Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. - page 351. (Read 2032266 times)

Just thought I'd log the current state of the current poll in case cypherdoc forgets:
---
Question:   Will you support Gavin's recent block size hard fork proposal of 20MB by March 1, 2016?
1.  yes   - 165 (74.7%)
2.  no   - 56 (25.3%)
Total Voters: 221

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.

Well, yeah.

And no one understands you. Right?

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!

First they fight your correct statements.

Then they pretend your correct statements didn't exist:


Then they join you.


“First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, and then you win.” ― Mahatma Gandhi

http://armstrongeconomics.com/archives/19684

Yes, correct. The miner can compress it into his/her new block announcement message, and it is then decompressed by all the receivers, and stored in the blockchain decompressed.


Also correct. However, removing (most) of the burst requirement is very significant, because even though block announcements are 50% of the data traffic they are time-critical and every second counts. The whole mining network is hashing uselessly as soon as a block is found, until it is propagated. Whereas the other 50%, real-time tx flow, is uniformly spread over a 200x wider time-frame, and none of it critical except to two people: the sender and receiver of each particular tx.

So, I am arguing for an accelerated use of data compression, ideally IBLT, but that is not the only option available. Fully agreed that 1000x Bitcoin adoption has to be the long-term goal, and just maybe using compression is finally putting the horse before the cart, because a lot of the argument against Gavin's 20MB ignores that compression is possible.

Mea culpa on the pedantic, nitpicking difference in usage of terminology. I believe the accepted term here is "P2P network". I visualize that as P2P nodes relaying (propagating) information across the network.

The level of childish and ego behavior is tiresome.

I posit it will be a great relief for some of us (however few or numerous we may be) when there is exists a community and coin that has a level of professionalism and no-egotistical crap. And which can fund its development properly relying neither on "venture capital" nor "consensus politics" donations pollution. I posit that the most productive will migrate there, while those who are most concerned with stroking their ego will not migrate there, as it should be.

P.S. I understand you may think the P2P network is the antithesis of centralization. I understand you may think my allegation of centralization is absurd. I also understand that I've already explained that if every full node has to see and verify every transaction on the P2P network, then full nodes can't scale decentralized because for example renting a cloud server to mine with can easily be regulated because it is not mixed with the normal activity of a home user surfing the internet. It also means the home user can't mine with a full node, which impacts the maximization of utility in the distribution of the coin (and no, rpietila is not currently a seed investor of mine and we have been unable to discuss my design).

The confusing thing is that gold does not change, its inert and its really the same value every day.  The dollar is changing and thats why gold appears to rise in price, inevitably the price of gold goes up.  Its the dollars which change, the gold has the same worth.  I think thats the baseline, of course people speculate but that wont determine gold itself

Apart from that there is the idea that gold when used more widely will rise in value not just price.   Im not seeing great use of gold though, we can only point at central banks which as a whole are buying gold not selling as was true for decades.    The biggest buyer is China which does not declare their reserves properly, so we really have no idea if gold is being more valued by world population or not.  
BTC reacts to dollar but its price is mostly about usage by its holders so I dont think its comparable to gold really, it changes every day.  On two extremes its obvious if nobody uses it then we are talking very low value but if I can exchange it with everyone, its value becomes very high.  People argue this is same as gold but gold can be used outside of money and even if not used a hundred years remains the same where btc would not, its very volatile and velocity driven, there is a great fear of zero worth there where as people will swap food for gold as it is superior always in its durability

Since short term direction of the markets cannot be known, I am mostly insterested in long term movements. With enough attention and - moreover - a lot of patience and No Fear when the time comes, big gains are possible. From that perspective, Armstrong got me hooked with his It's Just Time.

I am fond of the long term play between paper (stocks, bonds) and physical (gold). On a long enough time frame, some excellent trends can be seen in the Dow/Gold ratio and Tobin Q. Tobin Q is the ratio between a physical asset's market value and its replacement value. Both indicators are quite apt in catching extremes in the markets (paper when confidence is high and physical if confidence is low).



It is clear to see that Gold made a good run as from the paper highs of 40+ (Dow/Gold ratio). According to the past, there is some more juice to squeeze from that trade. With a temporary bounce of this ratio (currently 15), I would think that history shows that we should see another dip of this ratio between 1-2 before the next paper confidence game starts. The problem is: this is no theory that gives clear timing. It's just a guess based on long term movements and its resolution could take 10-20 years. On the other hand, you only need to act twice in your lifetime to do it right (besides having some capital from the start to invest).

Because of this underlying concept of long term waves, Armstrong's theories spike my curiosity. Besides his 2015.75 time frame, Armstrong has written some concrete scenario's recently that shed some light in what he is thinking about for the near future (1-3 years). It's a bit counter intuitive to me and I am interested to hear what you think of this. See 2 quotes below from two of his recent blog postings.



Armstrong sees a downturn in bond markets. Tipping point to watch is 2015.75, marked as possible reversal date. From the above, I understand that he takes a scenario into account of a correction in stocks the last few months before this reversal date, leading to the last push into government bonds. After that, in his scenario bonds will tank but - counterintuitive - I understand he thinks stocks will be a good place to park money. He is not fond of gold and only sees it as a long term investement (if somebody wants to take that trade) or suitable for panics. This is where I cannot fit the long term theory I started this post with (see background here and here). How can stocks do well if the bond market is in upheavel? It does not fit the picture of paper burning and a rush to physical. In our current interconnected financial markets, a crash in bond markets will render many parties insolvent and will have devastating effects on markets overall. I cannot see stocks surviving this ordeal without heavy damage, depending as it is on finance and leverage at current levels (not even speaking about business profits).

I do see a good moment going full into stocks after this bond market crash has played out, provided that we will still have 'free markets' (quotes intended, you know why...). I believe Armstrong describes this as the start of the private wave instead of the public wave that is moving towards or in the end phase. From my perspective, it should simply be a bottoming of long term indicators telling me that fear and the rush to physical is at its extreme, demanding a move to paper against all odds (at that time). I do known that negative interest rates and the obvious move to non-cash societies are not helping Joe Sixpac's level of trust.

Whether Bitcoin (or other coins like Monero) play any role in this scenario is something I cannot get a feeling for. It seems too much of a gimmick to benefit from (or be negatively affected by) the gyrations of the paper/physical markets, having a mind of its own. I do see some vague similarities in Gold seeming to bottom just like Bitcoin. I do hope that crypto chooses the side of physical, as its turn is around the corner after decades of paper deluge.

Bring it on!  

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

So if I understand it right then If every miner collected 75 MB of transactions then you can compress block into 1 MB.

I already explained that. Afaics, he isn't proposing to compress the block chain. He is proposing to eliminate that nasty burst by rolling out IBLT.

Afaics, he is proposing that miners that don't want to use IBLT can stay within the limit of 1MB block announcements. And the IBLT announcement will be less than 1MB for those using IBLT. But those who don't use IBLT will be at a great disadvantage in terms of orphan rate and ROI, thus in effect he is proposing IBLT rollout.

IBLT can scale up to any amount of txns that all full nodes can coordinate via the P2P relay. I argue that at some level this becomes centralizing. I don't know where his 500 tps comes from. Doesn't seem to correlate to a 20 MB x 10 min. block.

He also apparently proposed that blockchain block size (differentiated from block announcement block size) would not longer be hard limited.

@solex it seems to me that at best the IBLT idea would halve the bandwidth.   And remove a nasty burst during block propagation.  Is my analysis correct?  If so its good but not really comparable to a 1000x bitcoin adoption.

Indeed by design, as was the Euro designed to fail. Transferring all power to the most powerful central banks, which in NWO will be the world bank. The elite (I am not referring to the military generals, etc) in China, Russia, USA, etc are in this power sharing agreement to enslave the world. These faux conflicts are scripted false flags to make us think these nations are opposing each other.

That is why they need a really big crisis to bring all the (non-elite such as military generals, etc in the) nations to their knees and willing to accept a world bank with political representation in order to counter the problem of the USD hegemony which is what the nations will blame when the dollar goes skyhigh in 2017. The entire (mostly developing) world is $trillions short the dollar right now, because the QE ended up in dollar loans abroad. There will be a short squeeze into the dollar in 2016 - 2018, which will send the rest of the world collapsing. Then the USA will follow over the cliff in 2018. This is going to be the worst financial crisis in 100s of years.

After the USSR collapsed the economy was handed to oligarchs on purpose. The Communist revolutions in Russia and China were created and funded by the banksters. Review Anthony Sutton's research for starters.

Thus my assumptions were correct[1]. You are proposing that blockchains with blocks > 1 MB can be created but these will only communicated via IBLT (which compresses what needs to be communicated on new block announcements), thus you are proposing IBLT rollout.

[1] I included the general case where some miners might communicate large block announcements instead of using IBLT (that is why I wrote "not penalized"), but the same conclusions come from that case as for IBLT.

That's the magic of IBLT. The transactions are overlaying each other (via XOR) and can only be extracted by a receiver who knows ~99% of them already. Useless for many applications, but perfect for Bitcoin.

Gavin's original overview of it:
https://gist.github.com/gavinandresen/e20c3b5a1d4b97f79ac2

Two test implementations:
http://rustyrussell.github.io/pettycoin/2014/11/05/Playing-with-invertible-bloom-lookup-tables-and-bitcoin-transactions.html

500 tps is ballpark number of what might be achievable after decoupling the block size from the message size. It enables this compression technique to show its full power whereas at present it is very constrained.

Nick Szabo understood the critical importance of the fundamental tenet of not needing "trusted third parties" (a.k.a. TTP), i.e. the bearer nature of personal property.



I don't think Nick Szabo would have designed Bitcoin because he understood very well that you can't trust hash function to be fair. I don't think he had reasoned out how to avoid the inevitable centralization he was trying to avoid.

One plausible scenario is the DEEP STATE found Nick's work (because they are following closely influential gold bugs, Libertarians, and Bit Gold created a mini uproar even I was sent a link to it before Bitcoin became known) and realized he had identified how to create a system that would give them exactly what they wanted. It is plausible that Nick being the very smart guy he is, knows what has happened and this could be another reason that he has apparently been keeping a very low profile.

Another possibility is Nick clearly understood the profit potential as he mentioned in the Bit Gold essay. So he may have created Bitcoin knowing full well that he was handing a monster against humanity to those with the power to invest $billions in custom hardware. He may have done this thinking it might drive the economic incentives and avenues for spawning a better solution. In this case, the correlation of his May 2011 disappearance to Satoshi's brings to my mind that Satoshi wanted to disappear when he heard about some major press that Bitcoin had just received.

It is very odd that not one photo and no life history can be found of him online. And that he was allegedly present at some Goldman Sachs employee's Lake Tahoe condo where a NYT journalist is.

S(atoshi) N(akamoto)
N(ick) S(zabo)

Whoever created Bitcoin is at least wanting to point to him.

This may be a very simple reading of it, but wouldn't a one world currency run into the same problems the Euro has, just on a larger scale? (ie, smaller less competitive nations are disadvantaged and have very little wiggle room in case of downturn etc)

I do not understand how you can add 300,000 transaction * 250 bytes into 1 MB block.   500 tps is 75 MB every 10 minutes. (or will you have 75 * 1 MB blocks every 10 mins ? )

If I understand correctly what you have proposed, then essentially you are allowing miners to create chains with larger blocks (e.g. by having with sufficient hashrate either IBLT coordination or sufficient bandwidth connectivity) but miners should not be penalized (i.e. not censored from the relay network) for not propagating a new block announcement that is greater than 1MB.

Thus afaik this proposal only gets around the objections of core devs if it is really just a rollout plan for IBLT. Otherwise these larger blocks are penalizing (with higher orphan rate and/or late announcement) those smaller miners with lesser connectivity.

There are only two ways forward that don't lead to technical problems with transaction processing or smaller miners:

1. Rollout IBLT. (long-term solution and I assert centralizes Bitcoin which is why I characterized it as "won't work" meaning won't maintain the fundamental tenet[1]).

2. Increase txn fees to curtail rate-of-expansion of the txn rate.  (short-term, kick-the-can)

Are there core devs protesting against IBLT?

P.S. If IBLT can't be rolled out fast enough, then #2 is the only option I see. The hard fork of increasing the blocksize to 20MB is likely not politically possible as a kick-the-can (and perhaps not advisable also).

[1]	https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.11331322 https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.11334337 https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.11331549