Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. - page 350. (Read 2032266 times)

If (US) stocks were to explode higher into 2017 as a result of the public wave going into the private wave (in paper), levels in 2017 will be so high that a crash to Dow 5,000 (to reach Gold 1:1 parity) would be the biggest crash in stocks since 1929-1932. Somehow, I doubt this will happen with CBs on watch, ready to throw the kitchen sink at it if deemed necessary (and they will). In such environment, I do not see Gold peaking at $5,000 but at least a multiple of that. Trouble is, we do not know exactly sure what CBs are going to do (keep on printing or at some point just let it be).

questions:
3.  what are the most common problems that could occur if adopted?

1.  how much work and time is involved in decompressing an IBLT for verification/validation and addition of unknown tx's compared to the current method of receiving decompressed tx's contained within a block?

2.  how strong is the assumption that nodes and miners have nearly identical mempools?

I like it too but havent analyzed IBLT yet.  One possible concern is that it discourages miner's personal choice to add or remove a txn from the block.  But is this even bad?  If it is a simple addition to the protocol could be a list of modification s to the canonical txn ordering.

Sorry, but you (or the way you're explaining it) are wrong. This is the typical mistake of thinking of markets as balloons that are inflated by "money flowing into them". Since at every trade there is a buyer and a seller, money quantity remains the same, it just changes hands. Thus, money does not flow into another thing when a product crashes. It's just that its value, which even if it can be called capital is just a number, changes.

If bonds crash, then poof! capital evaporates. This is why it's called malinvestment, it's not a matter of communicating vessels, just paper wealth where every security is completely independent from others (in principle).

John P. Hussman likes to talk about that, and many other misconceptions like the "money multiplier". He also mentions the Tobin Q indicator, which has just been mentioned in this thread: Stock-Flow Accounting and the Coming $10 Trillion Loss in Paper Wealth

IBTL only saves you from sending same data twice.  e.g. 500 tps = 75 MB block.  In current implementation every node has to download 150 MB of data (first all transaction, and then again all transaction ordered in block)

Thanks for sharing your views and detailing Armstrong's thoughts on this. I do not think the long term play I outlined differs from Armstrong's in terms of 'CONFIDENCE'. The flow from paper to physical and back again is all about confidence (confidence in the 'system').

The flow from European/Asian (Japan?) bonds into US stocks until 2017 is something I can imagine. This is typically described as the US having the cleanest 'dirty shirt'. However, this is a rush from one type of paper somewhere in the world to another type of paper in a different part of the world (the loose cannons of capital). It all takes place within the paper world.

What I am interested in is under which circumstances Armstrong sees Gold reaching $5,000 and what the stock market will be like when that happens. After all, this is a crucial premise of the paper vs physical theory. Whether Gold peaks at $2,000 or $20,000 is not interesting. It is only interesting to know at what level stocks are at that moment (will it reach the long term bottom between 1:1 and 2:1?). With Gold at the suggested peak of $5,000, the Dow should then be between 5,000-10,000, meaning a serious crash (no longer a correction) from current levels. Perhaps this is something Armstrong may see happening beyond 2017 in the bottoming process of 2018-2023. Is this the time period in which he sees also US bonds break down (resulting in the anticipated rush from paper - all paper - into physical)?

If (US) stocks were to explode higher into 2017 as a result of the public wave going into the private wave (in paper), levels in 2017 will be so high that a crash to Dow 5,000 (to reach Gold 1:1 parity) would be the biggest crash in stocks since 1929-1932. Somehow, I doubt this will happen with CBs on watch, ready to throw the kitchen sink at it if deemed necessary (and they will). In such environment, I do not see Gold peaking at $5,000 but at least a multiple of that. Trouble is, we do not know exactly sure what CBs are going to do (keep on printing or at some point just let it be).

Anyway, on the last theme (predicting CB behaviour), I think Gold provides protection in both scenarios. In case of excessive printing, Gold will protect in the long run and if CBs let the markets collapse, Gold will be a good hedge against banks and other financial institutions failing. In that respect, I find the idea of $250 trillion seeking a safe haven somewhat misleading. If the SHTF, much of that $250 trillion will prove to have been illusory: too much claims on wealth in the system.

By not focussing on stocks, at worst I can be a fool and at best, well protected.

i like this proposal b/c it theoretically accomplishes several things at once:

1.  "clears" out the unconf tx set via incentives to capture fees
2.  eliminates the "burstiness" and propagation delays related to large block transmission latency (ideally block messages should transmit just as fast as real time tx's themselves)
3.  works off the assumption that most nodes and miners have nearly identical mempools
4.  eliminates wasteful hashing of block "receiving" miners.

questions:

1.  how much work and time is involved in decompressing an IBLT for verification/validation and addition of unknown tx's compared to the current method of receiving decompressed tx's contained within a block?
2.  how strong is the assumption that nodes and miners have nearly identical mempools?
3.  what are the most common problems that could occur if adopted?

All non-sovereign bond assets are becoming aligned together as private assets. Why? Because $250 trillion of capital has to go some where. And it will have to flood out of sovereign bonds to some where.

Don't all the big miners already use this private relay network:
 https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/how-and-why-pools-and-all-miners-should-use-the-relay-network-766190
?

i like this proposal b/c it theoretically accomplishes several things at once:

1.  "clears" out the unconf tx set via incentives to capture fees
2.  eliminates the "burstiness" and propagation delays related to large block transmission latency (ideally block messages should transmit just as fast as real time tx's themselves)
3.  works off the assumption that most nodes and miners have nearly identical mempools
4.  eliminates wasteful hashing of block "receiving" miners.

questions:

1.  how much work and time is involved in decompressing an IBLT for verification/validation and addition of unknown tx's compared to the current method of receiving decompressed tx's contained within a block?
2.  how strong is the assumption that nodes and miners have nearly identical mempools?
3.  what are the most common problems that could occur if adopted?

it's really too bad that the anti-increase 1MB core dev crowd can't understand the concept that tx fees and block size limits should in fact be settled by economic market forces.  if anything, the myriad of technicals proposals flying around that ignore these economics is evidence to this confusion.

Someone has proposed a 'P2P relay'?  LOL!  I argue that at some level all levels this is label is an absurdity.

In my mind, the default ideal visualization is some kind of familiar physical analogy. However, it's hard to find physical systems that are perfectly isomorphic (homomorphic?) to any given concept. So failing that, create some kind of quasi-physical or more complex/strange physical analogy. And if that also can't be done, then use piecemeal visual metaphors for parts of the explanation and visual tokens (non-isomorphic but loosely representative, like in Peter Todd's anti-increase propaganda video) for the rest, accompanied by written/spoken explanation.

It would be important to have a good representation of the mining/consensus process first, then show what would happen in various scenarios of concern. I don't have specific ideas on what sort of physical analogies could be used for, say, the Nash equilibrium*, but it would be something to come up with sort of on the fly.

The best thing would be a simulation, where the viewer could play with the blocksize settings and see the results. But creating something like that is way outside my skillset.

*Note: I don't mean something like a graph showing the mathematical aspects, but rather something like a physical system whose "moving parts" and their movements all correspond to aspects of the system that is being explained. A bit like how a scale, together with its possible motions, is isomorphic to the balance of power in a relationship: when one side goes up, the other goes down.

Haha, OK I tried to think up a good visualization for this today, but came up blank.  Did you have any ideas?

I understand Armstrong perhaps better any person on the forum. I am inside his head already and I literally write his posts before he does. I understand conceptually how he built his computer model and why it works statistically.

The coming peak on the short-end of the yield curve in bonds Oct 1, is the last hooray for the multi-decade sovereign bond bubble (at least excluding USA treasuries). This will probably correlate with a pullback in private assets (i.e. non government a.k.a. 'public' assets such as sovereign bonds) such as Bitcoin, stocks, and gold.

Armstrong has this concept of inversion where assets align with the public wave then invert to become aligned with the  private wave, or vice versa. This all about public confidence. The USA stock market was aligned with the public sector waves but has recently inverted and is becoming more aligned with gold, crypto, and other private assets.

All non-sovereign bond assets are becoming aligned together as private assets. Why? Because $250 trillion of capital has to go some where. And it will have to flood out of sovereign bonds to some where.

Armstrong thinks gold will go as high as $5000 on this move up in private assets after 2015.75.

You are making the mistake of thinking that defaults will crater the stock market. You misunderstand the most crucial fact of investing: CONFIDENCE DETERMINES EVERYTHING.

Confidence will shift from public to private and private assets will skyrocket.

Since the Oct collapse will originate in Europe and Asia, there will be a mad rush into the USD and USD assets and USA stocks will be seen as a safe haven away from bonds. You fail to understand that size matters. Gold and Bitcoin are simply to small to absorb all of the $250 trillion of shifting confidence.

This is why I say this is the absolute best time to be working on a new altcoin. We will see a low in BTC and gold this year (perhaps $90 and $850) and then moving back up in 2016. New all time highs 2017 or 2018.

Note the USD and USA will peak in 2017 as this influx of capital will peak. And the strong USD will choke off the global economy and the USA economy as well. The fundamental USA economy will be imploding while the Fed is raising interest rates to counter the massive speculative influx of safe haven capital into the USD and USD assets (including stocks and real estate).

Thus after 2017 will be the moonshoot for gold and crypto! And I bet anonymous crypto is going to be the go to investment even more so than gold, because a war on cash (and gold) will become severe by then. 2018 - 2024 will be scorched earth globally, but Asia should bottom by 2020 and start to solidify in spite of likely war ongoing. This is because Asia has better fundamentals than the rest of the world (youthful demographics, higher savings rates, govt < 25% of GDP, less socialism, higher education, etc).

Armstrong thinks the authorities are going to war against private capital. And he does not see crypto as a solution for hiding capital. I have tried to email him about this myopia but I think he remains skeptical (maybe because he doesn't seeing it scaling enough to help the masses). I have explained that I think the masses are falling into a NWO and there is nothing we can do to stop that.

P.S. Kudos to Monero. It is going to prove quite essential to me. Thank you!

I understand Armstrong perhaps better any person on the forum. [...]

Wow. Your response triggers, definitely need attending to, my over-defensive friend.
Maybe take the dog for an extra walk, or something?

Tiresome. You can either lose that useless ego (socialism, touchy-feely, we are all peers, feminist bull) shit or fail. It is your problem, not mine.

I write to discuss correct statements and distill down to the facts and get solutions. Some of you seem to have other ("on the rag" menstruation) priorities. I know that some (or many or even most but I haven't measured it) Western men have been feminized even they don't realize it. This is hard proof for me. Women are concerned about inclusion and equality of social interaction (but in fact they will attract to man who is on top and is not a peer). Men are focused (and not worried) about analytical progression.

P.S. and I don't write that to dislike you or wish bad outcomes on you. I sincerely hope you emasculate and get on with what we men do best. I have no great need to be superior. I want to be the best I can be, and accomplish the most I can with my life. And I wish the same to you. If ever we compete, I will try to win. If we are allies, I try to succeed. This is gentleman's competition arrangement. We understand that by competing, we make the world and ourselves the best we can be.