshi to become part of the network.

We better have that in place already tested and growing, not waiting until the gauntlet comes and everybody stands around looking at each other with mouths agape like deer in the headlights. Gun confiscation post-Katrina is an example.

There would ALWAYS be people willing to risk their lives to run this network. So I don't think the government could kill the network.

It is almost already too late. They can give their lives in futility yes.

What they could do, is prosecute people who are caught using the "unapproved" bitcoin blockchain. They'd probably have to crack down pretty hard. And whether they would be successful, I dunno.

Of course they would succeed for the same reason totalitarianism always does, the masses have no option if they stop depending on the government. We haven't built anything yet.

Another question: what if two (or more) governments battle for control of the blockchain, so no one gets 51%? Does that mean Satoshi wins?

Do I need to cite for you the news on the coordination between the G20 and NSA to track down all tax evaders and financial crimes?

[billyjoeallen]

How can this be a threadjack when Risto often uses adoption to support his bottom calls in this thread?

The Iron Law of political economics is perhaps the strongest of arguments in favor of decentralized governance. There is no way to eliminate the incentive to concentrate benefits and distribute costs without eliminating the taxing/regulatory mechanism of the monopoly State.

[AnonyMint]

How can this be a threadjack when Risto often uses adoption to support his bottom calls in this thread?

The Iron Law of political economics is perhaps the strongest of arguments in favor of decentralized governance. There is now way to eliminate the incentive to concentrate benefits and distribute costs without eliminating the taxing/regulatory mechanism of the monopoly State.

God bless you! And you are not my sock puppet, but I couldn't have said it better. And that is a good post for me to exit on. Thanks.

[AnonyMint]

Mining isn't producing a unique work. It is providing a repetitive service that is scripted by the network. The litmus test is that the network is the manager, not the miner. The network sets the difficulty, the protocol, etc..

A network cannot manage anyone.  Management flows in the opposite direction.  Mining a block produces a novel work.

The network dictates which hash to solve. Which is what the miner is paid for doing. Everything else the miners do is optional in the protocol and thus incidental.

[AnonyMint]

there are 12 million millionaires in the world, and 1500 billionaires. there are only 21 million bitcoins, and I imagine most of those people dont have any.

That 21 million will never stand as the asymptotic limit (actually it isn't asymptotic because the finite limit of divisibility is 1 Satoshi), because there is no way the world's billionaires will hand power to Risto et al (of course not!). That is pure fantasy like slumber party of overgrown, naive children playing a board game. There are multiple ways it can be increased.

• Off chain is the only way Bitcoin will go mainstream. Coins will be created just as the private banks did with gold certificates in the 1800s with gold on deposit.
• It is impossible that altcoins won't proliferate because Bitcoin can't offer every feature.
• One pool controls 50+% of the hash power, even one ASIC miner controls 10%. Government control of that pool (and a few miners) can force more coins to be created. This won't be done now, instead later when the lockdown is more ubiquitous and you have no way to avoid this control.

[AnonyMint]

I sold all. Game over.

BINGO!

Buy back in soon. Bitcoin isn't over. No chance.

[chessnut]

there are 12 million millionaires in the world, and 1500 billionaires. there are only 21 million bitcoins, and I imagine most of those people dont have any.

That 21 million will never stand as the asymptotic limit (actually it isn't asymptotic because the finite limit of divisibility is 1 Satoshi), because there is no way the world's billionaires will hand power to Risto et al (of course not!). That is pure fantasy like a overgrown, naive children playing a board game. There are multiple ways it can be increased.

• Off chain is the only way Bitcoin will go mainstream. Coins will be created just as the private banks did with gold certificates in the 1800s with gold on deposit.
• It is impossible that altcoins won't proliferate because Bitcoin can't offer every feature.
• One pool controls 50+% of the hash power, even one ASIC miner controls 10%. Government control of that pool (and a few miners) can force more coins to be created. This won't be done now, instead later when the lockdown is more ubiquitous and you have no way to avoid this control.

they wouldn't have to hand over power, not the first ones. many will have a keen eye for investments, and will trickle capital into it.

in time, this will prove binary. some will be left behind. Thats not a naive fantasy, in fact it's a back stabbing game some billionaires might like to play.

Of coarse I dont mean there is a shortage of bitcoin, but if everyone wanted just one of those coins, the price would be millions per coin easy.

[AnonyMint]

P.S. Isn't there a  $600 exclusion for reporting on bartering? I need to look into that.

Clarification on the tax issue from a US tax attorney.

http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/21una0/i_am_a_tax_attorney_here_is_the_truth_about_1099s/

Thought it could be valuable since some of the posters here seem to have it slightly wrong.

Thanks that reminded me the $600 exclusion is on reporting payments, not on reporting gains.

[AnonyMint]

I give credit to Risto for taking all the abuse from people that he does and doing so in a mature manner. He works hard on his TA and shares it for free with the crum bums on this board and all they do is challenge him. Imo he's one of the 5-10 people on this board who are actually worth reading.

Risto's posts are amongst those that I generally read through well. Most of the rest on here (unless post is short and happens to catch my eye), I don't bother even reading cos I know exactly the drivel to expect and don't want to waste mental energy trying to make sense of it. Worst of all are the drivel merchants who aggrandise their drivel with fancy jargon and complex concepts. There has been one in particular who has been at large (aminorex) recently in this thread that has resulted in the past few pages here being a total skim read for me....unless I see a poster with a reliable track record of good posts.

You are unable to comprehend what aminorex is writing. His posts are not drivel, and apparently it is just way over your IQ range or perhaps your area of mental interest and attention span.

Risto's posts often lack depth, which is why simpletons like them. He is correct on the main point which is BTC will bottom then continue up. That is probably all you need to know.

[AnonyMint]

https://medium.com/p/ba5f3fcce103

Finding Equilibrium : Searching for the true value of a Bitcoin

Vinny Lingham, CEO of Gyft, discusses some of the current forces affecting the price of bitcoin. A very worthwhile read imho.

Excellent article. I agree with everything he wrote.

I also have made the point that Bitcoin asymmetrically favors merchants at this stage. And he points that out well.

Risto you should read that article above. Then you will understand where the selling pressure is coming from and what has changed.

If it turns around I would start worrying after it passes 550

I have a question to the bears. If the price does in fact go the other way at what level will you start buying back? At what level will you panik buy?

so everything lower 550 would be just a bulltrap for you?
i think that will be the problem for the bears, as soon as the green volume bars start to be larger than the red volume bars, it could be the reversal or only a bull trap.  

I don't expect a V reversal. I am waiting for it to get errie quiet after everyone has capitulated and exhausted their fiat capital.

I expect a long U reversal.

However working against my scenario is the bottom price rises about $10-15 per week that this drags out.

What is to be gained by denying the current issues we are presented with.  (and I'm talking as a 'community' rather than personal or individual gain.)

I repeat: there are no new issues. It is a common scare-tactic to raise some evergreen issues when it is important to fool the newcomers.

Therefore "presented with" reveals you agenda pretty well 

[explorer]

Risto's posts are amongst those that I generally read through well. Most of the rest on here (unless post is short and happens to catch my eye), I don't bother even reading cos I know exactly the drivel to expect and don't want to waste mental energy trying to make sense of it. .

Ah.  Wise.  It is often best to conserve when resources are scarce.

[AnonyMint]

Risto's posts are amongst those that I generally read through well. Most of the rest on here (unless post is short and happens to catch my eye), I don't bother even reading cos I know exactly the drivel to expect and don't want to waste mental energy trying to make sense of it. .

Ah.  Wise.  It is often best to conserve when resources are scarce.

And Risto has apparently entirely missed the reasons that the selling pressure has increased. See my prior post. So that is what you deserve for idoling one man.

[chessnut]

sorry, but selling pressure has not increased, it has decreased.

yesterday everyones fear was confirmed, and it had no fundamental or speculative follow through. The down trend is over.

[AnonyMint]

sorry, but selling pressure has not increased, it has decreased.

yesterday everyones fear was confirmed, and it had no fundamental or speculative follow through. The down trend is over.

You are fooled by looking only at short-term day trading data.

The selling pressure is now structural and will not abate for months. See the article from the Gyft founder, which I quoted a few posts upthread.