Topic: Lose all your capital fast, with MatTheCat and his TA 101A! - page 9. (Read 85774 times)

Um, no.

Are you citing "efficient market hypothesis", which is the most wrong scam of an economic theory to ever exist?

"The efficient market hypothesis (EMH) is an investment theory that states it is impossible to "beat the market" because stock market efficiency causes existing share prices to always incorporate and reflect all relevant information."

According to that theory, it's not possible for millionaires to exist who made money in the stock market.  It pretends there is no asymmetric information distribution or capability to analyze such data and that all humans are 100% optimized branch predictors LOL.

Wouldn't that change be already priced in?

There's about a million different reasons why metals will skyrocket in the near future and why governments will be using them in some manner.

I'm pretty sure that bitcoin will hit $10-20K/btc long before Gold will hit $20K/oz (like a few decades before).  You'll be long old or dead before Gold ever gets there.  But believe what you want on that.

Also on the topic of scaling bitcoin, never underestimate the power and determination of technologists and their subsequent breakthroughs.  History is littered with many a skeptic.

There was a time when many skeptics believed that the Internet would never scale.

I've never thought Bitcoin was actually better than metals, just that it had higher upside in the past, but at 1 MB blocks and no functional LN (which I'm not real confident can be done in a decentralized manner), I think the price could probably get stuck at $10,000 - $20,000 a coin, assuming it even got there.  So to me, the potential upside in silver is as good or better than bitcoin nowadays while having less risk.

The gold potential upside is around 20x, or ~ $20,000.  Silver would maintain at least it's current ratios and 60:1 would be assured ($333), but it seems more likely the GSR would narrow to at least 30:1 ($666) in the process of metal revaluation.  And of course going back to the traditional 10-15:1 would just be bonkers profits.

But anyhow r0ach.

You have completely changed your tune regarding Bitcoin. You have went from being one of the biggest Kool-Aid merchants around to being every bit as cynical about the whole project and more precisely, about what/who is controlling this market, as I am.

You must have gotten BURNED!

Lost 0 at Bitfinex.  I told everyone I know to remove funds from there after Brexit because it appeared someone (probably Finex owners) were naked shorting with infinite money as I talked about here:

https://steemit.com/news/@r0achtheunsavory/bitfinex-is-lying-about-the-hack-and-i-can-tell-you-exactly-what-likely-happened

I even have screenshots still of right when Bitfinex came back online post-goxing.  See anything fishy in this picture?  An insolvent exchange in which nobody is actually going to put money on has all these big staggered walls on the sell side clearly all belonging to one entity (the house).  Bitfinex is an actual bucketshop 100%.



The fact that not Bitstamp or any other exchange passed Finex in volume post-finex collapse and Finex is still leading in volume even with no margin enabled shows how big of a scam the current bitcoin market is.  It's as if whenever a Karpeles Willy bot dies, a new one just pops up on a different exchange to trade with customer funds.  What happened on Finex appears to be no difference whatsoever with what happened on MtGox, yet Finex was somehow not forced out of business while Gox was.

Lol, it's conspiracy that other exchanges operate similar to how MtGox did?  Since we're all aware MtGox actually existed, that's not "conspiracy theory", it's precedent for the Bitcoin market.

I don't buy the theories r0ach is coming up with regarding naked shorting, that's just conspiracy bullshit imo.

Or he is letting the burn show from the massive hit he took on Finex (but publically denied)......

Whatever, he is correct. In the long run, only gold is true wealth

[...] Monero (XMR) [...] users ability to remain truly anonymous, not too mention fast transaction times.....(1 minute instead of 10 minutes going on 3 hours).

Lol @r0ach

So salty about bitcoin lately, must have caught the PM conspiracy hysteria bug and liquidated all his BTC in exchange for Gold

All that Gold huffing and puffing...that's what people do when they try to justify their book position  

A settlement layer has to compete with or beat gold as a store of value.  Bitcoin cannot accomplish that task so it has to do something else besides being a settlement layer or there is no point!

This is the gorilla in the room.  It turns out Roger Ver is wrong because slightly bigger blocks solves nothing.  Bitcoin would require a full blown LN capacity or it doesn't really have a value proposition.  The only question is, can the LN actually function?  It seems like to me you would have to place all channel closing in a centralized queue, so I have my doubts about LN.  And that is the real fundamental analysis of Bitcoin that most people in this thread either can't comprehend or sort of know there are issues like this but choose to ignore them and hope someone will pump it anyway.

So for bitcoin holders to have any value for their coins would need both miners to adopt segwit and LN to actually work in a decentralized manner, and there is currently no assurance for either one.  Although, I think it's likely they will pass segwit once people figure the conclusion I derive is true.  But then you still need LN to work in a decentralized manner or it's just some obfuscated form of Paypal.  Economy of scale might already cause terminal centralization for the 1st tier bitcoin network in the first place though, by driving the reqs to participate to corporation level.

From a fundamental perspective, people that can actually understand how all these variables interact (which I think are very few) know that in current state bitcoin is relatively broken in terms of long term workability.  The only question is how high can the price go before people figure that out.

"If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all property until their children wake up homeless on the continent their Fathers conquered.... I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies.... The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs."

Of the four possible, rapid deflation, slow deflation, slow inflation and rapid inflation I think the first is most unlikely.