Topic: Martin Armstrong Discussion - page 366. (Read 647251 times)

I wasn't asking for financial help. I was lamenting the lack of availability of a qualified mathematician or programmer willing to work for a lucrative mix of cash and coins. I replied to you in detail over in the Economic Totalitarianism thread.

Any way I wasn't seriously expecting anyone to come to my doorstep. I have 30 years of experience and seen that even the software shops I worked for could not find talented individuals. They had to merge with another company to find those few talents, and the result was a culture clash.

Steve Jobs found his Jonathan Ive. I never found mine.

http://www.businessinsider.com/the-thoughtful-way-apples-jony-ive-managed-steve-jobs-2013-9

This is so very Steve Jobs (reminds me of myself sometimes, except when I try to be too nice and always end up regretting it exactly for the reason Jobs states):

http://www.businessinsider.com/jony-ive-once-asked-steve-jobs-why-he-was-such-a-harsh-critic-2014-10

Jobs was incredibly gifted at cutting to the generative essence, as my former boss explained:

http://relativisticobserver.blogspot.com/2011/12/2011-year-of-steve.html

...

TPTB

Please see my comment #707 "Economic Totalitarianism" in which I reply in more detail to your plight re financial help.

I invite any others to read it as well.


(TL;DR version for this comment):

"You will have to offer easy understanding, a clearly unique lucrative technology and very attractive terms to any Angel Investors."

That functionality is already incorporated into my designs.

As to the pitching of a technology to a target audience, no sense in pitching what isn't implemented. I was upthread if anything pitching to mathematicians, programmers, and especially those who are self-funded and have precious idle time they are wasting (expending on less important crap) by not working with me.

Seems this is a common theme with people, like the way smokers convince themselves - 'it'll never happen to me'. In the governmental sense, looking at Cyprus or Argentina or Greece, this is intertwined with the amount of faith / confidence citizens have in TPTB - 'we are the most free nation on earth, our govt would never do that here'. Yet citizens in those 'other' countries definitely do not think like that (co-incidentally most of these countries have been IMF'd). They prepare and find work arounds to protect themselves - but think if govts do that in nations less fortunate/powerful than ours, what will happen if our situation deteriorates to something resembling theirs?

Further, because doom and gloom predictions are a dime a dozen, anything with even minimal insight and analysis can be lost in the noise. Whether the noise occurs due to the freedoms the internet has enabled or whether it is coupled with deliberate disinformation (as shown by Snowden), it is hard to separate the wheat from the chaff. Looking at MA's track record of analysis he is on to something but his output is tainted in the eyes of the uninitiated by the stigma of a prison term.

I'd agree with smooth on the delivery of a narrative; there would be many who would be anxious with a project that would be designed to push back against the surveillance state, especially seeing the treatment of others (Assange, Manning, Snowden, Hammond, Kim Dotcom) who already have. Maybe if it was framed in another way, ie working with cutting edge, open source cryptography to provide a viable, untrackable platform for whistleblowers...etc etc. I don't know, just trying to help.

I believe the economic citizenship programs of the EU nations (even Spain will given you residency if you buy a 300,000 euro property) are a tax trap. They will change the rules on Europeans. It is SOBO (statement of the blatantly obvious) they will not allow Europeans to escape their tax obligations by residing outside the EU, because as they raise taxes on the productive citizens of the EU, the productive Europeans will of course seek out tax havens. Thus the EU will have no choice but to close the loophole that exists. The EU will harmonize with the USA system of taxation (that is what FATCA is for) where you are liable for taxes no matter when you reside. Mark my word! The EU has no fiscal choice because the EU is bankrupt! You never want to be a citizen of a bankrupt nation (or economic union) which has unassailable taxation powers. The Troika is untouchable. They have proved in Greece, they can do what ever they damn well please to you Europeeons (as in peons).



Meanwhile the powers-that-be really do intend to lock you inside the border.

Thanks for the clarification, so mutual respect can continue. In some sense I was criticizing myself for wasting (not entirely) 6 weeks communicating and believing others could follow through.

My most productive coding has come when I ignore everyone and think everyone is a moron who will waste my time (even if they do have a PhD in Discrete Math for example). Maybe it is true  

No disrespect was intended. It was more of a suggestion to pursue actions more likely to produce a desired outcome (see previous sentences). That may include continuing with the existing approach, even while observing its failure to date. Persistence is sometimes useful.

Rather you could interpret my prior post as a warning to those who do not give a damn about their own freedom usually due to incorrect beliefs, brain rotting experience (such as living in European socialism or joining a dogmatic religious cult), and the inability to see how waterfall collapse will trap them.[1]

All I can say is never underestimate me. I feign a lot. My criticisms of how idiotic people are acting right now is not rescinded. The immense difficulty this places on getting correct solutions implemented is a statement of fact. Call it whining at your own peril and not necessarily mine (because each of you have the ability to help make sure correct solutions get implemented but you'd rather make posts to refute me than to lift your finger to help).

[1] Example. You don't want to become a resident of Australia because they tax foreign residents on foreign earned income and dividends. Thus you enjoy yourself there on tourist visas. Yet suddenly war breaks out and the law of physical presence test is not rescinded even though you can not travel out of Australia because of the war. Sane law can become insane. Example #2. You assume that your European citizenship will not tax you if you are not resident of your citizenship country. Suddenly the EU starts taxing directly and they do not honor such an exemption and I bet they will implement a wealth tax in one form of another eventually.

Edit: Was I whining? Or was I challenging the readers to see if there anyone who wants to help me lead. The term "whining" insinuates disrespect. I think it is correct for me to return disrespect with mutual disrespect.

When you say "losing all the profit" you are assuming the profit exists to begin with, just because you have ideas that you think are good. Ideas are not profit, they have to be successfully monetized. Unless you can successfully put together a model for doing that, and execute it, you are losing nothing, because those profits don't exist.

Publish, don't publish, lead, organize, etc. or just give up, its all up to you. But the world is the way it is, and it owes you nothing. Whining about how the world doesn't work the way you think it should work won't help.

To add to the subject, (mainly because I'm the one who brought it up)



http://management.simplicable.com/management/new/examples-of-the-pareto-principle

Perhaps those mathematicians are not reading these discussions and think the world is just fine and you're being paranoid. It's very very hard to start believing the disaster is coming. And even if it is coming, to believe it will affect one's own situation too much. The concept is so far away from their daily lives. Boiling frogs and normalcy bias.

We can comprehend only the things we see in our daily lives. If we need cash we go to an ATM, if we need food we go to a store or a restaurant. Every morning we drive to work and pick up the kids on the way back home. That's the way it's always been and always will. And in the evening we watch the news on the TV and if there's something worrisome we'll forget everything about it by the time we switch off the TV before going to bed because we have enough of our own worries already and the next morning we'll have to wake up to another day just like every other day before.

We will only wake up to what's happening when it's already happened.

Not many people truly believe things will radically worsen hence do not posses the motivation, and not many people have the required math (or programming) skills and mental capacity. And the group which you need to harvest from is the intersection of those two groups. Experts in Bitcointalk who might be capable of helping are already (mentally and financially) invested in bitcoin and their big egos are probably hurt from getting their golden egg laying goose criticized by you. They will only give in when you have already beaten them.

It's almost impossible for me to believe there is a war coming, because I don't want to believe it. Still, I fully believe things will worsen a lot, unemployment, everywhere reaching surveillance, higher and higher taxes, perhaps even interruptions to pensions and social welfare. Unless I'm already well off, me and my family are going to suffer. If you manage to pull off this scalable anonymous coin+internet with real-world use, the upside is so huge that anyone who will be there early will have a whole lot of easier time to survive the incoming misery. I just wish those capable of helping would see it as well.

I posted at the reddit thread (note I recently learned that the owner of Bitcointalk.org theymos is also the owner of reddit):

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3f5jcs/martin_armstrong_again_shows_thorough_lack_of/cto7est

http://www.armstrongeconomics.com/research/economic-thought/by-author/pareto-vilfredo-f-d

I solved that to great extent by making economy-of-scale in a crypto-currency network work against itself.

As many know from my posts in the Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP thread, I claim to have invented a very different form of decentralized consensus network algorithm which employs proof-of-work and a block chain, but which does not have the scaling nor centralization issues of Satoshi's design.

I have recently also invented new math which is superior to both Cryptonote and Blockstream's Confidential Transactions.

I have made also numerous other innovations on crypto-currency design.

I even explained that I would be able to show it is possible to launch a coin by ICO and prove mathematically that the controlling group could not own more than x% of the total coin supply.

You'd think with such designs at-hand, that I would be ecstatic and optimistic. The reason I've been somewhat dismissive about my capabilities lately, is because I nearly wasted the entire past 6 weeks trying to locate a mathematician (with strong interest or knowledge in discrete math and especially applicability to Berstein's EdDSA) who would work with me to peer review my work and also a programmer to help me implement. I am a programmer, but it just seems impractical to try to implement something of such complexity all by oneself.

I had commitments for angel investment (i.e. a controlling group was taking form) in order to hire the help, but I couldn't find anyone who is qualified that is both interested and willing to follow a few basic computer security policies. Even some of the potential angel investors (e.g. rpietila) are unwilling to institute basic computer security policies with my assistance, so it as if no one really gives a fuck about what is happening to the world.

I had one junior-level programmer express interest to work with me and he had some experience coding a block chain explorer in the past, but he refused to learn any new programming language and only is available in Javascript. I eat programming languages for breakfast. One has to wonder how someone with such myopia could really grasp the math and wide range aptitude required. So I respectfully declined.

I am dismayed. My inventions are real and could potentially save the planet, yet no one is helping.

Why should I open source my ideas prematurely losing all the profit from being the first to launch a coin based around these technologies? That is inane. Fuck if the world won't even let me be rewarded for all my effort, then maybe the world doesn't deserve to be saved.

It is incredibly fucking ridiculous.

I've asked him numerous times and in different ways about forecasts regarding Bitcoin. He has variously responded with dismissal, ridicule and scorn. IMO he has probably done at least some analysis and may eventually relent on publicizing some results, but it's unlikely to be anywhere near as soon as we'd like. He seems to have softened his stance on Bitcoin somewhat to a more neutral view even though his statements indicate a distinct lack of understanding.

In addition, I inquired a few times about anomalies or the capability of Socrates to discern new technologies - essentially anything that could disrupt or interfere with the cycles being studied. Again, no direct reponse.

The aggrandized ego and hostility is one aspect of Armstrong's personality that I'm not fond of, though I can understand considering the circumstances he's been in.

herzmeister

Yes, we see that 80/20 Rule in so many places...  Including in our own business.  In fact, we are a bit MORE highly skewed, we are closer to 85/15 (both in our products and our customers).  15% of our customers buy 85% of our bearings.  15% of our items account for 85% of our sales.

Although published in 1998, this book is the best description that I have read of the 80/20 Rule, highly recommended:

Koch, Richard, The 80/20 Principle (1998), Doubleday

The book apparently was published first in the UK by Nicholas Brealey Publishing.

*   *   *

I have not seen Armstrong cover that, but 80/20 is everywhere.....

not by design. Capital always consolidates. Or certain structures in society generally for that matter. That's an unsolved problem. Probably unsolvable. Also if we lived in a money-less world, some would have more power and influence than others. At best we could get an ~ 80-20 distribution I guess, that seems to be the rule of thumb of balance in nature.

You could be right. But due to the nature of a group buy I think it would be unlikely that it is distributed far and wide. I'm interested in the gold trade too though. It's also a little frustrating for those genuinely interested in the information (and willing to pay) when it is priced so high for the average guy.