Bitcoin Forum
August 22, 2017, 08:55:41 PM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.14.2  [Torrent].
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Poll
Question: Will you support Gavin's new block size limit hard fork of 8MB by January 1, 2016 then doubling every 2 years?
1.  yes
2.  no

Pages: « 1 ... 1188 1189 1190 1191 1192 1193 1194 1195 1196 1197 1198 1199 1200 1201 1202 1203 1204 1205 1206 1207 1208 1209 1210 1211 1212 1213 1214 1215 1216 1217 1218 1219 1220 1221 1222 1223 1224 1225 1226 1227 1228 1229 1230 1231 1232 1233 1234 1235 1236 1237 [1238] 1239 1240 1241 1242 1243 1244 1245 1246 1247 1248 1249 1250 1251 1252 1253 1254 1255 1256 1257 1258 1259 1260 1261 1262 1263 1264 1265 1266 1267 1268 1269 1270 1271 1272 1273 1274 1275 1276 1277 1278 1279 1280 1281 1282 1283 1284 1285 1286 1287 1288 ... 1558 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.  (Read 1956356 times)
jmw74
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 236


View Profile
May 21, 2015, 06:13:52 PM
 #24741


did you listen to the above audio?  it doesn't necessarily have to make money for the OEM.  they stand to profit from other ways.

So I listened to most of it. I don't really care whether OEM's profit or how, I want to know why regular people would have any interest in this at all.

He's changing the original plan as stated on their website. Their website says in big bold words:

"We've developed a chip for embedded bitcoin mining."

But this guy is talking about distributed apps - eg turing complete computation. Those are two different and mutually exclusive things. So I don't know who's correct here.

Let's say the audio guy is correct and they're embedding distributed app computation into all your devices. The guy says "oh you'll get *slightly* higher priority for stuff because your device spent energy on someone else's computation". This still makes no sense. If I want the 1 cent of electricity I burned to get me slightly higher chance of getting a parking space, why can't I just spend money directly?

He still doesn't address why it's beneficial for devices to sell their computing power, breaking even or at a loss, vs just using money that the device's owner earned, for example, from their job.
1503435341
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1503435341

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1503435341
Reply with quote  #2

1503435341
Report to moderator
1503435341
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1503435341

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1503435341
Reply with quote  #2

1503435341
Report to moderator
1503435341
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1503435341

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1503435341
Reply with quote  #2

1503435341
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1503435341
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1503435341

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1503435341
Reply with quote  #2

1503435341
Report to moderator
1503435341
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1503435341

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1503435341
Reply with quote  #2

1503435341
Report to moderator
1503435341
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1503435341

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1503435341
Reply with quote  #2

1503435341
Report to moderator
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
May 21, 2015, 06:48:02 PM
 #24742


did you listen to the above audio?  it doesn't necessarily have to make money for the OEM.  they stand to profit from other ways.

So I listened to most of it. I don't really care whether OEM's profit or how, I want to know why regular people would have any interest in this at all.

He's changing the original plan as stated on their website. Their website says in big bold words:

"We've developed a chip for embedded bitcoin mining."

But this guy is talking about distributed apps - eg turing complete computation. Those are two different and mutually exclusive things. So I don't know who's correct here.

Let's say the audio guy is correct and they're embedding distributed app computation into all your devices. The guy says "oh you'll get *slightly* higher priority for stuff because your device spent energy on someone else's computation". This still makes no sense. If I want the 1 cent of electricity I burned to get me slightly higher chance of getting a parking space, why can't I just spend money directly?

He still doesn't address why it's beneficial for devices to sell their computing power, breaking even or at a loss, vs just using money that the device's owner earned, for example, from their job.


in the audio they explain that they want to automate those tx's as opposed to having humans make them.  from what i could glean, an app would allow you to preset your preferences to allow, for instance, an Amazon drone to fly over your garage as opposed to your kids sandbox.  the drone center would have this info in their controlling servers which could then pre-compute a flight path over your house.  or the other example they gave was 2 Google driverless cars arriving at an open parking spot at the same time requiring an immediate decision/negotiation to take place determining which car gets the space.  the audio emphasized the "immediacy" of a decision making process enabled by essentially a bidding process somewhere out on some ethereal exchange which would determine who gets what first. humans arguing in a public garage won't cut it.  in order for these types of decision making tx's to take place, "cycles" (or Satoshi's i guess) need to be on the phone ready to be utilized.  the only way to ensure that these are in place ready to go is to have the phone itself mine them continuosly.  if you depend on someone to get a paycheck, go out onto an exchange to buy Satoshi's, pay the exchange fee, and then send them to their phone to enable this whole process, it will never happen.
tvbcof
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2240


View Profile
May 21, 2015, 07:09:58 PM
 #24743

...
Personally, I do think a USSR-style breakup of the USA is in the cards, but I'm not at all sure about the timing.
...

I'm going with Rumsfeld, Cheney, et-al from their PNAC document on this one.  That is, the most likely end-game is a one-world government.  In that case I would expect the management strategies promulgated by the leadership to be in many ways almost indistinguishable from those employed by the Soviets and other totalitarian regimes, and I would hold near zero hope for anything resembling 'democracy' (though it may well be called that.)  The methods of control used would include austerity, surveillance, anonymous informants, etc.  Basically any structure which keeps individuals separate and suspicious of one another.

In terms of timing, the PNAC folks main thesis was that we have about another 100 years where a multi-polar world is practical and the U.S. may as well sit on the top of the stack during this time.  That strikes me as an adequate estimate.

I personally don't see why we cannot do something like 1) make use of our resources and infrastructure to have a decent life for our citizens, 2) rely on our nuclear capability and MAD for defense, 3) and treat other nations with dignity and respect but mainly butt out of their business and let them deal with their own problems without our 'help'.  This seems to be something of a 'third way' between what the Left and Right sees as the way forward.  Frustrating.

Going back to Bitcoin, this is one of the top reasons I am interested in it.  A viable currency solution which anyone can use and which is robust enough to withstand attack could be a very useful tool for those who wish to resist where whoever takes power wishes to herd us.  I'm drifting back to my position of giving up on Bitcoin except as a template for crypto-currencies to figure out what NOT to do.  We've still not managed to 'mainstream' it yet so all hope is not lost, though, as I see it.


justusranvier
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1400



View Profile WWW
May 21, 2015, 07:12:46 PM
 #24744

I'm going with Rumsfeld, Cheney, et-al from their PNAC document on this one.  That is, the most likely end-game is a one-world government.  In that case I would expect the management strategies promulgated by the leadership to be in many ways almost indistinguishable from those employed by the Soviets and other totalitarian regimes, and I would hold near zero hope for anything resembling 'democracy' (though it may well be called that.)  The methods of control used would include austerity, surveillance, anonymous informants, etc.  Basically any structure which keeps individuals separate and suspicious of one another.
Of course they're going to try, but they can't pull it off.

They're a generation too late.
Fabrizio89
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 891


View Profile
May 21, 2015, 07:49:34 PM
 #24745

Dollar will weaken as rates won't increase as per FOMC announcement yesterday. Might be a good point for commodities and hopefully Bitcoin.

https://1broker.com/m/r.php?i=2479
Trade stocks, commodities, currencies with bitcoins! Up to 200x Leverage.
smooth
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1512



View Profile
May 21, 2015, 08:00:17 PM
 #24746

He's changing the original plan as stated on their website. Their website says in big bold words:

"We've developed a chip for embedded bitcoin mining."

But this guy is talking about distributed apps - eg turing complete computation. Those are two different and mutually exclusive things. So I don't know who's correct here.

My read on it was that the guy on the call, if he works for them at all, is more on the IoT side of their business and not directly involved with the mining (portion of the) chip.
Erdogan
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 770



View Profile
May 21, 2015, 08:10:41 PM
 #24747

The loss leading principle is known and works, for phones that could be as simple as a subsidized phone and paying more for minutes. Or the opposite, paying extra for the phone and free calls for two years (loss trailer...). Both are well known marketing strategies. The mining thing - why bother?

In addition to the public being the victims of scamming in case of the hidden mining, the planned victims could also be future investors. This is also not a very new thing, as we all know.

jmw74
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 236


View Profile
May 21, 2015, 08:14:47 PM
 #24748


did you listen to the above audio?  it doesn't necessarily have to make money for the OEM.  they stand to profit from other ways.

So I listened to most of it. I don't really care whether OEM's profit or how, I want to know why regular people would have any interest in this at all.

He's changing the original plan as stated on their website. Their website says in big bold words:

"We've developed a chip for embedded bitcoin mining."

But this guy is talking about distributed apps - eg turing complete computation. Those are two different and mutually exclusive things. So I don't know who's correct here.

Let's say the audio guy is correct and they're embedding distributed app computation into all your devices. The guy says "oh you'll get *slightly* higher priority for stuff because your device spent energy on someone else's computation". This still makes no sense. If I want the 1 cent of electricity I burned to get me slightly higher chance of getting a parking space, why can't I just spend money directly?

He still doesn't address why it's beneficial for devices to sell their computing power, breaking even or at a loss, vs just using money that the device's owner earned, for example, from their job.


in the audio they explain that they want to automate those tx's as opposed to having humans make them.  from what i could glean, an app would allow you to preset your preferences to allow, for instance, an Amazon drone to fly over your garage as opposed to your kids sandbox.  the drone center would have this info in their controlling servers which could then pre-compute a flight path over your house.  or the other example they gave was 2 Google driverless cars arriving at an open parking spot at the same time requiring an immediate decision/negotiation to take place determining which car gets the space.  the audio emphasized the "immediacy" of a decision making process enabled by essentially a bidding process somewhere out on some ethereal exchange which would determine who gets what first. humans arguing in a public garage won't cut it.  in order for these types of decision making tx's to take place, "cycles" (or Satoshi's i guess) need to be on the phone ready to be utilized.  the only way to ensure that these are in place ready to go is to have the phone itself mine them continuosly.  if you depend on someone to get a paycheck, go out onto an exchange to buy Satoshi's, pay the exchange fee, and then send them to their phone to enable this whole process, it will never happen.

Yeah, I get all that.

First of all, the use cases are nonsensical, are these the best they can think of?

It presumes a world where there is demand to make digital payments of very tiny amounts that don't exist today, but no demand to make payment of larger everyday amounts. That seems highly unlikely.

The car example doesn't even require money at all. It depends on the cars cooperating anyway - a non-cooperating car can always refuse to yield. So they might as well play a digital form of rock-paper-scissors. No mining or special hardware required.

In general, a device does not need money to communicate or "make decisions".  They already do that today.

The real driverless car use case is the car paying automatically for a paid parking spot. There's no way mining would yield enough for that. The real solution here is payment channels - between your main wallet and your devices, and devices amongst themselves.

There is no special hardware required. This is a world where people are going to have to have digital cash anyway.

sickpig
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1204


View Profile
May 21, 2015, 08:18:38 PM
 #24749



https://twitter.com/jgarzik/status/601447310535458816


Bitcoin is a participatory system which ought to respect the right of self determinism of all of its users - Gregory Maxwell.
smooth
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1512



View Profile
May 21, 2015, 08:21:50 PM
 #24750

In addition to the public being the victims of scamming in case of the hidden mining, the planned victims could also be future investors. This is also not a very new thing, as we all know.

It's not scamming or "hidden" mining, necessarily. In their white paper-isn thing they describe it as financing the phone via power bills. Let's assume people are actually told the power bill will be higher. Maybe that is seen as a way to offer financing in markets that don't really have the infrastructure for traditional credit, or where the handset maker doesn't want to (or can't for whatever reason) get in bed with the carriers. Instead of needing to collect payments or get a subsidy from the carrier, the phone itself makes the payments via mining. Even if the mining is somewhat unprofitable, as a credit-substitute there might be value there.

Erdogan
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 770



View Profile
May 21, 2015, 08:26:58 PM
 #24751

In addition to the public being the victims of scamming in case of the hidden mining, the planned victims could also be future investors. This is also not a very new thing, as we all know.

It's not scamming or "hidden" mining, necessarily. In their white paper-isn thing they describe it as financing the phone via power bills. Let's assume people are actually told the power bill will be higher. Maybe that is seen as a way to offer financing in markets that don't really have the infrastructure for traditional credit, or where the handset maker doesn't want to (or can't for whatever reason) get in bed with the carriers. Instead of needing to collect payments or get a subsidy from the carrier, the phone itself makes the payments via mining. Even if the mining is somewhat unprofitable, as a credit-substitute there might be value there.


Rather stretched idea, but ok it is possible that they think along those lines. I see other, simpler, cheaper  and more direct ways to have the phone cost on the electric bill, but maybe that is only me.

smooth
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1512



View Profile
May 21, 2015, 08:36:40 PM
 #24752

In addition to the public being the victims of scamming in case of the hidden mining, the planned victims could also be future investors. This is also not a very new thing, as we all know.

It's not scamming or "hidden" mining, necessarily. In their white paper-isn thing they describe it as financing the phone via power bills. Let's assume people are actually told the power bill will be higher. Maybe that is seen as a way to offer financing in markets that don't really have the infrastructure for traditional credit, or where the handset maker doesn't want to (or can't for whatever reason) get in bed with the carriers. Instead of needing to collect payments or get a subsidy from the carrier, the phone itself makes the payments via mining. Even if the mining is somewhat unprofitable, as a credit-substitute there might be value there.


Rather stretched idea, but ok it is possible that they think along those lines.

Well they said exactly that. Go look in their paper.

Quote
I see other, simpler, cheaper and more direct ways to have the phone cost on the electric bill, but maybe that is only me.

Really how?
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
May 21, 2015, 08:41:57 PM
 #24753


did you listen to the above audio?  it doesn't necessarily have to make money for the OEM.  they stand to profit from other ways.

So I listened to most of it. I don't really care whether OEM's profit or how, I want to know why regular people would have any interest in this at all.

He's changing the original plan as stated on their website. Their website says in big bold words:

"We've developed a chip for embedded bitcoin mining."

But this guy is talking about distributed apps - eg turing complete computation. Those are two different and mutually exclusive things. So I don't know who's correct here.

Let's say the audio guy is correct and they're embedding distributed app computation into all your devices. The guy says "oh you'll get *slightly* higher priority for stuff because your device spent energy on someone else's computation". This still makes no sense. If I want the 1 cent of electricity I burned to get me slightly higher chance of getting a parking space, why can't I just spend money directly?

He still doesn't address why it's beneficial for devices to sell their computing power, breaking even or at a loss, vs just using money that the device's owner earned, for example, from their job.


in the audio they explain that they want to automate those tx's as opposed to having humans make them.  from what i could glean, an app would allow you to preset your preferences to allow, for instance, an Amazon drone to fly over your garage as opposed to your kids sandbox.  the drone center would have this info in their controlling servers which could then pre-compute a flight path over your house.  or the other example they gave was 2 Google driverless cars arriving at an open parking spot at the same time requiring an immediate decision/negotiation to take place determining which car gets the space.  the audio emphasized the "immediacy" of a decision making process enabled by essentially a bidding process somewhere out on some ethereal exchange which would determine who gets what first. humans arguing in a public garage won't cut it.  in order for these types of decision making tx's to take place, "cycles" (or Satoshi's i guess) need to be on the phone ready to be utilized.  the only way to ensure that these are in place ready to go is to have the phone itself mine them continuosly.  if you depend on someone to get a paycheck, go out onto an exchange to buy Satoshi's, pay the exchange fee, and then send them to their phone to enable this whole process, it will never happen.

Yeah, I get all that.

First of all, the use cases are nonsensical, are these the best they can think of?

It presumes a world where there is demand to make digital payments of very tiny amounts that don't exist today, but no demand to make payment of larger everyday amounts. That seems highly unlikely.

not exactly.  they will provide a hardware wallet as well for larger storage amts for larger tx's.
Quote


The car example doesn't even require money at all. It depends on the cars cooperating anyway - a non-cooperating car can always refuse to yield. So they might as well play a digital form of rock-paper-scissors. No mining or special hardware required.

In general, a device does not need money to communicate or "make decisions".  They already do that today.

i agree that the above examples are kinda far out there.  activities we can only imagine.  but they are building off of Mike Hearn's original driverless car visions.  not that that is a measuring stick or anything but just shows ppl have been thinking about how to do this for quite a while now. 
Quote

The real driverless car use case is the car paying automatically for a paid parking spot. There's no way mining would yield enough for that. The real solution here is payment channels - between your main wallet and your devices, and devices amongst themselves.

There is no special hardware required. This is a world where people are going to have to have digital cash anyway.



i agree completely altho we shouldn't discount micropayments completely.  esp for developing nations. 

as for mining, they do have the stated objective of trying to drive more decentralization of mining.  if that requires subsidies or riding on the coat tails of other use cases for these devices, so be it.  i think it's a worthy goal.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
May 21, 2015, 08:49:49 PM
 #24754

totally expected up day to test the underbelly of what has now become resistance.  you have to be worried that it didn't get back over the top today.  in fact, this sets up tomorrow as a big "watch out" day:

Pruden
Hero Member
*****
Online Online

Activity: 480

Spanish Bitcoin trader


View Profile
May 21, 2015, 10:09:16 PM
 #24755

totally expected up day to test the underbelly of what has now become resistance.  you have to be worried that it didn't get back over the top today.  in fact, this sets up tomorrow as a big "watch out" day:


Would you care to specify the last 5 occurrences of this non-confirmation? This way we could compare current market breadth (which is quite strong now) and a couple other indicators with the others. I can tell the last one, in 2012, was present almost the whole year and was followed by 2013 being the best year for stocks in quite a while.
Erdogan
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 770



View Profile
May 21, 2015, 10:14:20 PM
 #24756

In addition to the public being the victims of scamming in case of the hidden mining, the planned victims could also be future investors. This is also not a very new thing, as we all know.

It's not scamming or "hidden" mining, necessarily. In their white paper-isn thing they describe it as financing the phone via power bills. Let's assume people are actually told the power bill will be higher. Maybe that is seen as a way to offer financing in markets that don't really have the infrastructure for traditional credit, or where the handset maker doesn't want to (or can't for whatever reason) get in bed with the carriers. Instead of needing to collect payments or get a subsidy from the carrier, the phone itself makes the payments via mining. Even if the mining is somewhat unprofitable, as a credit-substitute there might be value there.


Rather stretched idea, but ok it is possible that they think along those lines.

Well they said exactly that. Go look in their paper.

Quote
I see other, simpler, cheaper and more direct ways to have the phone cost on the electric bill, but maybe that is only me.

Really how?

Choose us as power supplier - get a free phone!


smooth
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1512



View Profile
May 21, 2015, 10:29:29 PM
 #24757

In addition to the public being the victims of scamming in case of the hidden mining, the planned victims could also be future investors. This is also not a very new thing, as we all know.

It's not scamming or "hidden" mining, necessarily. In their white paper-isn thing they describe it as financing the phone via power bills. Let's assume people are actually told the power bill will be higher. Maybe that is seen as a way to offer financing in markets that don't really have the infrastructure for traditional credit, or where the handset maker doesn't want to (or can't for whatever reason) get in bed with the carriers. Instead of needing to collect payments or get a subsidy from the carrier, the phone itself makes the payments via mining. Even if the mining is somewhat unprofitable, as a credit-substitute there might be value there.


Rather stretched idea, but ok it is possible that they think along those lines.

Well they said exactly that. Go look in their paper.

Quote
I see other, simpler, cheaper and more direct ways to have the phone cost on the electric bill, but maybe that is only me.

Really how?

Choose us as power supplier - get a free phone!

Putting aside the question of monopoly power markets or other regulated markets that don't allow such promotions, or where the power supplier is bureaucratic and would take years to even negotiate such a deal, what would be the incentive of the power company to even do that?

I think you're reaching a bit to conclude the loss leader mining is obviously impractical.

Also, it isn't limited to phones. In their write up they mentioned internet-connected devices. That could include devices that don't normally include a paid service at all, for example dropcams, media players, wireless routers, WiFi-only tablets, really almost anything. The loss leader model where you pay back the up front cost with integrated mining still (possibly) makes sense.
Biodom
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1330


View Profile
May 21, 2015, 10:49:09 PM
 #24758

remember what's driving these Silicon Valley ppl.
You keep finding the exact areas where I am most concerned.

I've talked to people who from the Silicon Valley startup scene who've related their stories about the ties between the angel investors who funded their ventures and the CIA, including being subjected to a "aptitude evaluation" which was basically an IQ + (lack of) empathy test.

Remember this article? https://wikileaks.org/google-is-not-what-it-seems/

If you're betting on Silicon Valley to fight the Fed what you're betting on is the defection of crucial sections of the military-industrial complex of a magnitude equivalent to the dissolution of the USSR.

Personally, I do think a USSR-style breakup of the USA is in the cards, but I'm not at all sure about the timing.

Also, in the Soviet case their equivalent of the MIC were the holdouts who were the last to accept that the system could not continue and held a coup to attempt to keep it limping along.

USSR had very little in common with USA. US is very integrated, USSR was a quilt of very different cultures, especially on the periphery (-stans, etc.)
I don't think that what you suggest will happen in the foreseeable future.
tvbcof
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2240


View Profile
May 21, 2015, 11:20:38 PM
 #24759

I'm going with Rumsfeld, Cheney, et-al from their PNAC document on this one.  That is, the most likely end-game is a one-world government.  In that case I would expect the management strategies promulgated by the leadership to be in many ways almost indistinguishable from those employed by the Soviets and other totalitarian regimes, and I would hold near zero hope for anything resembling 'democracy' (though it may well be called that.)  The methods of control used would include austerity, surveillance, anonymous informants, etc.  Basically any structure which keeps individuals separate and suspicious of one another.

Of course they're going to try, but they can't pull it off.

They're a generation too late.

I think you have that almost exactly backward.  There is a strong push toward indoctrinating U.S. public school kids from an early age to being conducive to 'global citizenship' as one example of the necessary requirements.  Efforts in this direction have been going on since I was a kid in the 1970's but in fits and starts, and things like genuine individuality, healthy skepticism, and some degree of self sufficiency were still at least tolerated.  When the generation who are now in grade school matures, look out.


cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
May 21, 2015, 11:45:17 PM
 #24760

totally expected up day to test the underbelly of what has now become resistance.  you have to be worried that it didn't get back over the top today.  in fact, this sets up tomorrow as a big "watch out" day:


Would you care to specify the last 5 occurrences of this non-confirmation? This way we could compare current market breadth (which is quite strong now) and a couple other indicators with the others. I can tell the last one, in 2012, was present almost the whole year and was followed by 2013 being the best year for stocks in quite a while.

i don't want to get into it in detail here.  it's kinda complicated b/c everyone does it a little differently.  i'm a big believer in cycle theory as well and i use the weekly bottoms as a timing mechanism to help identify approximately where the secondary low points on the charts occur which are critical for Dow Theory.   that's what the "SL" stands for that i put up here.  these cycles are approximately 22 wks long.  once you can establish where the secondary low pts are, which tend to correlate with weekly cycle bottoms, you then look for both indices, the $DJI & $DJT, to make new secondary highs together compared to their previous secondary highs. if only one does, then you get the non-confirmation which is what we have now.  this all then gets mixed in with the 4yr cycles which typically represent major tops in the $DJI over the last 100 yrs.  this large, major long term cycle has been muddied greatly over the last 20 yrs b/c of central bank intervention which works to unpredictably prolong this mess.  however at these stretched 4 yr cycle tops a vast majority of them, like >90%, are associated with a Dow Theory non-conf.  this is why it can be a huge warning signing when it occurs.  like we have now. we are way overdue for a 4yr cycle top as this cycle has been way overstretched due to QE.  the payback should be devastating; perhaps even greater than 2008.  but then again, all this TA could be hogwash.  it's all pattern recognition and the human mind is great at fooling itself.  we'll just have to see.
Pages: « 1 ... 1188 1189 1190 1191 1192 1193 1194 1195 1196 1197 1198 1199 1200 1201 1202 1203 1204 1205 1206 1207 1208 1209 1210 1211 1212 1213 1214 1215 1216 1217 1218 1219 1220 1221 1222 1223 1224 1225 1226 1227 1228 1229 1230 1231 1232 1233 1234 1235 1236 1237 [1238] 1239 1240 1241 1242 1243 1244 1245 1246 1247 1248 1249 1250 1251 1252 1253 1254 1255 1256 1257 1258 1259 1260 1261 1262 1263 1264 1265 1266 1267 1268 1269 1270 1271 1272 1273 1274 1275 1276 1277 1278 1279 1280 1281 1282 1283 1284 1285 1286 1287 1288 ... 1558 »
  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!