Topic: Martin Armstrong Discussion - page 237. (Read 647062 times)

If someone does not proselytize for their belief, they may as well not exist being a non-factor in the world and all, so you're just doing a segue to nihilism.  It's not like you can pretend anarchy can even exist without practitioners proselytizing in the first place, otherwise fascists will just exterminate you.  Nothing about so called anarchism makes any logical sense whatsoever, being required to be a suicidal nihilist, which is a demographic that doesn't reproduce well either, breeding themselves out of existence by whoever is dumb enough to adopt it.

Just look at the quote:  "Like anything else, nature is the best teacher".  Human life is a story of the individual moseying around, then comes in contact with a collective group who kicks them in the face, forcing the individual into a collective group of their own in order to not go extinct.  Jews practice all these blatantly obvious traits, which is why they're winning, while trying to impose Marxism on everyone else to prevent them from coming together for common interests to compete at all.  They are also heavy into anarchism, except not for their own civilization, only to destabilize others to take them over.

Bitcoin isn't required to be a digital 666 tracking grid to be a trojan horse like you're always saying.  It could just be a designed to collapse system they put up that acts the same way anarchy does to undermine power structures and then collapses, letting someone just walk in and impose some new system on top of it like a federated govt chain since none of these so called decentralized systems actually work.

Any one advocating activism is no longer an anarchist. So your definition is incorrect. So in that sense, my call for conservatives to congregate is not anarchism. A min-anarchist is an opportunist who tries to remain orthogonal and not captured by the political structures.

Indeed the solution for the altcoin I am working on is indeed a form of homeostasis which maintains/governs the Nash equilibrium which in turn governs the consensus ordering system.

I wouldn't put 100% of net worth in any one asset. Who could sleep at night if they had all their savings invested in a speculative asset.

Near-term (until 2018 at least) for savings I would choose the US dollar.

Whether I would buy gold, food, ammo, other crypto that isn't yet available, or real estate in 2018ish, depends on my observations at that time. I will not make decision prematurely that doesn't need to be made now.

Silver would be a highly speculative asset, thus I'd prefer crypto. You are trying to get the best of both: huge upside and reliable store-of-value. I expect you will be disappointed.

The useful idiots known as anarchists are as bad or worse and why that is so:

The breakup of the USA is well underway as Armstrong's computer predicted long ago:

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.17305796
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.17291598
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.17300454

You can read more of my posts in those threads which expound.

Enemy #1 are the leftists. Identify them and ostracize them. The conservatives need to defend themselves because the leftists are jealous and ready to absolutely burn everything to the ground. If they can't have what you have, then nobody can have anything. That is their attitude. They will not stop until everything is destroyed. They are irrational lunatics. Stop fooling yourself into thinking this is not war. It is war. And you better be getting more diligent about it.

I didn't "abandon" BTC for silver, I simply think it's not a good idea to have every single cent of your wealth in BTC, which I did for years and don't really feel comfortable doing so anymore.  You can't even sleep at night doing that.  I use metals more as a savings account and Bitcoin as a checking account now and sleep like a rock.  

As I said before, there is no logical person on earth who is ever going to claim Bitcoin is lower on Exter's pyramid than metals, so Bitcoin will generally always be the bad money that drives out good money in that regard.  Silver and gold are still asymmetric trades so where you buy it at doesn't make a huge difference.

It's funny because some random commentator who doesn't even know how Bitcoin works described it perfectly on Zerohedge once.  That Bitcoin might give you some gains in the good times, but when you actually need it when things go bad it's going to fail you at the time you need it the most.  Metals are the exact opposite.  When I see people claim you should hold zero metals and only Bitcoin, they honestly belong in an insane asylum.

Aahh makes sense why he is pushing his metals agenda now because hes become a metals bagholder now! Weird cause for longest time he was bullish btc and would complain about hidden forces manipulating btc so it wont rise.. now that it does he misses the train go figure!

 Btw you are incorrect about 150 happening.. i actually made you a friendly bet that because you were bearish i was bullish... and i was right it has gone up since then we havent seen 150 that was way before. Now that you are bullish i feel as if we will go back down.. just more liquidity to be had going down.

I have seen you switch stances as you called for btc back in january to make new lows while 2015.75 was happening... and you even gloated as 700 top was set and said your prediction was coming true ridiculing others for not following. None of that stuff came true so i suggest you leave the gloating and predicting and do stuff that will positively affect our commmunity like the whitepaper and coding for your new system i for one am eager to see it.

You are doing a good "pull the wool over the eyes" of deflecting everyone's attention away for your absolute stupidity to sell BTC recently in the $600s and buy silver at inflated prices that have now crashed, even I was imploring you to not do so and you were so boastfully being the condescending r0ach that you are.

The prediction in gold is coming true. The $150 in Bitcoin did happen. And that has already been explained numerous times, yet you refuse to acknowledge it. It was a theory that BTC might track gold down, and I did state that it was theory of correlation that might not be true.

It is a fact that I said to buy Monero before the blast off. My other criticisms of Monero were orthogonal to any analysis of the chart pattern. Please don't blame your conflation on me. That is your lack of mental acuity.


There were numerous other posts of mine where I made the same recommendation about Monero at around that time.

You're kinda trying to rewrite history here.  You went through a i hate everyone in Monero and hope you die stage and then claim you told people to buy it, so it's more like you posted completely contradictory information on Monero.

Let's not even get into the Bitcoin and metals stuff...


As for current metals situation, I think the best gold miners can put out gold around $900, while the not as good gold producers can put it out at $1200-1250, so it's mostly at cost of production already for the averaged unit.  While silver is also basically at cost of production for a lot of people:

https://srsroccoreport.com/forensic-evidence-why-silver-price-manipulation-will-end/

Unless the price of oil collapses more, which they seem to try and prevent from happening since it triggers further deflationary collapse, it doesn't seem that easy to push down metals much more.  As people have noticed, central bankers haven't let deflationary collapse occur since the great depression, so if it actually did happen, it would entirely be a conscious decision from insiders and have absolutely nothing to do with capital flows

The system is ALWAYS in this same fragile state, where the money required to service the debt is greater than the principal, so it's always sitting on the edge of deflationary collapse by default.  It's NOTHING new.  This is the basis of Keynesianism.  There is no aggregate market and the market just goes whatever way they send it.  Whether it dies by deflation or inflation is all due to a few heebs sitting in a room somewhere.

Someone is now going to respond with, "but Japan was unable to ignite inflation with QE so that can't be right".  Yes, QE does absolutely nothing in the near term for reasons explained in the following video by Richard Koo, but it does create hyperinflation later on:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8YTyJzmiHGk

So QE doesn't work, but things like direct fiscal stimulus on infrastructure does, ala building bridges to nowhere or Chinese ghost cities.  So don't tell me they can't ignite inflation if they want to; they easily can.  Everything is Keynesian and everything is the result of whatever Keynesian decision they make, not capital flows.  Martin Shillstrong knows all this but he just flat out lies and claim we live in a deterministic universe and that the price of metals is not manipulated (LOL).

It's right out in plain sight where they said in internal documents that they have to manipulate the price of metals in order to skirt the zero bound on interest rates.  Hence why you have charts that look like this with metals on sale for even lower than their already manipulated low prices in a giant inverse bubble that's going to eventually skyrocket:

My track record of predictions over the years:

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.17295684

Here is my one-up of Anonymint's Bitcoin "digital kill switch" post.  We're taking this to a whole new level with:

Bitcoin as a function of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/bitcoin-as-a-function-of-the-protocols-of-the-elders-of-zion-1727889

Security is not free.. ideal money is one that offers highest quality transfer utility.. gold cannot.be that. Ideal would be one also would offer a demand based supply.. central rate targeting is thag but bitcoin is not so thats one knock against btc... maybe a coin that offers demand based elasticity in terms of supply might eventually be the one used while btc remains what gold is today and gold ends up used for jewelery and thats all.

You might be onto something if Bitcoin actually had some type of Nash equilibrium, otherwise it's the same thing as centrally issued fiat.  With the exception that as soon as someone tries to tamper with it or implement something like inflation, instead of getting inflation, half the people reject it and the other half accept it and you get a rough consensus attack like Ethereum and it just dies.

Next we will have Ethereum PoS vs Ethereum PoW vs Ethereum Classic PoW vs Ethereum Classic PoS.  

Not sure how this is considered anti-fragile.  It's only anti-fragile if the coin had a working Nash equilibrium the day it was released and never forked or altered afterwards.  Bitcoin was released as some type of experiment that almost works but not really.  Now people are trying to cover up the fact that it doesn't actually work with the cover story of:  "hey guys, it works and has a Nash equilibrium...it just requires a permanent team of technocrats who will forever be fiddling with levers in an arbitrary manner just like the Keynesians do...but we will pretend that's a Nash equilibrium"

So you have a winner take all paradigm on the mining side, and a permanent technocracy on the client side that operates similar to how politicians work where they advocate needing permanent change to justify their own existence as a change maker.  So you centralize terminally in two directions at the same time with a joint rule of technocrats and Chinese slumlords who rule over everyone else.

I've honestly had it.  Bitcoin could go to $200,000 a coin but it won't be because it works as advertised.  It will either implode, skyrocket then implode, or just be co-opted by government and run as the digital slave system.  I cannot justify being all-in on Bitcoin anymore because it simply does not work, which is why I had to diversify a big chunk and buy the next best option which is silver.  The silver was essentially free since I made 800% on Bitcoin & Monero this year, so whatever.

No, I am not waiting to buy on a certain date because some guy named Armstrong believes we live in a deterministic universe and unicorns came down from the sky to give him a magical computer that cracks the code of life.  All this shit can go belly up in a black swan at any second.  It's like listening to the Heebs that think you can run the Torah through a number cruncher and print out a Nostradamus script.

But all kings and emperors which came after the Romans were doing basically the same. In fact, the Greeks had been doing exactly that even before the Roman Empire. So there is no reason to think that the history would not be repeated again if we are to return to gold or silver coins. The only way to solve this problem is to issue paper bitcoins and provide a mechanism that would allow independent control (e.g. through the blockchain) over which paper bitcoins correspond physical ones, thereby making online transactions with these bitcoins impossible...

I think it is a by far better idea than what you suggest

And the side effect was the free market valued the coins at it's metal content, so the soldiers then demanded a larger amount of 40% coins instead of a smaller amount of 90% coins to afford their daily expenses.  Hence, you are just bringing up the fact that the metals are immune to government manipulation since their actions actually accomplished nothing by tampering with them.  Rome didn't collapse because of sound money, they collapsed from completely unrelated reasons and then tried to tamper with sound money and discovered it was pointless.

You guys are not one-upping me on Rome no matter how much Martin Shillstrong propaganda you pull out.

Why use gold and silver coins if we could just go back to gold exchange standard under which paper money was freely exchanged to gold at a fixed rate? I guess I know what you are going to reply, namely, that governments would inevitably end up printing more paper money than they have gold in their vaults. Very much like they diminished the content of precious metal in the coins they also happened to mint...

See the history of Roman Empire and their gold coins that ended up without any gold in them

This is mostly just an appearance thing unless people are clipping the coins, in which case vendors would probably either reject them or turn you in to local lawmen who had punishments for doing things like this like death (lol).  The US government also used to offer a service to turn your bullion into govt coins for free I think.  It's overall not a big deal since the things are still recognizable a thousand years later.  They don't actually require overhead to "exist".

You obviously forget about trivial wear and tear that gold and silver coins are susceptible to. It is also a kind of overhead, and given the level of circulation these coins will be exposed to, it will be insurmountable. And I'm not even talking about deliberate debasement of coins either by governments or ordinary people who would try to chip a bit of metal from these coins every other day. And then you would hit directly into the modern variety of Gresham's law because prices of these precious metals change differently and the nominal value of coins will quickly cease to match the value of metal in them with all ensuing consequences...

In short, your idea of using such coins today seems to be pretty much stillborn


Overhead in using gold or silver coins will be devastating up to a point where they are not usable altogether (see above)

Germans use cash for almost everything and it didn't cause them to revert to the stone age.  There is nothing preventing the cash from being replaced by physical gold and silver (and maybe copper) coins utilized in it's native form.  Assuming cryptocurrency doesn't implode from the winner take all paradigm, it's entirely plausible every form of currency dies except physical gold and silver coins + Bitcoin for digital transations.  

It doesn't really have to be one or the other.  The market will demand some form of physical cash to exist and will demand some type of digital transfer mechanism to exist as well.  Physical BTC bearer bonds that are never actually checked or exposed to the system to determine if they're valid are kind of a dumb idea as a cash replacement and precious metals would probably easily defeat that use case.  

You also have the problem that physical BTC bearer bonds would be fee-free, hence maybe seeing a huge uptick in usage for a limited load system and undermine the security model of Bitcoin itself.  Imagine BTC transactions costing $100 each so people all decide to use physical BTC bearer bonds to skirt this drawback, or even mail or UPS them to each other and bypass the blockchain altogether.  People buy thousands of dollars in metals using the mail, so why not?

The blockchain of metals is two neutron stars colliding to create a permanent immutable ledger of supply for your local closed ecosystem.  It requires no overhead to exist or verify transactions, while also having unlimited TPS, making it obvious in having some use case as currency in all but the most dystopian locked in the matrix systems (which anonymint seems to refer to as progress).

The Satoshi quote of "no free lunch" is kind of erroneous as both fiat and Bitcoin require overhead just to exist at all while gold and silver do not.  This is probably the biggest Satoshi red herring that exists.  Nobody is forcing you to pay to store it in someone else's vault.  You cannot use the word "ideal money" to describe something that requires overhead just to exist when there are alternatives that don't.

Paper is always going to be Keynesian by definition, and even if you could somehow overcome that logic and eliminate the horde of parasitic technocrats, you'd still have to constantly reprint the bills, and using metal coins would eventually just be sending you back to gold and silver anyway.