Topic: r0ach's Cryptomarkets Watch & Scamcoin Observer - page 31. (Read 47262 times)

Well if my theory is true that people believe that ASICs are in general unhealthy.  Bitcoin still is eons above everything else that is simply PoW so the market seems to care more about first mover advantage than getting the correct PoW.  

My theory is that bitcoin will be replaced and cryptocurrency is here to stay and grow.  After that things start getting really fuzzy for me.  Ethereum could take over I suppose.  But my understanding is that if contracts get too expensive to run then it will cripple growth.  Contract cost (I think?) is code efficiency * ether cost.  Maybe that will be drastically reduced with PoS?  Or maybe bitcoin will move to PoS?

I honestly don't know - future is very fuzzy.  There is only one alt that I'm interested in as a "currency" outside of bitcoin.  I do think there's room for people to begin to move away if / when they see writing on the wall (leaders leaving a few years before the majority of the stakeholders leave).

This could be very possible, with all the anticipation in the bitcoin community about what will happen it has the potential to draw in new comers to the crypto world.

You may as well hold what you got i think, the price may not double  or even go up but i can't see it dropping after the halving.

So somebody may make a fortune buying the chosen one now if the theory is correct.

Correct me if I'm wrong someone.  But I believe all bitcoin PoW clones are effectively dead.  Nothing above a 2 - 3 million market cap (maybe nothing at all?) 

After litecoin ASICs I believe the general consensus was that ASIC PoW was something flawed and to be avoided.

1. Marginal miners continuing to mine has no positive effect on the price. If hashrate doesn't halve, they have to sell proportionally (to the block reward) more Bitcoin to pay expenses. So while the main argument for the price increasing (other than expectations of investors), is the halving of the annual supply of coins will be available for selling from mining, some of that could be offset by increased selling as more marginal miners become cash flow negative. So the initial effect could be an increase in selling while marginal miners try to stay afloat hoping price will rise. This is entire consistent with the V crash followed by a slingshot rocket up, which is what I stated is possible.

2. Marginal miners won't shut off their mining once Bitcoin becomes unprofitable for them, instead they will shift their ASICs to Bitcoin clones. Another Litecoin (formerly the GPU switch) is out there right now, waiting to be beneficially. Is it Vcash? What Bitcoin clones are out there?

3. I don't think the DEX demand via mining is entirely price inelastic. At some price, it is more profitable to mine an altcoin, then trade it for Bitcoins (after pumping the price of the altcoin by mining out the float and doing manipulation).

The game theory is much more sophisticated than your simplistic one.

Anonymint, I don't know how you can fall into the beginner trap of saying the halving is "priced in".  For something to be priced in, it would imply there is some form of equilibrium at hand, meaning the price goes up, minining power doesn't increase with it, halving occurs, then mining power stays the same.  That isn't what happened at all though.  The price went up and more mining power joined the network, raising the price floor months ago and it has been shown to be pretty stable at the higher price.  Now when the halving occurs, the price is either required to increase a lot, or lots of miners will have to drop out.  There is no form of equilibrium at hand.  Tidal waves of cause and effect have to occur.

We also know that ASICs require lots of R&D investment and capital.  Since people have already invested millions of dollars in mining farms, there is no way in hell they are going to turn off their 16nm state of the art miners.  Current process node miners simply do not turn them off ever.  They always mine at a loss or buy coins off the wall to dollar cost average before doing that.  Even if you did think the Bitcoin price was unsustainable (it's not, market cap is still small), it's inevitable the price would spike higher before any unsustainable reality could set in.

The act of mining is also a decentralized exchange while Coinbase is a centralized exchange.  Supply is being cut in half on the DEX while demand remains the same because miners are simply not going to be turned off.  Centralized exchanges are forced to follow the price action.

---

see thats the problem with the alt coin section, are people offering their genuine opinion are or they just trying to con me im not quite sure. Does ETH have any real value at all im wondering.

The unbounded attribute of the universe appears to be fractal, i.e. patterns within patterns. So the unbounded entropy is in the small, not in the large. This is why Armstrong points out that short-term cycles (e.g. day trading) are much more noisy (i.e. randomized). The higher-level the cycles in time, the less random the deviation.

So while A.I. will eventually emulate much of what it can observe that a set of humans can do, it can't (unless it becomes integrated within evolution and competitive reproduction) make every copy of itself a unigue solution to the unbounded evolutionary fitness continuum. The unseen fractal patterns encoded in the evolutionary continuum are not carried within the genome and dynamic living network of A.I. bots, because for one thing they are discrete and not analog biological. The complexity/entropy of a living creature is unbounded in the unseen fractal patterns encoded in the evolutionary continuum.

Here is the key point. Nature is not top-down controlled and there is no 'error' as every variation is information to the evolutionary continuum. A.I. would need to become alive in the sense that it is a self-reproducing, self-motivated, decentralized process controlled by no one. Then it would no longer be ARTIFICIAL intelligence.

So Armstrong has correlated the large fractal pattern cycles which are stable as is man's lifespan, reproductive maturity, Sun spots cycles, Earth's various cycles such as earthquakes, etc..

What exactly do you define the Armstrong model as?  When Bitcoin Core devs get mad at me about some random technical disagreement, words like "come on, you're not omniscient" are usually said.  So are you saying that when I claim it's an error-prone, probablistic model, that's wrong?  What else could it possibly be?  Are you really going to assign omniscient traits to this guy's gambling system?

As for your website, it's kind of bizarre that I have similar conclusions involving AI that you did, almost word for word in the David Latapite "transhumanism" thread from a year ago where I said true AI is impossible without recreating human evolution, except in probably more detail.  Then the actual, real danger of AI or attempts to create it is in the last paragraph.  From my post:






Your post:

It's a centrally administered economy.  The second the can stops being kicked down the road, it will likely coincide with a manufactured event by these same administrators.  Unless you're an insider in on the scheme, there is no way of knowing when they will pull the plug, so any model claiming the "free market" that doesn't exist, or "waves" in charts will cause it to happen is ridiculous.  They could pull the plug at the top or the bottom, it doesn't matter.  Everything is nothing but insider trading.  When the market is turned off will also be insider trading.  Either Armstrong is an insider to this mafia or he's not.  If he was, there would be no reason for him to talk about it on his website because that's just not something mafia members do.

Generally, people who claim to be able to objectively predict the future are referred to as flim flam men or lunatics, yet people do so thousands of times per day in economics with varying degrees of sucess.  There is no reason to treat this guy any different because the vast number of chaotic variables and actors at play that he can't possibly model.  At the end of the day, it's just an error-prone, probabilistic model, and that's assuming he even covered all the core variables.  Maybe a butterfly will fly into a financial terrorist's car like George Soro's while driving causing him to drive off a cliff, which causes fractional reserve to cease existing.  Where was the butterfly in the Armstrong model?  All he can do is create a highly inaccurate probabalistic model, that's it!

Sorry r0ach, Calculus And Differential Equations can't be learned in 1 minute with a soundbite.

Neither can the science of Armstrong. Ignorance is a choice, not a virtue.

I suggest you remain ignorant. I have no more time to offer you on this. Good luck.

Come on, man, it seems he has already moved the goalposts around numerous times recently.  I seem to recall you stating several times that the economy would peak and crash around the year 2020 according to Armstrong.  Then he also claimed an entirely different timeline as outlined below, where he claims we're about to entre into some type of raging bull market.  According to what date you listened to Armstrong, the global economy would be doing the exact opposite of the other forecast.  It is blatantly obvious neither he, you, or I, knows how long TPTB can kick the can down the road.

You have no clue what he is doing. He literally put $billion (inflation-adjusted to current dollars) of data from 6000 B.C. to real-time present into the supercomputer to analyze all the repeating patterns in a multi-dimensional correlation that extracts the Strange Attactor order hidden in Chaos (Chaos Theory). This model has predicted everything accurately for 30 years. Did you know he told us in advance March 13/14 would signify a major turn in the global markets to the downside, and that is precisely when the deadcat bounce in the Baltic Sea index rolled over. r0ach you will get your ass burned claiming Armstrong is a clown. Read this and tell me this guy doesn't know every detail of history that wasn't written in any history text book:

https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/history/ancient-economies/vikings/

The guy spent $10 million (in 1980s dollars) alone just collecting everything silver coin from the Roman empire and constructing the first accurate silver price chart of that era based on the actual silver content.


He also explains how, when, and why confidence will shift and his computer model tracks all of that.


Please don't compare a clown to a scientist.


Armstrong is not using a crowdsourced prediction market. His method is scientific and has been backtested to every event in history down to even minutest detail.


He can teach you everything about precisely that topic. You will learn many new things.


Ah you have a lot of learn from the master. Seriously. You better getting started asap. Or you can just wait, and I will tell you, "I told you so" later.


Please don't be a Dunning-Kruger fool. Seriously. It is embarrassing. Don't make statements like that without reading Armstrong for a couple of weeks until you realize how foolish your statement is.

I would not tell you to waste your time. You know my reputation by now.


Sadly you have no faith in what you refuse to study. How smart is that?


He does. And he doesn't think much of it. I think he doesn't understand Bitcoin is part of the global monetary reset he knows is coming after 2018. He knows there will be a new reserve currency that isn't controlled by any nation. He seems to think Bitcoin is not controlled by the elite. He apparently doesn't know that China controls 65% of the hashrate and so Bitcoin is already a fiat system.


That is possible. He has not made a price prediction on Bitcoin.


He says the market will treat gold as a hedge against government.


He has already proven there is only manipulation to the upside and never to the downside. He was the largest trader on commodities ever. He knew Warren Buffet was the mystery buyer. He was on the inside with PhilBro. Dude you have no clue who Armstrong is. Please do your homework which will requires weeks.


And he will be correct with 100% certainty. Sorry you speak Dunning-Kruger nonsense.

Well, I obviously have far less faith in this Armstrong guy than you do.  I've seen the general summary of how he claims to predict markets:  international capital flows seeking safety or returns, then seems to derive how everything moves by an ambiguous, impossible to quantify variable known as confidence.  I mean, everyone knows markets are "confidence games" already, I just don't see how you can plug that into any objective mathematical formula when it requires him to arbitrate what markets have confidence or not via his own opinion.  

Then the fact that you have, to borrow a Max Keiser term, suicide central bankers constantly and irrationally manipulating levers to distort the market.  I mean, come on, any prediction model someone builds is useless in a centrally administered, non-freemarket economy unless he's a government insider.  There is no bypassing that fact.

On to the next problem.  Let's assume this guy isn't a circus clown and has made some accurate predictions in the past.  Let's say he's looking at markets and says, "Ok, historical data shows when capital moves this way, the price of gold goes down because either strengthening dollar, inflation, deflation, etc".  To determine which way gold moves in such a scenario, you would first have to define whether gold is being treated as a currency or commodity by the market.  It seems he just assumes gold will always be a useless commodity and will never be a currency again.  The second he gets that "guess" wrong, well his entire model is fucked.  Or, maybe the US keeps using the dollar, but India or some other country converts entirely to gold.  I have zero faith in this guy to predict the future because there's far too many variables to address.

The next problem is, he doesn't seem to talk about Bitcoin at all (if ever?).  I feel you're just extrapolating what he says about gold and blanket applying a correlation to Bitcoin when there is no evidence of one.  It's entirely possible the market treats gold as a commodity and Bitcoin as a currency, or even vice versa.  It's also possible the fed loses control on gold/silver manipulation and some kind of hell breaks lose.

Armstrong assumes the dollar is the safe haven of the world and will benefit in times of distrust in other markets.  He makes this assumption even though confidence in the dollar and it's institutions are already at a historical low.  A computer model didn't tell him this, he had to make these assumptions.  Due to being free of central banker manipulation, it's entirely possible something like Bitcoin could have much higher confidence than the dollar in such situations.  He doesn't address Bitcoin at all, and you just assume Bitcoin will follow a non-existent, gold as a commodity and not a currency correlation.  Let's not even get into the fact that a central banker flipping one lever decides if the economy implodes in deflation or hyperinflation, making whatever he predicts completely obsolete.

r0ach I tried to explain this to you in the past and you still are repeating (what I and Martin Armstrong think is) the wrong conceptualization. I hope I can explain to you this time in a way that you will contemplate, because getting this wrong is going to be a big time error.


You are misunderstanding the timing and interplay presented by Armstrong which I explained in that post of mine if you clicked the quote and read the entire post.

Everyone right now thinks interest rates must decline because the US economy (and global  economy) is getting weaker. Thus everyone is skeptical about a rise in stock market. The stock market is slowing rising now to go against the majority of fools.

As the interest rate rises hit, they will assume this will crater the global economy, so they will sell the stock market and this will cause a brief contagion and crash. They will also sell off gold and all assets same as in 2008/2009. Thus Bitcoin can get caught up in this crazy reaction contagion. Remember silver fell from $21 to $8.

But what nobody understands is international capital flows. All the capital flows will head towards the USA as the safe haven during this expectation of global contraction due to rising interest rates. Thus paradoxically the US stock market will start booming in V bottom sling shot and no one will initially believe it has staying power. But the fundamental flows won't stop. So this US sling shot will turn into a raging bubble by late 2017 or 2018 with a double or triple possible.

So paradoxically the US stock market will rise with interest rates due to capital flows dominating. Also rising interest rates will drive people out of bonds, not into them. Armstrong has shown that stocks rise with interest rates at times of crisis like this such as 1920 - 1930 era.

Gold and Bitcoin will rise with the stock market as the public starts to realize the government is toast and they must shift to private assets such as stocks, AAA corporate bonds, gold, and other collectibles.

The US stock market has phased shift and is no longer going to be a public wave asset and will be a private assets and thus rise with the dollar and gold and crypto not opposite.


Btw, gold and BTC are somewhat highly correlated (afair -0.58), contrary to what your eye is telling you. They are phase shifted, but that is not relevant.


See the above. Rising interest rates will raise the US stock market. The rest of the world will be toast. War is coming...

After 2018 the USA economy will have been choked off by the strong dollar which destroy the rest of the world and as international capital inflows abate.

Then we do a global monetary reset. Asia will bottom 2020. The West will continue declining in clusterfuck chaos through 2033.

If you're looking at it in terms of the dollar and Bitcoin competing on equal grounds, the USD is already the world reserve currency, and once you're #1, there's not much higher you can go.  The act of increasing interest rates would strengthen the dollar, yea, but not anywhere near to the extent the halving's effect on BTC price.  I do not see Bitcoin going anywhere but up from it's current position.  Some tiny interest rate increase is negligible in compared to the halving's effects.  The price of gold and Bitcoin don't move in unison either:



Another thing that bothered me about that article is that I've looked at estimates of what percent the stock market is composed of regarding retirement funds and the numbers were always huge.  Raising interest rates tanks the stock market, so how does raising interest help retirement funds if so many of them are in the stock market in the first place?  This is all just turning the dials on random variables to distort the market but the only thing that really matters for retirees in the end is if money supply increases or not.  Since it's already a given the money supply is going to increase, and stocks and interest rates have an inverse relationship, a properly hedged retirement fund would be positioned to not get killed regardless which way it goes.  It's only a major problem if you're either all in on stocks or all in on letting the money rot in a bank.

The real reason for the emergency Fed meetings...I strong suggest clicking to read the entire post: