This has always been my vision; take over the Forex markets. Are we going to let Bitcoin do this or not?:
http://www.fxstreet.com/analysis/daily-interviews/2015/08/06/03/
Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. - page 63. (Read 2032266 times)
The economy has been growing since 2010.
The economy has been growing since 2010.
OMG, it keeps getting more hilarious each time you say it. Tell us another one!
(Frap.doc, please replace the battery in your sarcasm detector.
)EDIT:
https://i.imgur.com/QePtpts.jpg
#REKT
These idiots and their arguments/assertions remind me of this toy I used to have as a kid:
The same car can be #REKT over and over again with the minor effort of clipping the doors back on. Even as a kid of 7 I got bored with the repetition after half an hour or so. Cypherdoc, for instance, never seems to tire of such entertainment.
For mine, growth since 2010 is like a malnourished child; looks superficially well fed but on closer inspection...
Globally, growth has been tepid and beneath "projections" (see Fed, IMF, EU extensions into the future: all since 08 have been way off mark).
Part of the growth has come from a combination of factors:
- 'directed' speculation from ZIRP
- currency wars (stealing growth from others)
- foreign capital searching for a safe haven and / or yield
- Lax political policies that encourage foreign dollars...UK, Canada, Australia have laughable unenforced foreign investment laws. Chinese and Middle Eastern money has been buying plenty of real estate, land, visas etc
This is not to say some countries haven't benefitted or recovered in some way. The US has a lower unemployment rate but a higher part time workforce. The UK has a booming real estate sector but stagnant wage growth. Both also have rising wealth inequality. Canada & Australia, providing the resources to the trillion dollar Chinese infrastructure build out have seen massive booms as commodity prices skyrocketed. Real estate in these places has also been on a massive melt up even as manufacturing & retail sectors died the slow death of one trick pony economies. Further high base interest rates contributed here by opening up to the carry trade. But now as commodity prices have collapsed so too have their currencies, IR's. Unemployment rates are marginally rising and consumer sentiment are at Great Recession lows.
Globally, growth has been tepid and beneath "projections" (see Fed, IMF, EU extensions into the future: all since 08 have been way off mark).
Part of the growth has come from a combination of factors:
- 'directed' speculation from ZIRP
- currency wars (stealing growth from others)
- foreign capital searching for a safe haven and / or yield
- Lax political policies that encourage foreign dollars...UK, Canada, Australia have laughable unenforced foreign investment laws. Chinese and Middle Eastern money has been buying plenty of real estate, land, visas etc
This is not to say some countries haven't benefitted or recovered in some way. The US has a lower unemployment rate but a higher part time workforce. The UK has a booming real estate sector but stagnant wage growth. Both also have rising wealth inequality. Canada & Australia, providing the resources to the trillion dollar Chinese infrastructure build out have seen massive booms as commodity prices skyrocketed. Real estate in these places has also been on a massive melt up even as manufacturing & retail sectors died the slow death of one trick pony economies. Further high base interest rates contributed here by opening up to the carry trade. But now as commodity prices have collapsed so too have their currencies, IR's. Unemployment rates are marginally rising and consumer sentiment are at Great Recession lows.
Thank you to everyone for your acknowledgement of my paper--it is satisfying to see something you've worked hard on begin to make an impact in the discussion! Like I said earlier, it was really just a formalization of some of the ideas we've been discussing here over the past months.
I'm very happy with how the paper was received. Between public and private comments (and Peter Todd calling it pseudo science) several aspects of the paper were challenged, and now I'm further convinced that the model and results are both useful and valid. I think the most accurate criticism of the paper was that I should have spent more effort discussing the inter/intra communication issues (the "you don't orphan you're own block" point).1 Hopefully, I'll have time to work on this in the fall.
I exchanged emails with Greg Maxwell over several aspects of the paper that he questioned. One point he did make, that I admit is valid but do not personally see as an issue, is that the most profitable "configuration" according to the results from the paper is a single "super pool" made up of ALL the network's hashing power (which would be centralizing). This would minimize the propagation impedance. While I agree that this is true, it seems like just another way of looking at the 51% problem. We already know that if one entity controls a huge amount of hash power they can do nasty things and gain certain advantages. But it would be nice to find a way to explain why this shouldn't happen with more rigour than the "game theory" or "anti-fragile" fallback positions…
The experiment with the $10 bounties produced a mixed result. On the one hand, I think it got people who normally wouldn't read such a paper more involved in the discussion, but on the other hand (like brg444 pointed out) it may have made the thread less readable. I ended up paying out $90 to catch several small errors. The error I was most pleased to catch was Noosterdam's "innumerate" versus "enumerate." I think I've been using these words interchangeably my entire life but they actually mean very different things!
1Note that the math is valid nonetheless, as this just affects the propagation delay which was accounted for in the model.
I'm very happy with how the paper was received. Between public and private comments (and Peter Todd calling it pseudo science) several aspects of the paper were challenged, and now I'm further convinced that the model and results are both useful and valid. I think the most accurate criticism of the paper was that I should have spent more effort discussing the inter/intra communication issues (the "you don't orphan you're own block" point).1 Hopefully, I'll have time to work on this in the fall.
I exchanged emails with Greg Maxwell over several aspects of the paper that he questioned. One point he did make, that I admit is valid but do not personally see as an issue, is that the most profitable "configuration" according to the results from the paper is a single "super pool" made up of ALL the network's hashing power (which would be centralizing). This would minimize the propagation impedance. While I agree that this is true, it seems like just another way of looking at the 51% problem. We already know that if one entity controls a huge amount of hash power they can do nasty things and gain certain advantages. But it would be nice to find a way to explain why this shouldn't happen with more rigour than the "game theory" or "anti-fragile" fallback positions…
The experiment with the $10 bounties produced a mixed result. On the one hand, I think it got people who normally wouldn't read such a paper more involved in the discussion, but on the other hand (like brg444 pointed out) it may have made the thread less readable. I ended up paying out $90 to catch several small errors. The error I was most pleased to catch was Noosterdam's "innumerate" versus "enumerate." I think I've been using these words interchangeably my entire life but they actually mean very different things!
1Note that the math is valid nonetheless, as this just affects the propagation delay which was accounted for in the model.
I can't think of any economic disincentives against centralizing, independent of the block size issue and propagation. You always get economies of scale (e.g., you produce one mask for every new ASIC, but that mask let's you order 10 thousand or 10 million chips depending on your budget/scale... lots of other examples too like data center staff come to mind).
EXCEPT, the game theory arguments. The bitcoins you mine are likely to be worth less simply because people won't like the idea of you having all of the control. Even if people didn't mind that you had 100% control, they would certainly mind if you abused your power.
Am I missing something? I can't think of a single way to design a system where it is economically advantageous to move away from centralization (where we are intentionally neglecting the possibility that bitcoins might be worth more in a more decentralized environment).
so which is better for investmen ?
sell gold buy bitcoin ?
or
sell bitcoin and buy gold ?
sell gold buy bitcoin ?
or
sell bitcoin and buy gold ?
Sell both. Hold dollars. As long as King Dollar is on the throne pretty much everything else is fighting a losing battle. Eventually that will reverse, but not yet.
Thank's for your suggestion
but I think I will sell my Gold and start to invest at bitcoin
so which is better for investmen ?
sell gold buy bitcoin ?
or
sell bitcoin and buy gold ?
sell gold buy bitcoin ?
or
sell bitcoin and buy gold ?
Sell both. Hold dollars. As long as King Dollar is on the throne pretty much everything else is fighting a losing battle. Eventually that will reverse, but not yet.
Thank's for your suggestion
but I think I will sell my Gold and start to invest at bitcoin
2 Nasdaq gold articles on the same day?:
NASDAQ Expert: Bitcoin has not replaced gold, but may be useful during the next recession.
http://www.coinfox.info/news/2638-nasdaq-expert-bitcoin-has-not-replaced-gold-but-may-be-useful-during-the-next-recession
NASDAQ Expert: Bitcoin has not replaced gold, but may be useful during the next recession.
http://www.coinfox.info/news/2638-nasdaq-expert-bitcoin-has-not-replaced-gold-but-may-be-useful-during-the-next-recession
It's all the rage these days:
Logically, all of that suggests that Bitcoin has replaced gold as the safe haven of choice in times of trouble.
http://m.nasdaq.com/article/has-bitcoin-replaced-gold-as-the-new-safe-haven-cm505737
Logically, all of that suggests that Bitcoin has replaced gold as the safe haven of choice in times of trouble.
http://m.nasdaq.com/article/has-bitcoin-replaced-gold-as-the-new-safe-haven-cm505737
I don't put faith in any developers, I choose to review what they have made and then support or ignore what is. There is no faith here, I dont trust any of them, I from time to time agree strongly with what they say, or disagree for that matter.
Just happen to be reading Hayek right now and this quote seems strangely relevant to our situation:
Now it might be a stretch but if we can make a parallel with the block size debate, large blocks stinks of "new freedom".
Quote
To allay these suspicions and to harness to its cart the strongest of all political motives - the craving for freedom - socialism began increasingly to make use of the promise of a "new freedom". (...) It was to bring "economic freedom" without which the political freedom already gained was "not worth having." (...)
To the great apostles of political freedom the word had mean freedom from coercion, freedom from the arbitrary power of other men, release from the ties which left the individual no choice but obedience to the orders of a superior to whom he was attached. The new freedom promised however, was to be freedom from necessity, release from the compulsion of the circumstances which inevitably limit the range of choice of all of us, although for some very much more than for others. Before man could be truly free, the "despotism of physical want" had to be broken, the "restraints of the economic system" relaxed. (...)
What the promise really amounted to was that the great existing disparities in the range of choice of different people were to disappear. The demand for the new freedom was thus only another name for the old demand for an equal distribution of wealth.
To the great apostles of political freedom the word had mean freedom from coercion, freedom from the arbitrary power of other men, release from the ties which left the individual no choice but obedience to the orders of a superior to whom he was attached. The new freedom promised however, was to be freedom from necessity, release from the compulsion of the circumstances which inevitably limit the range of choice of all of us, although for some very much more than for others. Before man could be truly free, the "despotism of physical want" had to be broken, the "restraints of the economic system" relaxed. (...)
What the promise really amounted to was that the great existing disparities in the range of choice of different people were to disappear. The demand for the new freedom was thus only another name for the old demand for an equal distribution of wealth.
Now it might be a stretch but if we can make a parallel with the block size debate, large blocks stinks of "new freedom".
China vehicle sales: 2004: 3 Million - 2015: 20 Million
US vehicle sales: 2010: 10 Million - 2015: 17 Million
US vehicle sales: 2010: 10 Million - 2015: 17 Million
Consumer goods like vehicles are intentionally kept pumped up by cheap and easy credit. That's not an indicator of economic growth any more than flat panel TV sales or NFLX subscribers.
Next you be pointing at Malibu real estate and the stock markets, burbling cheerful slogans about All Time Highs.
Learn to read a fucking chart and follow Zero Hedge Knowledge for 10 years, then get back to me with your cherry picked Pollyanna projections.
I would follow those conspiracy idiots at Zero Knowledge not for 10 minutes. Some alleged conspiracies on 0H turn out to be true. EG: before 2008, everybody yawned when 'paranoid libertarians' complained about the Plunge Protection Team.
But suddenly: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eben-esterhuizen/conspiracy-is-goldman-sac_b_186629.html
Quote
Tyler Durden, one of the best financial bloggers around, have found some circumstantial evidence that suggests the mysterious Plunge Protection Team (PPT) has recently been boosting the stock market. And some might say Goldman Sachs is running the show...
The Working Group on Financial Markets, known colloquially as the Plunge Protection Team (PPT), was created in 1988 by Ronald Reagan, in response to the Black Monday stock market crash in 1987. Their operations have always been shrouded in secrecy, with a Washington Post article from 1997 writing that the group aims to prevent the "smoothly running global financial machine" from locking up.
Conspiracy theorists have long claimed that the PPT manipulates U.S. stock markets by using government funds to buy stocks in the event of market dislocation, but skeptics argue that such an operation would be unworkable.
Durden, author of the ZeroHedge blog, thinks he found some evidence of the PPT's interference with the market. He cites an unusual piece of data on program trading, a part of the stock market that is controlled by mysterious computer programs that use mathematical formulas to buy and sell stocks.
According to the New York Stock Exchange, last week's volume of program trading was 8% higher than the 52 week average. It's strange that program trading volume would be increasing so sharply when overall market volume is declining, says Durden. It's even stranger to note that principal trading, which occurs when a brokerage buys or sells stocks for its own account, is running 21% above 52 week average. New York Stock Exchange weekly volume, on the other hand, is running about 9% below 52 week average.
"A very interesting data point, also provided by the NYSE, implicates none other than administration darling Goldman Sachs in yet another potentially troubling development," writes Durden. "Key to note here is that Goldman's program trading principal to agency+customer facilitation ratio is a staggering 5x, which is multiples higher than both the second most active program trader and the average ratio of the NYSE, both at or below 1x."
The Working Group on Financial Markets, known colloquially as the Plunge Protection Team (PPT), was created in 1988 by Ronald Reagan, in response to the Black Monday stock market crash in 1987. Their operations have always been shrouded in secrecy, with a Washington Post article from 1997 writing that the group aims to prevent the "smoothly running global financial machine" from locking up.
Conspiracy theorists have long claimed that the PPT manipulates U.S. stock markets by using government funds to buy stocks in the event of market dislocation, but skeptics argue that such an operation would be unworkable.
Durden, author of the ZeroHedge blog, thinks he found some evidence of the PPT's interference with the market. He cites an unusual piece of data on program trading, a part of the stock market that is controlled by mysterious computer programs that use mathematical formulas to buy and sell stocks.
According to the New York Stock Exchange, last week's volume of program trading was 8% higher than the 52 week average. It's strange that program trading volume would be increasing so sharply when overall market volume is declining, says Durden. It's even stranger to note that principal trading, which occurs when a brokerage buys or sells stocks for its own account, is running 21% above 52 week average. New York Stock Exchange weekly volume, on the other hand, is running about 9% below 52 week average.
"A very interesting data point, also provided by the NYSE, implicates none other than administration darling Goldman Sachs in yet another potentially troubling development," writes Durden. "Key to note here is that Goldman's program trading principal to agency+customer facilitation ratio is a staggering 5x, which is multiples higher than both the second most active program trader and the average ratio of the NYSE, both at or below 1x."
And now: Ex-Plunge Protection Team Whistleblower: "Governments Control Markets; There Is No Price Discovery Anymore"
#REKT #CONFIRMED
Learn to read a fucking chart and follow Zero
I would follow those conspiracy idiots at Zero Knowledge not for 10 minutes. Do you know the difference between 10 and 17 million vehicles?
I don't believe for a second that the global economy is growing since 2010. It may be slowly, painfully 'returning to the mean' of the, say, 2003-2005 era, but definitely not growing. That's just a marketing line that the Oligarchy-run global media likes to spout, in order to get Average Joe/Jane to empty their savings, start buying new cars, new houses, and investing in the fraudulent U.S. Stock Market again, by telling them that "everything is better now, it's safe again!". A debt-based world economy only works if the Average Joes/Janes STAY in debt, pretty much forever.
But there's now a huge problem: It's that Average Joes/Janes, the older ones, and now the new Millennials, all have seen through the bullshit of the last financial crisis, and been paying down/off debt, building savings again, opting OUT of new houses, new cars, the over-valued stock market, cutting subscription services, paying cash for their needs, etc.
This has our traditional Oligarch overlords VERY VERY worried.
China vehicle sales: 2004: 3 Million - 2015: 20 Million
US vehicle sales: 2010: 10 Million - 2015: 17 Million
Most of those projected sales are in Asia, where rice farmers are trading their water buffalo for small trucks.
Oh wait, why are you using an outdated, narrowly focused, PROJECTION from 2013?
Did you not notice the key word "PROJECTION" in the name of the .jpg?
Did you also fail to notice the PROJECTION label with the little arrow under it?
Face it buddy, you are way out of your league trying to debate me on the facts of the ongoing financial crises and economic collapse.
Learn to read a fucking chart and follow Zero Hedge for 10 years, then get back to me with your cherry picked Pollyanna projections.
See the green box labeled "Oops?" That's where you get #REKT.
this is whom yall chose to place your faith in
-
-
why don't you give us the link to that quote so we can put it into context, you disingenuous Kid Troll. i assume he was referring to this great video:
http://www.bitedge.co/blog/imf-managing-director-christine-lagarde-discusses-bitcoin/
note Hearn is speaking from the perspective of others for the most part.
cypherdoc and a hell of a lot of others even within the crypto-currency ecosystem want Bitcoin to become PayPal 2.0. Gee, stop the presses. Gotta control the peeps after all else they might buy or sell something without authorization.
ah, i been wondering where my little dog tvbcof has been:
no. i want an international digital monetary system that is apolitical and fair, controlled by no one, that is cheap, fast, easy and accessible by all ppl's of the world, that has a fixed supply so as to not be inflatable, that will replace gold, & that can take the human race into the next technological growth phase. there's alot of great things to look forward to. esp for our kids whom i'm esp worried for and hope to get thru the debt bubble collapse.
What a comedic tour de force. Do you get your information from Gavin (AKA Bitcon's Chief Economist) or from book-cooking Obamanomics experts like Krugman?
#REKT
Krugman is a collectivist as you are one of them.
And my informations about the economic output are indeed not coming from the baltic dry index. This index shows an oversupply of transport capacity,
while in reality - for example - the car sales have been growing since 2010. It did so, because the economy has been growing since 2010. Growing is the opposite of shrinking.
q.e.d.
I don't believe for a second that the global economy is growing since 2010. It may be slowly, painfully 'returning to the mean' of the, say, 2003-2005 era, but definitely not growing. That's just a marketing line that the Oligarchy-run global media likes to spout, in order to get Average Joe/Jane to empty their savings, start buying new cars, new houses, and investing in the fraudulent U.S. Stock Market again, by telling them that "everything is better now, it's safe again!". A debt-based world economy only works if the Average Joes/Janes STAY in debt, pretty much forever.
But there's now a huge problem: It's that Average Joes/Janes, the older ones, and now the new Millennials, all have seen through the bullshit of the last financial crisis, and been paying down/off debt, building savings again, opting OUT of new houses, new cars, the over-valued stock market, cutting subscription services, paying cash for their needs, etc.
This has our traditional Oligarch overlords VERY VERY worried.
this is whom yall chose to place your faith in
why don't you give us the link to that quote so we can put it into context, you disingenuous Kid Troll. i assume he was referring to this great video:
http://www.bitedge.co/blog/imf-managing-director-christine-lagarde-discusses-bitcoin/
note Hearn is speaking from the perspective of others for the most part.
cypherdoc and a hell of a lot of others even within the crypto-currency ecosystem want Bitcoin to become PayPal 2.0. Gee, stop the presses. Gotta control the peeps after all else they might buy or sell something without authorization.
this is whom yall chose to place your faith in
why don't you give us the link to that quote so we can put it into context, you disingenuous Kid Troll. i assume he was referring to this great video:
http://www.bitedge.co/blog/imf-managing-director-christine-lagarde-discusses-bitcoin/
note Hearn is speaking from the perspective of others for the most part.
Hearn is, as usual, speaking from the perspective of Sand Hill Road and sigint.google.mil. Of course he's going to apologize for the status quo, on behalf of his puppet masters TPTB.
The context, in the form of the comment to which Hearn is responding, was provided.
Hearn's asinine deflection speaks for itself. It's not "hard to ask for more" than the current slaps on the wrist and bailouts TBTF banks currently enjoy, as perks of financing deficit-spending welfare-warfare States and their drug-running/money-laundering TLAs.
What a comedic tour de force. Do you get your information from Gavin (AKA Bitcon's Chief Economist) or from book-cooking Obamanomics experts like Krugman?
#REKT
Krugman is a collectivist as you are one of them.
And my informations about the economic output are indeed not coming from the baltic dry index. This index shows an oversupply of transport capacity,
while in reality - for example - the car sales have been growing since 2010. It did so, because the economy has been growing since 2010. Growing is the opposite of shrinking.
q.e.d.
this is whom yall chose to place your faith in
why don't you give us the link to that quote so we can put it into context, you disingenuous Kid Troll. i assume he was referring to this great video:
http://www.bitedge.co/blog/imf-managing-director-christine-lagarde-discusses-bitcoin/
note Hearn is speaking from the perspective of others for the most part.
Jump to: