Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[TPTB_need_war]

You do realize gold and silver are THE only monies out there that are not “credit based” or derive their values via the credit markets

Gold and silver are no longer money. They are illiquid assets that will become incredibly more illiquid in the coming war of private assets.

The war on cash has been long and ongoing.  Bitcoin is as of now the most stalwart defense, but it is in its infancy.

But a profound paradigm shift is upon us because every human will be always connected with their smartphone, and thus physical cash dies.

And with this gold's black market dies too and becomes incredibly illiquid except for institutions that are in the back pocket of the system.

[1713863234]

1713863234

[1713863234]

1713863234

[STT]

Gold and silver are no longer money. They are illiquid assets that will become incredibly more illiquid in the coming war of private assets.

Gold is very liquid in physical sense, not sure how else you would mean.   Just a gram of gold would be enough to be used as money and it has been used this way in well known cases where the national currency collapsed even while no country has it recognised officially as money.
Im not saying it wouldnt be messy, I dont want to be shaving off bits of a coin then putting into a pan to refine it or something.  Sounds alot of effort but hey it could be done, even on a street stall I can use the gold in a basic way.   Whatever the price was, it could be used.  
Where as a stock market can be suspended and those assets are illiquid then, though they might pay a dividend or possibly be traded privately between people if they had a certificate I guess.    Paper contracts like shares or bonds are more fragile in times of extreme stress, I do need my broker to stay open and handle my transactions or Im in trouble, the whole market can hitch at times.   Gold as a stand alone thing is hard to suspend or lose altogether in the same way.

In theory cotton notes like we have are more efficent, its only the people who control their 'printing' who are screwing it up.  Thats the monkeys paw with todays technology and advancement, it can work negatively

[TPTB_need_war]

if tx's don't have to be "put in blocks" in your altcoin, logic follows that there are no blocks.

Illogical.

i am not a programmer

Ah that likely explains your lapses in logic.

you couldn't have been more correct than me.

Rpietila can I believe probably atest I was buying 1000oz bars below $9 in 2008. For sure he knows I was selling him rounds I minted in the $9s.

btw, you seem to think gvts are going to continue to grow and take over the world.  here's a great chart from Calculated Risk that shows shrinkage of the public sector jobs under Obama and since the crisis.

Thanks for a great example of your myopia and cherry-picking data. This is why Armstrong is correct that those who don't correlate all the data will be blinded.

You forgot that those on welfare are effectively government "employees" (both do no productive "work").

As I warned you, that when we dig into specifics, it will be clear I am correct.

i also think this graph is fascinating.  it shows the US national murder rate heading steadily down since the 1990's.  i'd like to think that might be because of the internet and a spreading social consciousness worldwide as ppl link up.  that means there's hope for a better world perhaps.

Murder is only one type of crime. You must look at total crime and also don't forget to include corruption which is becoming more rampant.

The turn on the chart since the 2008 unemployment crisis began is because the citizens are now enslaved outside of prison in terms of being married to government welfare and long-term unemployment insurance. And also due to the dead-cat bounce of the USA economy to by end of 2017.

also, incremental progress on curtailing the NSA.  and you diss the significance of Snowden?:

https://www.vox.com/2015/5/13/8603193/house-vote-nsa-spying?utm_campaign=vox&utm_content=chorus&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USA_Freedom_Act

Critics assert that mass surveillance of the content of Americans' communication will continue under Section 702 of FISA[7][8] and Executive Order 12333[7][9] due to the "unstoppable surveillance-industrial complex"[10] despite the fact that a bipartisan majority of the House had previously voted to close backdoor mass surveillance.

your doom and gloom is tiresome.  here's the greatest conspiracy of all:  is Anonymint a paid NSA shill?

Ah so I was spot-on in my assessment of the source of your cognitive dissonance.

[TPTB_need_war]

Gold and silver are no longer money. They are illiquid assets that will become incredibly more illiquid in the coming war of private assets.

Gold is very liquid in physical sense, not sure how else you would mean.

My upthread post.

[cypherdoc]

-

when you first registered March 2013 the price was $34.

do you feel silly now?

[TPTB_need_war]

Armstrong opened my eyes to reality.

[...] he has been selling his conferences on world collapse [...]

I like his ramblings about history but don' t like his simplifications of opponents or people with a different view. It really went south for me when he avoided a factual debate with Denninger on his 'one dollar of capital' suggestion in relation to fractional reserve banking.

The beginning of that debate was here, and it went on for a few thread pages.

Armstrong chimed in with a few more blog posts on the subject matter since:

Creating Market Depth: The First Step in Creating an Economy

But I guess we are all Marxists...  

Yes. The cognitive dissonance is that most men would rather contemplate the system reforming than a totalitarian collapse into a NWO.

You all can't fathom a world where the collective can't reform and it literally euthanizes its citizens. And we are forced to fork away from it to survive.

I observe that most men seem to go into a binary mode, either collective reform or I am an island with my gold. They don't look for the synergies of the third and only realistic option at this juncture.

[TPTB_need_war]

-

when you first registered March 2013 the price was $34.

do you feel silly now?

 

I spoke to rpietila in January on Skype. I got around to writing a syndicated article "Bitcoin : The Digital Kill Switch" by March and joined the forum to share it.

Around that time of Dec. 2012, I was suffering severe tinnitus, difficulty swallowing, and other adverse symptoms in a tail-spin collapse with my Multiple Sclerosis (after sending it into complete remission at the end of Sept using high dose vitamin D3 for week, then quitting). I was distracted on fighting to survive.

At the time I didn't know I had M.S.. I thought it was expected long-term head and throat effects from high # strain HPV infection I contracted in 2006.

[Chef Ramsay]

Intelligence and beauty finally meet on a hot date. This lady has the full package that many in this community would do wonders for. That's right I said it. And dark eyes usually don't suit me too well.

[cypherdoc]

-

when you first registered March 2013 the price was $34.

do you feel silly now?

 

I spoke to rpietila in January on Skype. I got around to writing a syndicated article "Bitcoin : The Digital Kill Switch" by March and joined the forum to share it.

Around that time of Dec. 2012, I was suffering severe tinnitus, difficulty swallowing, and other adverse symptoms in a tail-spin collapse with my Multiple Sclerosis (after sending it into complete remission at the end of Sept using high dose vitamin D3 for week, then quitting). I was distracted on fighting to survive.

At the time I didn't know I had M.S.. I thought it was expected long-term head and throat effects from high # strain HPV infection I contracted in 2006.

well then, you should feel even worse.

in Jan 2013, the price was 13 and you've been a FUDster ever since.

[Zangelbert Bingledack]

Found an interesting game-theoretic idea on blocksize no one seems to have mentioned before:

http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/35kxdu/mentor_monday_may_11_2015_ask_all_your_bitcoin/cr5fqz


It's a bit rough, but the core idea seems like it could have potential. It's kind of like a Nash equilibrium that disincentivizes miners from tormenting others by creating too-large blocks when the cap is removed.

[molecular]

Found an interesting game-theoretic idea on blocksize no one seems to have mentioned before:

http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/35kxdu/mentor_monday_may_11_2015_ask_all_your_bitcoin/cr5fqz


It's a bit rough, but the core idea seems like it could have potential. It's kind of like a Nash equilibrium that disincentivizes miners from tormenting others by creating too-large blocks when the cap is removed.

I agree this has potential. It'd be a clean, permanent solution with nothing arbitrary about it. Sometimes we just don't see the simple things?

Too-large-blocks are already disincentivized by their slow propagation and resulting higher orphan risk. I read that many pools already use a "soft limit" well below 1 MB because of this. It would probably make most sense for a miner to calculate the cost of the orphan risk (needs some assumptions, I guess) and contrast that with the potential additional tx fees being earned and make tx inclusion decisions based on that calculation.

[Erdogan]

Found an interesting game-theoretic idea on blocksize no one seems to have mentioned before:

http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/35kxdu/mentor_monday_may_11_2015_ask_all_your_bitcoin/cr5fqz


It's a bit rough, but the core idea seems like it could have potential. It's kind of like a Nash equilibrium that disincentivizes miners from tormenting others by creating too-large blocks when the cap is removed.

I agree this has potential. It'd be a clean, permanent solution with nothing arbitrary about it. Sometimes we just don't see the simple things?

Too-large-blocks are already disincentivized by their slow propagation and resulting higher orphan risk. I read that many pools already use a "soft limit" well below 1 MB because of this. It would probably make most sense for a miner to calculate the cost of the orphan risk (needs some assumptions, I guess) and contrast that with the potential additional tx fees being earned and make tx inclusion decisions based on that calculation.

I think it makes sense economically (meaning this is what is going to happen when humans meet and trade). That is why I noted the missing "unlimited" choice in the poll. What can happen, is that the new 20 MB blocksize is programmed into the reference code, but many will just set their own limit, making it soft.

[sickpig]

Found an interesting game-theoretic idea on blocksize no one seems to have mentioned before:

http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/35kxdu/mentor_monday_may_11_2015_ask_all_your_bitcoin/cr5fqz


It's a bit rough, but the core idea seems like it could have potential. It's kind of like a Nash equilibrium that disincentivizes miners from tormenting others by creating too-large blocks when the cap is removed.

I agree this has potential. It'd be a clean, permanent solution with nothing arbitrary about it. Sometimes we just don't see the simple things?

Too-large-blocks are already disincentivized by their slow propagation and resulting higher orphan risk. I read that many pools already use a "soft limit" well below 1 MB because of this. It would probably make most sense for a miner to calculate the cost of the orphan risk (needs some assumptions, I guess) and contrast that with the potential additional tx fees being earned and make tx inclusion decisions based on that calculation.

what will happen when block propagation will be O(1)?
(see: https://gist.github.com/gavinandresen/e20c3b5a1d4b97f79ac2)

[molecular]

Found an interesting game-theoretic idea on blocksize no one seems to have mentioned before:

http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/35kxdu/mentor_monday_may_11_2015_ask_all_your_bitcoin/cr5fqz


It's a bit rough, but the core idea seems like it could have potential. It's kind of like a Nash equilibrium that disincentivizes miners from tormenting others by creating too-large blocks when the cap is removed.

I agree this has potential. It'd be a clean, permanent solution with nothing arbitrary about it. Sometimes we just don't see the simple things?

Too-large-blocks are already disincentivized by their slow propagation and resulting higher orphan risk. I read that many pools already use a "soft limit" well below 1 MB because of this. It would probably make most sense for a miner to calculate the cost of the orphan risk (needs some assumptions, I guess) and contrast that with the potential additional tx fees being earned and make tx inclusion decisions based on that calculation.

what will happen when block propagation will be O(1)?
(see: https://gist.github.com/gavinandresen/e20c3b5a1d4b97f79ac2)

Yes, I know. Also consider: the "IBLT block transfer mode" can already be done among miners/pools without us even knowing. So maybe the disincentive of large blocks doesn't even exist.

[solex]

That 1TB block is not possible even if the 1MB disappeared, because the 33.5MB message size limit still exists. It would need block segmentation logic to be implemented to increase it.

However, even that is not necessary, 30MB IBLT blocks would facilitate about 3GB standard blocks, or 20,000tps. Bolt on lighting networks, or similar, and who knows, maybe it would be enough handle a large chunk of global commerce.

[NewLiberty]

The age old model is that when the banks get out of control, a few fail (or a few hundred) and it resets as the survivors scoop up the remains.  Now with the use of state power, they have taxpayer funded bailouts, bail-ins and all sorts of new ways to destroy wealth.

It was the emergence of the "Too Big To Fail" policy which created this and was effectively codified into law with the LTCM bailout in the late 1990s.

To Big To Fail = disabling the clearing mechanism which is necessary for a functioning capitalist society. If you are too big to fail, then you can do anything and be as inefficient as possible, but that inefficiency will never be cleared out of the market.

The creation of the FED in 1913 was essentially to formation of a too big to fail policy at the government level (before the US gov would have to go for bailouts itself). But as you pointed out banks and other industry were still allowed to fail. This stopped in the 1990s and TBTF was extended to corporations, which is why every corporate entity from banks to auto manufactures (i.e. GM/Chrysler) have tried to position themselves as too big to fail.

This will continue until the dollar fails, effectively destroying the too big to fail enabler.

Perfectly stated.

TBTF has also been added on the other side of the dollar though with the IMF SDRs (XDR), so we get to break the world now, not just the United States.  
Here's how:
As you noted, LTCM was the catalyst for the smaller side TBTF.  Since this happened after we already had the fall of USSR from bond failures, the USA certainly has had a similar risk.  XDR are still a small percentage of FOREX trade, but as the USD gets closer to a potential fail point we should see that percentage grow.  

Jim Rickards postulates that the US might do a gold bail-in and initiate a new gold standard, but I suspect that would be a last resort after the XDR TBTF pops.  He details the process the US could use to accomplish this quite well at the end of his last book.  Its feasible.

Bitcoin could also potentially fill that spot if investment continues to advance.

[thezerg]

Found an interesting game-theoretic idea on blocksize no one seems to have mentioned before:

http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/35kxdu/mentor_monday_may_11_2015_ask_all_your_bitcoin/cr5fqz


It's a bit rough, but the core idea seems like it could have potential. It's kind of like a Nash equilibrium that disincentivizes miners from tormenting others by creating too-large blocks when the cap is removed.

Absolutely I think many 20MB proponents believe this but see a high limit as a compromise. And note that my suggestion to expand the limit based on txn fees essentially magnifies the slope of the equilibrium curve.  Also note that the same argument also applies to txn fees.  Some future day when the subsidy is near zero miners will refuse to mine a block unless it at least pays for its electricity.  You could even power miners dynamically based on whether a profitable block is available.

[cypherdoc]

What % of the unconfirmed TX set gets included into every block?

[TPTB_need_war]

To everyone, I think I've written all I needed to write. Thanks for reading and apologies if haven't managed my couth optimally. Good luck to everyone and hope to see you all on the other side of this chasm.

I don't like the idea for Bitcoin of letting the pools decide the blocksize because via the Sybil attack they have a hidden monopoly and can either drive block size very large to gain 100% hashrate by starving miners with less connectivity and thus higher effective orphan rate; or they can make blocks smaller thus driving tx fees skyhigh for their profits. They'd likely do the former first and the latter later, as all self-respecting monopolies do.

That 1TB block is not possible even if the 1MB disappeared, because the 33.5MB message size limit still exists. It would need block segmentation logic to be implemented to increase it.

However, even that is not necessary, 30MB IBLT blocks would facilitate about 3GB standard blocks, or 20,000tps. Bolt on lighting networks, or similar, and who knows, maybe it would be enough handle a large chunk of global commerce.

As I explained upthread in a reply to thezerg on his micropayments idea, Lightning networks is for real-time payments, not all micropayments. It moves a payment channel between two parties offchain, but it doesn't address the fundamental blockchain scaling problem of distributed micropayments.

At some point the world's transaction rate in the Knowledge Age outscales what Bitcoin can do without being fully centralized and monopolized. But that is okay, because Bitcoin serves us well interim and we can fix this with an altcoin.

The age old model is that when the banks get out of control, a few fail (or a few hundred) and it resets as the survivors scoop up the remains.  Now with the use of state power, they have taxpayer funded bailouts, bail-ins and all sorts of new ways to destroy wealth.

It was the emergence of the "Too Big To Fail" policy which created this and was effectively codified into law with the LTCM bailout in the late 1990s.

To Big To Fail = disabling the clearing mechanism which is necessary for a functioning capitalist society. If you are too big to fail, then you can do anything and be as inefficient as possible, but that inefficiency will never be cleared out of the market.

The creation of the FED in 1913 was essentially to formation of a too big to fail policy at the government level (before the US gov would have to go for bailouts itself). But as you pointed out banks and other industry were still allowed to fail. This stopped in the 1990s and TBTF was extended to corporations, which is why every corporate entity from banks to auto manufactures (i.e. GM/Chrysler) have tried to position themselves as too big to fail.

This will continue until the dollar fails, effectively destroying the too big to fail enabler.

Perfectly stated.

TBTF has also been added on the other side of the dollar though with the IMF SDRs (XDR), so we get to break the world now, not just the United States.  
Here's how:
As you noted, LTCM was the catalyst for the smaller side TBTF.  Since this happened after we already had the fall of USSR from bond failures, the USA certainly has had a similar risk.  XDR are still a small percentage of FOREX trade, but as the USD gets closer to a potential fail point we should see that percentage grow.  

Jim Rickards postulates that the US might do a gold bail-in and initiate a new gold standard, but I suspect that would be a last resort after the XDR TBTF pops.  He details the process the US could use to accomplish this quite well at the end of his last book.  Its feasible.

Bitcoin could also potentially fill that spot if investment continues to advance.

There are factual errors. The Fed was originally created to buy only corporate paper and was supposed to be a backstop on the ebb and flow of the 8.6 year business cycle. Then the powers-that-be launched WW2 with some false flag operations and manipulations of public information (e.g. Pearl Harbor, etc) and with that and FDR's New Deal Socialism, the Fed was tasked with funding the military-industrial complex through the government bond spigot.

So the transgression began in the 1930s. That was roughly when the elite was also funding the Bolsheviks in Russia, Hitler in Germany, the Socialists in Wiemar Germany, etc..

Indeed the elite kept their promise, "By ascent or conquest, we will have our world government".

[molecular]

Some future day when the subsidy is near zero miners will refuse to mine a block unless it at pays for itself.

Interesting observation, never thought about it.

Only if there's enough transaction fees to be had from the mem-pool would miners power up. In fact they might even mine a different sha-coin that offers some fees in the meantime. But disregarding that for a moment, what would the effect be? Since the overall effective hashrate is lower, difficulty would drop at some point and then the network would find blocks faster when tx load is high, slower when it's low. Would security suffer? My first thought was: yes, but then again you have the option to fend off an attack by making some high-fee transactions and thereby releasing more hashpower.