Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[TPTB_need_war]

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:

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.

[1714919733]

1714919733

[1714919733]

1714919733

[1714919733]

1714919733

[cypherdoc]

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:

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]

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

so what is weighted stability?

[Fakhoury]

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 ?

[Adrian-x]

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 ;-)

[8up]

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/

[cypherdoc]

-

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]

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]

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?

[cypherdoc]

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]

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:

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.

[inca]

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]

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

[TPTB_need_war]

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:

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]

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.

[Peter R]

This time it's different?

Great graphs, 8up!

[cypherdoc]

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.

so in essence, a double bottom, with even maybe a throw under.  maybe. 

otoh, what would really throw everybody would be a big move up from here.  no way to tell for sure.

[TPTB_need_war]

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

I am writing about an immutable attribute of human society since Mesopotamia and you cite a man that was born in 1928.

[8up]

This time it's different?

Great graphs, 8up!

Credit goes to /u/azop

[TPTB_need_war]

now that we have money types that can navigate around these monopolies

Which money can resist takeover by centralization?

Sorry I don't see any such money that exists, not even gold.