Topic: Martin Armstrong Discussion - page 274. (Read 647196 times)

The mischaracterization of his predictions have been thoroughly refuted upthread as well. I am not going to repeat it again.

Just for example, the following:

That thread is so ignorant of what MA was writing. It just boggles my mind how low the reading comprehension of humans typically is.  

Get off our lawn.

Try not to be such a tosser ... as from past experience a debate with you is worthless, to both sides concerned, good luck. Michael Pettis is knowledgeable on bitcoin mining?

There is no debate, Chinese miners are killing it, that's all you need to know ... nothing in chinese macro-economics is going to change bitcoin mining in the foreseeable future, you're just out-to-lunch crazytalking again, seeking out conflict?

The technology of mass-production manufacturing is THE race, for now anyway. Who knows bitcoin itself may have originated out of an Asian mind ... not that it matters.

You're welcome to try to refute Michael Pettis (PhD professor in China) who has been consistently correct in his predictions on China while being the skeptic that everyone thought should be ignored. Now he is respected because he was correct all along. Read his blog so you won't be so ignorant...or remain blissfully Dunning-Kruger as it is your prerogative.

thanks for your opinions ... if they were rare (or even correct) they might be worth something, indeed you are prolific.

At the moment, they don't really have any competition or at least any that markets their services very well.

You think this has anything to do with you, a random stranger on the Internet just like me and the next guy? Wow, this is pretty intense

Any way, I'd like to not see altcoins dominated only by get quick rich and not some serious attempts to fix Bitcoin's flaws and create a large adoption market. But the more I think about this, the more I realize if that ever happens it will be largely outside of this forum. This forum is a gambler's paradise. I need to remind myself that I we here are in an enclave.

This is true. Most people don't want to trade their BTC for a non-CC asset, because this their gambling money. They can't buy mining equipment with BTC to increase their holdings of crypto-currency. This is why ICOs have become more popular than mined distribution, with the ASIC resistant Monero as an exception.

ASICs killed the mining ecosystem. This has been r0ach's point, that if the coins don't circulate, then the ecosystem dies. Bitcoin is dying. Only the altcoin circulation kept Bitcoin alive.

You need to learn macroeconomics.

Is this technology or more manufacturing brute force.   China is leading as they can turnover and make the cheapest hardware fastest which leads them to immediately use it for mining advantages.
But yes the West has lost of its great past in skilled manufacturing

Saw this posted, seemed a very well balanced discussion on progression of the bitcoin difficulty vs miners etc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ieP8kxaklUk

Smells like a lot of hurt white Western butt in here because they couldn't build computer hardware better, faster, cheaper than the chinese. Western white males measure themselves on technological success and they are getting pasted on the bitcoin hardware stakes so far ... time to up their game if they want to stay competitive. Harden up dudes.

I read people like Dent

Roach was right, TPTB was wrong.

Hey, it's not just me that has figured it out:

I actually for the most part agree with it. I  have been a Bitcoin bear for a while simply because I do not like the long term fundamentals. The biggest issue is the 1 MB blocksize issue and the proposals being thrown around are simply too little too late. There is a reason new venture capital is not moving into Bitcoin and that is simply that venture capital demands the possibility of very high growth because of the risk involved. The 1 MB blocksize limit is simply making stagnation part of the Bitcoin protocol and consensus model. I can think of no more effective way to drive venture capital away than to make stagnation an integral part of the Bitcoin protocol and consensus model.

While ASIC centralization is part of he problem, I would argue that were it not for the blocksize limit this alone is not to blame. The issue is that while China is by far the most cost effective place to manufacture ASICs and it also scores well in the electricity and climate are (parts of Northern China do get very cold in the winter) it has a very high latency Internet connectivity to the rest of the world due to the Great Firewall of China. A mid range residential Internet connection in many parts of the world will run circles over the best data centre grade Internet connection behind the Great Fire Wall of China in the mining critical area of latency. What has allowed the centralization in Bitcoin mining to occur is not just ASICs but the combination of a 10 min blocktime with a 1 MB blocksize limit together with ASICs. If Bitcoin had allowed the blocksize to grow back in 2012 - 2013, the Chinese ASIC manufacturer's would have been forced to sell their ASICs for export rather than operate them themselves locally and this would have prevented the concentration of Bitcoin mining in China. We must keep in mind the the Chinese miners are against any significant blocksize increase in Bitcoin for this very reason.

Even if someone developed an ASIC for CryptoNite that was truly competitive, I doubt the kind of mining concentration that has occurred in Bitcoin could happen In Monero simply because China would still be by far the most competitive place to manufacture the ASICs, but the combination of 2 min blocks and an adaptive blocksize limit would make China a very un-competitive place to operate the ASICs.

If mining is centralized in China doesn't that actually transfer the latency issue to non-Chinese miners? Resulting in possible more centralization. I recall reading such a thing.

So, what will happen?

Back in 2013 we had Mt.Gox running on fractional/damaged reserve, so there had been more BTC available in trades than BTC total in existance and it did not matter because there was money inflow from the outsides. This year is more solid regarding those issues, just completely isolated market.

Nobody invests into BTC or mining equipment anymore. When did you bought ASICs valued 10.000 USD last time? Aren't those USD you now use to buy BTC just been taken from former BTC sales?

Bitcoin cannot do without Alts, both built up a complete whole economy. Remember people are not buying/selling anything using BTC, they just gamble on Alts. Basically I do agree on BTC up causing Alts going down and vice verse. Enclosed system like two water tanks with a flexible tube connecting them.

In another thread you predict USA will break into regions. Is this not the definition of an entirely broken regime?


There is nothing new in the concept of world reserve currency. It can have many components this time, this doesn't change anything in how individual countries manage their economies and their budgets. Individual countries are pretty bad. For bankrupt ideology we have the welfare state. The productive population is shrinking, the liabilities of the governments are growing, you even said this yourself up thread, and there comes a point where society fails unable to bear the weight of liabilities. Enter hyper inflation.

I have read quite a lot of Armstrong, I don't agree with everything.