Topic: [Announce] Project Quixote - BitShares, BitNames and 'BitMessage' - page 16. (Read 48297 times)

Causes me to think of the nature of the proof of the Four Color Theorem.

Yeah I see that (The Scientist), including the J for Judgment. I am ENTP (The Visionary), very much including the E for Extrovert and the P for Perception. I back it up with strong T for Thinking so I don't get my facts wrong, and N for Intuition so I derive from big picture (over the trees) instead of mired in the forest. I also have a significant F component, i.e. sometimes I subsume the T to employ F where it aids my big picture perception (this is my brain jumping to a pseudo-randomized distant location in the solution space incorporating more potentially randomized fitness data/entropy).

The downsides of my personality type are too many ideas and too many crap ideas that have to shifted through to get to the profound ones.

Never ask a mathematician for a formal explanation. David Hilbert tried to do that:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hilbert's_program

It ended up creating the foundations of computer science. You're welcome btw.

As far as I know, no. He open sources the overview description now on his blog as a "public service". He apparently considers the $100 million investment proprietary. For example, he claims to have spent $10 million constructing an accurate price history of silver during the Roman empire. He had researchers compiling from libraries, news archives, ancient artifacts archives, etc.. The database is what he claims is so valuable.


Taleb replied (1 sentence) in private email in the affirmative on the following I wrote:

http://unheresy.com/Information%20Is%20Alive.html#Knowledge_Anneals

I've been reading the Armstrong site, quite interested. Has he published and open sourced his math analysis and algorithms for peer review? My current favorites are Nassim Taleb, Benoit Mandelbrot, and Edgar Peters.

I am very interested to see that genre of analysis. I am also considering to implement BitAssets in my coin, yet improve on any mistakes bytemaster makes.

I hope such analysis considers my point about asymmetric motivations (probabilities) between the short and the long, due to asymmetric probability of expiration of investment position and secular price trend of the designated asset given the positions can be held for longer periods of time.


I went back and looked at his amazingly accurate predictions since the 1970s which were published in the likes of Barron's. He hit every major turn, e.g. the Japanese bubble and crash 1990. The USA flash crash 1987 and all the events since, including 9/11 way before it happened. He was predicting 10 years in advance nearly to the day the events that actually transpired.

He has said the only way the DJIA will not have a phase transition before 2015.75 is if we get a significant enough war to stop the sovereign debt collapse from proceeding which would delay it by 8.6 years (1000 x Pi days) to 2025 (but he doesn't view this as very likely).

Agreed he is not correct about every small turn in the economy. No one can be. It is randomized by the entropy of the universe. However, the longer the period of the periodic wave (e.g. 8.6 years x Pi = 26 years x Pi = 78 years x Pi = 224 years), the more accurate he is. Which makes sense if you understand Fourier analysis.

I know it sounds crazy that someone could predict the future. As a math and scientific method driven skeptic, I didn't want to believe it. Then I realized the universe actually derives from the frequency domain and spacetime is just an illusion (perception) of our senses:

http://unheresy.com/The%20Universe.html#Entropic_derivation (my blog)

Armstrong has said he never made assumptions. Everything was found via the scientific method, even when it disagreed with his personal opinion, e.g. he started as a market maker in gold and loves gold:

http://armstrongeconomics.com/2013/08/24/gold-5000-why/
http://armstrongeconomics.com/2013/08/23/gold-the-coming-slingshot-move/


Compare the average time the ratio is rising to that of falling, and you can clearly see that on a time-weighted basis (given our time-preference opportunity cost in life), it is better to invest in the DJIA.

So yeah, if you are wise you trade into gold for 17 - 21 year bull market every 30 - 50 years. But if sat in gold always, you would be a pauper (you have to invest to keep up with those who are productive and this is precisely my point to bytemaster about the value of savings).

Facts is facts.  


There is no gain in life without risk. You may or may not be making an accurate assessment that the risk outweighs the rewards. Personally I am throwing $5 - $10K into LEAPS. I can afford to lose that in return for the 30-50% probability of $100K  - $1 million return.

Hiding in a cave waiting for the end of the world that takes a lifetime to come is not wise. It is all about assessing relative risk and opportunity cost.


I too wish for that!

But don't ever expect an investment that is without risk. That would be a travesty of optimization, thus can't exist.

In the moment, I still have to deal with what is in reality, not what I wish.

bytemaster, as stated already I'm very interested in your ideas about BitAssets.  (In fact, I even commented in your initial threads some months ago if you remember.)  However, while I see and understand the basic claims you make about why BitUSD will track the USD value, I'm still very sceptical about it.  You know, in comparison to BitAssets, Bitcoin itself is almost trivial - so I'm really not sure whether there are some problems in the design I (and everyone) missed.  (I'm aware of your "design by bounty for pointing out problems" efforts, but this can't ever rule out that there's not still some problem not discovered yet.)

As a mathematician, I have to admit that I find your whitepaper interesting to read but not really 'exact' in the way I would want it in order to accept that BitUSD will really track USD.  (Also the Bitcoin whitepaper is not really as I expect a mathematical paper, but that doesn't matter because the ideas there are so clear and easy to grasp that the description is enough.  I also think it is a good idea to have a non-mathematical whitepaper, but it would be great to have more details in addition.)  Have you ever tried to precisely state your assumptions on the market for USD, BitShares, BitUSD and such (I mean mathematical definitions, not like your "axioms" in the whitepaper), and then to prove (mathematically) that given your assumptions the best (according to game theory) move of a rational participant is always such that it leads the price of BitUSD towards that of USD?  That BitUSD = USD (or something like that) is the Nash equilibrium?  Something similar?

Of course such a proof would still not ensure that, if BitAssets are deployed, not someone found a way to manipulate and trick the market because people are behaving irrationally, but it would at least give me much more confidence that it really works out.  If you have not yet tried to do that, would you be interested that I try?  (Although I can't promise how much time I have for this.)

He has never been wrong? No one on this earth has "never been wrong"

He may be right or may not be, but the best way to find out is to put his ideas to the test and compete against other ideas. The best ideas will win and evolve.

From Armstrong, http://armstrongeconomics.com/2013/08/18/money-had-never-been-tangible-period-if-you-do-not-understand-what-money-is-you-will-lose-your-shirt-more/


This presents a very false impression since he only picks a limited time span to make his assertion when the Dow was bubbling up. He should track the Dow to gold ratio over the total time the dollar, DJIA, and gold have been around. http://www.macrotrends.net/1378/dow-to-gold-ratio-100-year-historical-chart shows this info.

I agree that it would be much better to invest in income producing and appreciating assets, but the current climate makes that far too risky, for reasons that Armstrong makes very clear. Also, the only types of securities I would invest in, bearer shares and gold bearer bonds, are not currently available. I do not trust any asset where some one else can come along and say I don't own it any more. Hence my interest in Bitshares and other systems which eliminate the need for accounts.

I hope this is my last.

Imagine how ludicrous if everyone holding dollar bills got paid a transaction fee from everyone who spent dollar bills.

It doesn't make any sense to tax money itself. Even our government is not that stupid.

Do you all even know that Martin Armstrong was managing $3 Trillion (the most ever) and that is why the bankers locked him maximum security prison for 7 years without a trial on a bogus contempt charge, because his computer was helping capital outsmart the bankers. Luckily he had too many well connected friends, so they had to back down, after they almost succeeded to kill him in prison.

You had better listen, he has never been wrong.

I am sorry to inform you that you speak complete nonsense. If you held gold you would be a pauper compared to holding the DJIA:

http://armstrongeconomics.com/2013/08/18/money-had-never-been-tangible-period-if-you-do-not-understand-what-money-is-you-will-lose-your-shirt-more/
http://armstrongeconomics.com/2013/08/22/no-single-investment-will-ever-be-perpetual-it-all-changes/

I am the one embellishing capital creation (necessary for accumulation) and you can't see how you want to destroy it.

The fact is you can't tax over the Laffer limit long-term without imploding the economy. It is an established fact, whether you like it or not.

You are conflating buzzwords without deep understanding.

The difference between wealthy creating a diversity of businesses, and a monopoly in the money business handed to them by you seems to have escaped you. You keep missing the point about fitness. It is flying right over your head.

The Sum(Parts) != Whole. An economy is composed of many local issues that have to solved with many diverse actors. If you provide a means for people to get wealthy by doing JUST ONE THING, you destroy what makes an economy exist.

Now if you can't wrap your mind around this, I am not going to explain it again. Just go on in your myopic understanding.


You don't seem to differentiate between someone who funded you to create the network and someone who just comes along later and does JUST ONE THING with 90% of the capital of the world. Your concept of ownership is fundamentally flawed because you don't understand the economy-of-(diversity of)fitness.

You haven't even read my links. So I am going to stop now my effort since you are not trying to comprehend.


The dividend part isn't required to make your statement still valid.  


Non-aggression sounds to me like tree hugging and other such nonsense, but I think it is irrelevant to our discussion.

I say exactly this - they indeed are worth less when the price of gold goes up, soon to be worthless. The dollar is worth 1/70 of what it was in 1933, and 1/40th of what it was worth in 1970.

Increased productivity has lessened the loss in dollar purchasing power in some areas like food, and even increased it in electronics, but overall it has been an exponentially increasing decline in value.

It is comments like this that show you have no value for capital accumulation and believe only the 'workers' deserve the profits of a business.   This is the heart and soul of marxism.   Throwing in terms like "Regressive" tax is also a political opinion based upon an idea of fairness where someone other than the owners of capital deserve the profits.   Apparently the current 'owners' of the network are not entitled to the profits of the network.    Then to claim that a transaction fee system that operates on the same basis as Bitcoin (auction for space in the chain) would result in implosion is the ultimate slippery slope thinking.  

A very simple way to understand the goal of my design:  view the block-chain as a profit-seeking business that attempts to maximize profits for its owner.    If I pre-mined the whole thing after building it then clearly you would have no problem with all profits going to me, especially if I also provided all of the CPU power to secure the network.    

Now clearly I do not have enough capital to buy the CPU power and the risk of being centralized could destroy my business, so I offer to pay people in company stock to mine for me.  In exchange they get some dividends from the company in return for their mining effort.  

The fact that you introduced yourself as a min-archist shows you have contradictions in your thinking because you support some exceptions to the non-agression principle.

I see mining as a way to get anonymous coin when the sovereign debt crisis goes into "confiscate everything" mode in 2016 (as Armstrong predicts, and he has never been wrong since the 1970s).

Thus giving it all to miners is very very important to me.

Okay I must have forgotten this detail if it was in the whitepaper.

Then my points #1 and #2 apply even more so.



Stock splits accomplish what (?) other than tricking naive people to think the stock price is still low?

But this doesn't address any of my meaty points.


Lack of inflation is not a benefit. The USA nominal M2 and nominal GDP both grew at roughly 5% per annum since 1790.

I had all the math of why it must be that way. Go find the link I provided upthread to those statistics and the simple math I explained.

I am very, very weary now.

Lets clarify something before you accuse us of lies...
1) The long-term stability has 100% of dividends coming from transaction fees, thus productive value provided by the network itself.
2) The short-term dividends are just a stock-split as a new miner is issued shares.  It is like a new investor bringing capital into a company and the company issuing new shares to both the investor and everyone else.    Thus initial miner reward is just like a the miner is a VC funding the initial security of the network and diluting the current share holders of the company slightly.

The result of this system is that BitShares is less inflationary than Bitcoin because only 50% of the new shares issued to the miner actually dilutes their position.   When this sinks in the hard-money, anti-inflation, advocates will like BitShares because we do not dilute early adopters as much as the currency is issued relative to Bitcoin.