Bitcoin Forum
December 06, 2016, 06:04:32 PM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.13.1  [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 ... 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 1289 1290 1291 1292 1293 1294 1295 1296 1297 1298 1299 1300 1301 1302 1303 1304 1305 1306 1307 1308 ... 1560 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.  (Read 1805165 times)
Zangelbert Bingledack
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1022


View Profile
May 30, 2015, 04:26:05 PM
 #25141

Fascinating chart posted in masterluc's thread. I trust I don't need to spell out the implications.

1481047472
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481047472

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481047472
Reply with quote  #2

1481047472
Report to moderator
1481047472
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481047472

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481047472
Reply with quote  #2

1481047472
Report to moderator
1481047472
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481047472

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481047472
Reply with quote  #2

1481047472
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1481047472
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481047472

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481047472
Reply with quote  #2

1481047472
Report to moderator
1481047472
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481047472

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481047472
Reply with quote  #2

1481047472
Report to moderator
Adrian-x
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1330



View Profile
May 30, 2015, 04:32:38 PM
 #25142

it's called Metcalfe's Law.  "value" of the network is squared by every new user.  iCE would rather keep it strangled down to him and his Myrcea buddies.


Not every new user needs direct access to the Mother Blockchain:


I think you've drunk the SideChain cool aid, and now your salary is dependent on the views of your employer.

It's not about what you think other people need (we have central controls to manage that), it's about individuals having freedom to make the best subjective choice.

I would think just like you if I had a product that solved the problem like SC does. In fact I was pushing in the same direction until  Peter Tod released this video. https://youtu.be/cZp7UGgBR0I, I agreed with him for all of 1 day a year ago and Justice I think pointed out very concisely the problems of limiting money velocity was not good for bitcoin. (he was the only critical voice at the time.)

I hope this does not pop up on Reddit.

Thank me in Bits 12MwnzxtprG2mHm3rKdgi7NmJKCypsMMQw
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
May 30, 2015, 04:33:52 PM
 #25143

TPTB, if you're still out there.  this graph shows we, the masses, are controlling more of what we consume as information as the years go by.  that is a good thing:

cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
May 30, 2015, 04:37:40 PM
 #25144

it's called Metcalfe's Law.  "value" of the network is squared by every new user.  iCE would rather keep it strangled down to him and his Myrcea buddies.


Not every new user needs direct access to the Mother Blockchain:


I think you've drunk the SideChain cool aid, and now your salary is dependent on the views of your employer.

It's not about what you think other people need (we have central controls to manage that), it's about individuals having freedom to make the best subjective choice.

I would think just like you if I had a product that solved the problem like SC does. In fact I was pushing in the same direction until  Peter Tod released this video. https://youtu.be/cZp7UGgBR0I, I agreed with him for all of 1 day a year ago and Justice I think pointed out very concisely the problems of limiting money velocity was not good for bitcoin. (he was the only critical voice at the time.)

I hope this does not pop up on Reddit.

what does that mean?  iCE working for Blockstream?
TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
May 30, 2015, 04:41:45 PM
 #25145


You can never win with the masses. They will always be wrong, for as long as they demand to organize themselves in collectives.


The Internet is essentially the mass of masses. Extrapolate the audience averaging effect in the popular game show Who Wants to Be a Millionaire:

"But there’s a third option: You can use your “Ask-the-Audience" life line. You can poll the entire studio audience on the four possible answers, and their responses are instantaneously assembled into a bar graph. Invariably, this graph shows one overwhelming choice, and with rare exceptions the audience is right. “I’ll trust the audience,” you tell Regis. “Final answer.”

Good move. But why? No person in the audience is any more likely than you to know where grapes come from, yet the collective intelligence of the group is almost always a better bet than your best guess. Psychologists are very interested in this perplexing statistical phenomenon. If the crowd is always wiser than any individual, what does that say about the way knowledge is stored and arranged in our minds? And can it help us make better choices, even beyond game shows?

...

That’s actually what Vul and Pashler found when they ran the experiment. As reported in the July issue of the journal Psychological Science, the average of two guesses for any individual participant was better than either guess alone, regardless of the time between guesses. So polling the “crowd within” does indeed yield a statistically more accurate answer. What’s more, this internal crowd gets more independent-minded with time: Contestants who were asked to second-guess themselves three weeks later benefited even more by averaging their two guesses than did those who second-guessed themselves immediately. The psychologists speculate that the cognitive pull of the original answer loses its power and allows more mental flexibility over time."
http://www.psychologicalscience.org/onlyhuman/2008/06/polling-crowd-within.cfm

@vokain You have probably seen this already, but in case not: enjoy!
BBC - The Code - The Wisdom of the Crowd
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iOucwX7Z1HU

PS. Interesting how every single block size limit poll, since the first one in Feb 2013, has had majority support for the increase.

I assume both of you are smart guys.

So why do you commit this blatantly obvious category error of equating collective intelligence to the misalignment of priorities in the Iron Law of Political Economics?

I just can't fathom how you can't see that is proximately analogous (in terms of shared versus independent self-interest) to equating ant colonies to Tasmanian devils.

Let me translate that Iron Law into a form that is more easily appreciated:

Quote
Mancur Olson, in his book The Logic Of Collective Action, highlighted the central problem of politics in a democracy. The benefits of political market-rigging can be concentrated to benefit particular special interest groups and simultaneously distributed via debt to the population wherein each self-interested individual has the incentive to maximize his/her parasitic extraction from the collective, while the costs (in higher taxes, slower economic growth, and many other second-order effects) are diffused through the entire population (and often obfuscated and easily ignored as charged to the future generation in the form of debt).

This general model has consequences. Here are some of them:

Political demand for income transfers, entitlements and subsidies always rises faster than the economy can generate increased wealth to supply them from.

The equilibrium state of a regulatory agency is to have been captured by the entities it is supposed to regulate.

The only important class distinction in any advanced democracy is between those who are net producers of tax revenues and those who are net consumers of them.

Corruption is not the exceptional condition of politics, it is the normal one.

P.S. I have tried my best to teach this concept but it seems after 1000s of posts in the Economic Devastation and other threads, I still can't get readers to acknowledge that collective organization of humans suffers from a misalignment of priorities. That humans have big brains or that collective intelligence of humans is higher than for solitary humans is irrelevant.

cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
May 30, 2015, 04:48:27 PM
 #25146


You can never win with the masses. They will always be wrong, for as long as they demand to organize themselves in collectives.


The Internet is essentially the mass of masses. Extrapolate the audience averaging effect in the popular game show Who Wants to Be a Millionaire:

"But there’s a third option: You can use your “Ask-the-Audience" life line. You can poll the entire studio audience on the four possible answers, and their responses are instantaneously assembled into a bar graph. Invariably, this graph shows one overwhelming choice, and with rare exceptions the audience is right. “I’ll trust the audience,” you tell Regis. “Final answer.”

Good move. But why? No person in the audience is any more likely than you to know where grapes come from, yet the collective intelligence of the group is almost always a better bet than your best guess. Psychologists are very interested in this perplexing statistical phenomenon. If the crowd is always wiser than any individual, what does that say about the way knowledge is stored and arranged in our minds? And can it help us make better choices, even beyond game shows?

...

That’s actually what Vul and Pashler found when they ran the experiment. As reported in the July issue of the journal Psychological Science, the average of two guesses for any individual participant was better than either guess alone, regardless of the time between guesses. So polling the “crowd within” does indeed yield a statistically more accurate answer. What’s more, this internal crowd gets more independent-minded with time: Contestants who were asked to second-guess themselves three weeks later benefited even more by averaging their two guesses than did those who second-guessed themselves immediately. The psychologists speculate that the cognitive pull of the original answer loses its power and allows more mental flexibility over time."
http://www.psychologicalscience.org/onlyhuman/2008/06/polling-crowd-within.cfm

@vokain You have probably seen this already, but in case not: enjoy!
BBC - The Code - The Wisdom of the Crowd
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iOucwX7Z1HU

PS. Interesting how every single block size limit poll, since the first one in Feb 2013, has had majority support for the increase.

I assume both of you are smart guys.

So why do you commit this blatantly obvious category error of equating collective intelligence to the misalignment of priorities in the Iron Law of Political Economics?

I just can't fathom how you can't see that is proximately analogous (in terms of shared versus independent self-interest) to equating ant colonies to Tasmanian devils.

Let me translate that Iron Law into a form that is more easily appreciated:

Quote
Mancur Olson, in his book The Logic Of Collective Action, highlighted the central problem of politics in a democracy. The benefits of political market-rigging can be concentrated to benefit particular special interest groups and simultaneously distributed via debt to the population wherein each self-interested individual has the incentive to maximize his/her parasitic extraction from the collective, while the costs (in higher taxes, slower economic growth, and many other second-order effects) are diffused through the entire population (and often obfuscated and easily ignored as charged to the future generation in the form of debt).

This general model has consequences. Here are some of them:

Political demand for income transfers, entitlements and subsidies always rises faster than the economy can generate increased wealth to supply them from.

The equilibrium state of a regulatory agency is to have been captured by the entities it is supposed to regulate.

The only important class distinction in any advanced democracy is between those who are net producers of tax revenues and those who are net consumers of them.

Corruption is not the exceptional condition of politics, it is the normal one.

P.S. I have tried my best to teach this concept but it seems after 1000s of posts in the Economic Devastation and other threads, I still can't get readers to acknowledge that collective organization of humans suffers from a misalignment of priorities. That humans have big brains or that collective intelligence of humans is higher than for solitary humans is irrelevant.

that "Law" was constructed in the context of a debt-based fiat system in which money printing is central and of which Bitcoin is NOT.  hence, our optimism that we can change things for the better.  does optimism always have to be unrealistic?
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
May 30, 2015, 04:49:52 PM
 #25147

Fascinating chart posted in masterluc's thread. I trust I don't need to spell out the implications.



so what is weighted stability?
Fakhoury
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 868


Permabull Bitcoin Investor


View Profile
May 30, 2015, 04:52:22 PM
 #25148

Fascinating chart posted in masterluc's thread. I trust I don't need to spell out the implications.



so what is weighted stability?

I would like to underatand something, how is bitcoin affected by golds price going up/down ?

Quote from:  Satoshi Nakamoto
Feb. 14, 2010: I’m sure that in 20 years there will either be very large transaction volume or no volume.
Adrian-x
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1330



View Profile
May 30, 2015, 05:02:15 PM
 #25149

it's called Metcalfe's Law.  "value" of the network is squared by every new user.  iCE would rather keep it strangled down to him and his Myrcea buddies.


Not every new user needs direct access to the Mother Blockchain:


I think you've drunk the SideChain cool aid, and now your salary is dependent on the views of your employer.

It's not about what you think other people need (we have central controls to manage that), it's about individuals having freedom to make the best subjective choice.

I would think just like you if I had a product that solved the problem like SC does. In fact I was pushing in the same direction until  Peter Tod released this video. https://youtu.be/cZp7UGgBR0I, I agreed with him for all of 1 day a year ago and Justice I think pointed out very concisely the problems of limiting money velocity was not good for bitcoin. (he was the only critical voice at the time.)

I hope this does not pop up on Reddit.

what does that mean?  iCE working for Blockstream?

This is the speculation section isn't it ;-)

Thank me in Bits 12MwnzxtprG2mHm3rKdgi7NmJKCypsMMQw
8up
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 619



View Profile
May 30, 2015, 05:02:36 PM
 #25150

Fascinating chart posted in masterluc's thread. I trust I don't need to spell out the implications.



so what is weighted stability?

More on that you will find here http://bitcoinstability.github.io/bitcoinstability/#/home and here https://azopstability.com/

Always wrong until not.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
May 30, 2015, 05:04:51 PM
 #25151

-

I would like to underatand something, how is bitcoin affected by golds price going up/down ?

it has to do with Bitcoin's fixed supply of BTC of 21M units.

gold is simply a physical ledger that's existed for thousands of years.  now, Bitcoin introduces a similar, but better, digital ledger which is even more immutable.  it's leveraging the growth of the Internet.

for a more detailed, uncluttered debate about this topic, go here:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=35956.0
Zangelbert Bingledack
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1022


View Profile
May 30, 2015, 05:06:36 PM
 #25152

The first thing that jumps out is that over the past 3.5 years that stability indicator has never gone over 70 without being immediately followed by a monster rally, and it just now went over 80.
8up
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 619



View Profile
May 30, 2015, 05:10:49 PM
 #25153

The first thing that jumps out is that over the past 3.5 years that stability indicator has never gone over 70 without being immediately followed by a monster rally, and it just now went over 80.

This time it's different?


Always wrong until not.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
May 30, 2015, 05:14:28 PM
 #25154

Fascinating chart posted in masterluc's thread. I trust I don't need to spell out the implications.



so what is weighted stability?

More on that you will find here http://bitcoinstability.github.io/bitcoinstability/#/home and here https://azopstability.com/

i got so many anti malware extensions installed in my browser, i can't draw the graphs in those links.  so is it a measure of price stability?  the higher the spikes, the more stable? 

yes, volatility is damping down to almost nothing, which is predictably followed by huge moves, either up or down.  in this case, after a 1.5 yrs of bear and a 90% pullback w/o outright death, and increasingly good news in the form of Wall St and intl participation, and w/o a protocol "break", the logical conclusion is UP.
Adrian-x
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1330



View Profile
May 30, 2015, 05:16:41 PM
 #25155


You can never win with the masses. They will always be wrong, for as long as they demand to organize themselves in collectives.


The Internet is essentially the mass of masses. Extrapolate the audience averaging effect in the popular game show Who Wants to Be a Millionaire:

"But there’s a third option: You can use your “Ask-the-Audience" life line. You can poll the entire studio audience on the four possible answers, and their responses are instantaneously assembled into a bar graph. Invariably, this graph shows one overwhelming choice, and with rare exceptions the audience is right. “I’ll trust the audience,” you tell Regis. “Final answer.”

Good move. But why? No person in the audience is any more likely than you to know where grapes come from, yet the collective intelligence of the group is almost always a better bet than your best guess. Psychologists are very interested in this perplexing statistical phenomenon. If the crowd is always wiser than any individual, what does that say about the way knowledge is stored and arranged in our minds? And can it help us make better choices, even beyond game shows?

...

That’s actually what Vul and Pashler found when they ran the experiment. As reported in the July issue of the journal Psychological Science, the average of two guesses for any individual participant was better than either guess alone, regardless of the time between guesses. So polling the “crowd within” does indeed yield a statistically more accurate answer. What’s more, this internal crowd gets more independent-minded with time: Contestants who were asked to second-guess themselves three weeks later benefited even more by averaging their two guesses than did those who second-guessed themselves immediately. The psychologists speculate that the cognitive pull of the original answer loses its power and allows more mental flexibility over time."
http://www.psychologicalscience.org/onlyhuman/2008/06/polling-crowd-within.cfm

@vokain You have probably seen this already, but in case not: enjoy!
BBC - The Code - The Wisdom of the Crowd
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iOucwX7Z1HU

PS. Interesting how every single block size limit poll, since the first one in Feb 2013, has had majority support for the increase.

I assume both of you are smart guys.

So why do you commit this blatantly obvious category error of equating collective intelligence to the misalignment of priorities in the Iron Law of Political Economics?

I just can't fathom how you can't see that is proximately analogous (in terms of shared versus independent self-interest) to equating ant colonies to Tasmanian devils.

Let me translate that Iron Law into a form that is more easily appreciated:

Quote
Mancur Olson, in his book The Logic Of Collective Action, highlighted the central problem of politics in a democracy. The benefits of political market-rigging can be concentrated to benefit particular special interest groups and simultaneously distributed via debt to the population wherein each self-interested individual has the incentive to maximize his/her parasitic extraction from the collective, while the costs (in higher taxes, slower economic growth, and many other second-order effects) are diffused through the entire population (and often obfuscated and easily ignored as charged to the future generation in the form of debt).

This general model has consequences. Here are some of them:

Political demand for income transfers, entitlements and subsidies always rises faster than the economy can generate increased wealth to supply them from.

The equilibrium state of a regulatory agency is to have been captured by the entities it is supposed to regulate.

The only important class distinction in any advanced democracy is between those who are net producers of tax revenues and those who are net consumers of them.

Corruption is not the exceptional condition of politics, it is the normal one.

P.S. I have tried my best to teach this concept but it seems after 1000s of posts in the Economic Devastation and other threads, I still can't get readers to acknowledge that collective organization of humans suffers from a misalignment of priorities. That humans have big brains or that collective intelligence of humans is higher than for solitary humans is irrelevant.

You're over thinking this, we're just recovering from the invention (social hack) of PR as defined by Edward Bernays.

The biggest engineered hack of this century is taking Richard Dawkins idea of a meme (how ideas shape the evolution of the human genome) something we can manage through group wisdom and perverting it to mean the propagation of frivolous cat videos on the internet.

Now there is an idea for a PhD - study the etymology of the word meme, and find out which PR firm is responsible for changing it's original meaning and documenting the process.

Thank me in Bits 12MwnzxtprG2mHm3rKdgi7NmJKCypsMMQw
inca
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 980


View Profile
May 30, 2015, 05:17:35 PM
 #25156

Fascinating chart posted in masterluc's thread. I trust I don't need to spell out the implications.



so what is weighted stability?

More on that you will find here http://bitcoinstability.github.io/bitcoinstability/#/home and here https://azopstability.com/

i got so many anti malware extensions installed in my browser, i can't draw the graphs in those links.  so is it a measure of price stability?  the higher the spikes, the more stable? 

yes, volatility is damping down to almost nothing, which is predictably followed by huge moves, either up or down.  in this case, after a 1.5 yrs of bear and a 90% pullback w/o outright death, and increasingly good news in the form of Wall St and intl participation, and w/o a protocol "break", the logical conclusion is UP.

I concur. Expect a 'shake out' dump just before we start to move up.
8up
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 619



View Profile
May 30, 2015, 05:21:57 PM
 #25157

Fascinating chart posted in masterluc's thread. I trust I don't need to spell out the implications.



so what is weighted stability?

More on that you will find here http://bitcoinstability.github.io/bitcoinstability/#/home and here https://azopstability.com/

i got so many anti malware extensions installed in my browser, i can't draw the graphs in those links.  so is it a measure of price stability?  the higher the spikes, the more stable? 

yes, volatility is damping down to almost nothing, which is predictably followed by huge moves, either up or down.  in this case, after a 1.5 yrs of bear and a 90% pullback w/o outright death, and increasingly good news in the form of Wall St and intl participation, and w/o a protocol "break", the logical conclusion is UP.

http://www.reddit.com/r/BitcoinMarkets/comments/2cb16u/daily_discussion_friday_august_01_2014/cjdxp5k

Always wrong until not.
TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
May 30, 2015, 05:22:08 PM
 #25158


You can never win with the masses. They will always be wrong, for as long as they demand to organize themselves in collectives.


The Internet is essentially the mass of masses. Extrapolate the audience averaging effect in the popular game show Who Wants to Be a Millionaire:

"But there’s a third option: You can use your “Ask-the-Audience" life line. You can poll the entire studio audience on the four possible answers, and their responses are instantaneously assembled into a bar graph. Invariably, this graph shows one overwhelming choice, and with rare exceptions the audience is right. “I’ll trust the audience,” you tell Regis. “Final answer.”

Good move. But why? No person in the audience is any more likely than you to know where grapes come from, yet the collective intelligence of the group is almost always a better bet than your best guess. Psychologists are very interested in this perplexing statistical phenomenon. If the crowd is always wiser than any individual, what does that say about the way knowledge is stored and arranged in our minds? And can it help us make better choices, even beyond game shows?

...

That’s actually what Vul and Pashler found when they ran the experiment. As reported in the July issue of the journal Psychological Science, the average of two guesses for any individual participant was better than either guess alone, regardless of the time between guesses. So polling the “crowd within” does indeed yield a statistically more accurate answer. What’s more, this internal crowd gets more independent-minded with time: Contestants who were asked to second-guess themselves three weeks later benefited even more by averaging their two guesses than did those who second-guessed themselves immediately. The psychologists speculate that the cognitive pull of the original answer loses its power and allows more mental flexibility over time."
http://www.psychologicalscience.org/onlyhuman/2008/06/polling-crowd-within.cfm

@vokain You have probably seen this already, but in case not: enjoy!
BBC - The Code - The Wisdom of the Crowd
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iOucwX7Z1HU

PS. Interesting how every single block size limit poll, since the first one in Feb 2013, has had majority support for the increase.

I assume both of you are smart guys.

So why do you commit this blatantly obvious category error of equating collective intelligence to the misalignment of priorities in the Iron Law of Political Economics?

I just can't fathom how you can't see that is proximately analogous (in terms of shared versus independent self-interest) to equating ant colonies to Tasmanian devils.

Let me translate that Iron Law into a form that is more easily appreciated:

Quote
Mancur Olson, in his book The Logic Of Collective Action, highlighted the central problem of politics in a democracy. The benefits of political market-rigging can be concentrated to benefit particular special interest groups and simultaneously distributed via debt to the population wherein each self-interested individual has the incentive to maximize his/her parasitic extraction from the collective, while the costs (in higher taxes, slower economic growth, and many other second-order effects) are diffused through the entire population (and often obfuscated and easily ignored as charged to the future generation in the form of debt).

This general model has consequences. Here are some of them:

Political demand for income transfers, entitlements and subsidies always rises faster than the economy can generate increased wealth to supply them from.

The equilibrium state of a regulatory agency is to have been captured by the entities it is supposed to regulate.

The only important class distinction in any advanced democracy is between those who are net producers of tax revenues and those who are net consumers of them.

Corruption is not the exceptional condition of politics, it is the normal one.

P.S. I have tried my best to teach this concept but it seems after 1000s of posts in the Economic Devastation and other threads, I still can't get readers to acknowledge that collective organization of humans suffers from a misalignment of priorities. That humans have big brains or that collective intelligence of humans is higher than for solitary humans is irrelevant.

that "Law" was constructed in the context of a debt-based fiat system in which money printing is central and of which Bitcoin is NOT.  hence, our optimism that we can change things for the better.  does optimism always have to be unrealistic?

The People demand fractional reserves debt. If you deny this fact, then let's go down that rabbit hole such as using the 1800s as an example where the People demanded debt from the private, decentralized banks. Otherwise I assume you accept this fact.

The State and its mandate to regulate legal tender exists because there is a power vacuum on which entity will regulate fractional reserves and backstop the economy when the fractional reserves periodically implode with the business cycle.

We had decentralized money in the 1800s and we can clearly see it ended with the bankruptcy of the USA wherein JP Morgan had to bailout the country (which led to the establishment of the Federal Reserve in 1913).

A power vacuum means that the system in decentralized mode can't squelch some undesired activity (e.g. counterfeiting a.k.a. fractional reserves) without some entity being given the monopoly on force (i.e. Max Weber's canonical definition of the State).

The regulation of fractional reserves is a collective power vacuum that will always exist under any technological paradigm including Bitcoin (unless we can argue that humans will no longer have use for debt).

Thus you have transposed (i.e. conflated) causality (cause and effect). The demand for centralized control over legal tender derives from individual self-interest that Bitcoin does not alter.

Thus Bitcoin is a power vacuum because it can't resist centralization and the People's self-interest in debt implicitly demands the State to maintain force over regulating finance.

I explained in the Economic Devastation thread that I think the demand for debt in the Knowledge Age may diminish, because I explained in great detail in one of my essays linked from the opening post of that thread that knowledge production can't be financed.

Our problem however, is that most humans are not ready to transition to the Knowledge Age work and they will continue to demand debt and Industrial Age jobs (or the government to subsidize failure to obtain such a job).

The only way we cross the chasm without falling into an totalitarian abyss along the way, is a newly designed crypto-currency for the fledgling Knowledge Age that can resist attack by the State because the People implicitly (due to their self-interest in debt and subsidies) demand the State to maintain a monopoly on force.

Bitcoin can only serve the NWO because it does not have immutable qualities of decentralization and anonymity. You are hoping for a mass awakening (to defend Bitcoin and maintain its decentralization) but that is impossible because the individual self-interest of each of the People are misaligned with such global optimization.

8up
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 619



View Profile
May 30, 2015, 05:23:04 PM
 #25159

Fascinating chart posted in masterluc's thread. I trust I don't need to spell out the implications.



so what is weighted stability?

More on that you will find here http://bitcoinstability.github.io/bitcoinstability/#/home and here https://azopstability.com/

i got so many anti malware extensions installed in my browser, i can't draw the graphs in those links.  so is it a measure of price stability?  the higher the spikes, the more stable? 

yes, volatility is damping down to almost nothing, which is predictably followed by huge moves, either up or down.  in this case, after a 1.5 yrs of bear and a 90% pullback w/o outright death, and increasingly good news in the form of Wall St and intl participation, and w/o a protocol "break", the logical conclusion is UP.

I concur. Expect a 'shake out' dump just before we start to move up.

So do I.

Always wrong until not.
Peter R
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 938



View Profile
May 30, 2015, 05:35:21 PM
 #25160

This time it's different?



Great graphs, 8up!

Run Bitcoin Unlimited (www.bitcoinunlimited.info)
Pages: « 1 ... 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 1289 1290 1291 1292 1293 1294 1295 1296 1297 1298 1299 1300 1301 1302 1303 1304 1305 1306 1307 1308 ... 1560 »
  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!