Topic: rpietila Wall Observer - the Quality TA Thread ;) - page 266. (Read 907227 times)

God bless you! And you are not my sock puppet, but I couldn't have said it better. And that is a good post for me to exit on. Thanks.

The Iron Law of political economics is perhaps the strongest of arguments in favor of decentralized governance. There is no way to eliminate the incentive to concentrate benefits and distribute costs without eliminating the taxing/regulatory mechanism of the monopoly State.

I am going to try to stop posting and get some real work done. I have said that in the past and failed to sustain. Hopefully I can discipline myself.

I appreciate that some here have been cordial (even amicable) and participated in an open discussion, including Risto for allowing the discussion.

This issue is highly charged. Most of you are very sure that you've already found the Holy Grail, whereas I think you've found the cloak of the Grim Reaper. (Drama much don't I, eh ... Primadonna display feels revolting ... those who talk don't build) Again I note the importance of Bitcoin as a backbone for any other effort to improve matters.



http://armstrongeconomics.com/2013/11/17/negative-interest-rates-eliminating-cash-the-summers-solution/
http://armstrongeconomics.com/2014/01/24/electronic-money-coming-everywhere-sooner-than-you-think/
http://armstrongeconomics.com/2014/01/25/electric-money-will-eliminate-bank-runs/


It looks like many heads, but there is a unified body behind the curtain when it comes to threatening their control over money (that is fundamental to the existence of society as it has been formulated lately). I believe there will be only more centralization.

Unless... somebody fucks with them with anonymity and other shit they aren't able to deal with... in that respect I agree that real complexity might arise...


We better have that in place already tested and growing, not waiting until the gauntlet comes and everybody stands around looking at each other with mouths agape like deer in the headlights. Gun confiscation post-Katrina is an example.


It is almost already too late. They can give their lives in futility yes.



Of course they would succeed for the same reason totalitarianism always does, the masses have no option if they stop depending on the government. We haven't built anything yet.



Do I need to cite for you the news on the coordination between the G20 and NSA to track down all tax evaders and financial crimes?

P.S. one of the reasons to hide this discussion in a TA thread is I think the (powers) have (that be) workers who read this forum. Also because the core of the adoption is here. You all are the leaders.


How can this be a threadjack when Risto often uses adoption to support his bottom calls in this thread?

It seems it is difficult to separate FA and TA when discussing Bitcoin. A relationship between a proxy for adoption n and price p was shown in this thread.

The only characteristic of fiat that we need to look at is centralization as it subjugates all (relevant) structure w.r.t. to the masses. The Iron Law of Political Economics guarantees that. And it is nearly impossible for the participants to see that. That is why it is so scary of a beast.


You are very astute at "multivariate abstraction" (apparently superior to me, as you already corrected me on n^2 has more structure than p, kudos), but you may not be as insightful at boiling it back down to external relevance. And you've noted this is an area you need to be careful on not deluding yourself.

That is my impression. But it is also what I wish to be true, and I frequently try to remind myself to be careful not to be swayed by wishful thinking into self deception.

Mass adoption vs. nation fiat question, some quick thoughts:

The characteristics required for adoption vary with the scenario.  A global fiat failure scenario, a national fiat failure scenario - which varies dramatically between cultures and jurisdictions, or an incremental adoption within the nominal status quo scenario. 

A challenge to refutation is an unfair gauntlet to throw down, in part because it would be an interminable debate, deciding which specific characteristics of a national fiat were necessary and sufficient under each of a wide range of scenarios.

The point is made, and taken, that for some set of characteristics, the result is that the crypto has become no better than, or even worse than, the fiat which its adoption might displace.  Whether that set of characteristics is a proper subset of the characteristics required for such a displacement under *all* scenarios seems naively unlikely.  Whether it is a proper subset under the eventual scenarios which actually unfold will then depend on unfolding events.

But now I feel like I'm contributing to a thread hijack.  Unless Risto addresses the topic, it should probably be moved to one of AnonyMint's threads.

The U.S. government moves very slowly. If Bitcoin succeeds, the time in which that will happen will be too short for the government to fully recognize the threat and issue an effective policy to oppose it before it (Bitcoin) becomes deeply entrenched in the economy and its benefits are widely perceived. At the point, the political opposition to such a move would be too great.

Medium-term I'm concerned about those who are adopting Bitcoin now, and that they have no anonymity and they can't spontaneously mine it any more (without a serious investment in mining). And I am concerned that the mass adoption of Bitcoin will come in the form of off chain  (to fix the slow transaction speed and other issues which INTENTIONALLY won't be fixed on chain) and government control over mining and off chain coin supply, and that we Bitcoin adopters won't have any other option. We will be trapped in the new digital slavery NWO. My perspective is viewed by many as extreme and paranoid.

For next week or two, I think the tax ruling can deflate the confidence of some of the n00b investors who bought at $600 - $1000 if the price breaks down through $400. Capitulation would then come when they lose resolve to hodl. I could be wrong about this bottom call. I have presented some ways of looking at the chart of adoption to support my short-term perspective.

I also presented a new theory of the adoption curve being log-logistic instead of logistic. They key distinction is the rate of adoption would be declining since the launch of Bitcoin and not after 50% have adopted. The chart of n seems to support my view, but (from eyeballing it only) there are not enough data points yet to reliably conclude.

Because of my negative view on the potential outcome of Bitcoin on us, I have a very bad taste in my mouth if I buy BTC as an investment. I feel like I am a traitor to humanity and I would be better served to invest my time in an alternative instead. So it would take a very low bottom price to maybe cause me to potentially incriminate myself (assuming totalitarian effects of debt crisis subsequently emerge). I realize I am being somewhat irrational if my goal is to maximize return on capital. Also no man is an island.

I suppose I am not appreciating Risto as much as I used to because he preaches what I believe to be the NWO coin, and he uses hyperbole such as claiming it is at a fraction of adoption of world's population as if he can be sure how Bitcoin can morph to be compelling to masses. The only way I see it doing that is with government blessing. And this outcome is not the way investments usually work. Yeah it is always "different this time". Yet I am trying to not let this affect my feelings about any person. Frankly I need to do less talking and more working. (Mea Culpa)^1000000.

Correction: Note if I remember correctly Risto wrote 99.5% of adoption remaining, which would mean 200 x 2 million = 400 million target. Actually that is not too far from my expection of the current white male demographic target market. That is qualitatively not mass adoption by the entire world. That is 1 in 17 people in world. So I am not clear if Risto is arguing for mass adoption as a currency or for white male adoption as an investment bubble? His numbers are straddling the two. My expectation is either Bitcoin will top out as an investment bubble at up to one or two hundred million, or it will be prodded by the government to become the digital fiat. I don't see another outcome for Bitcoin, because I see no relevant development at all on the block chain protocol.

Certain developers who you know their name spend more time meeting with the CIA and the Council on Foreign Relations than developing the protocol improvements.

Since when should a programmer be a political liaison  

Fishy smell.

OK,  I'm no mathematician.
But, sincerely, thanks for taking the timeout to explain it    <----not dour

I agree strongly.  I've seen it happen to many people.  http://www.amazon.com/Three-Felonies-Day-Target-Innocent/dp/1594035229

I would not characterize the villain as "socialism" per se.  Such ideologies are tools in the hands of Bernaysian manipulators who gain much power by factionalizing the populace.

Staying low profile and knowing which felonies are likely to be prosecuted and when is a helpful individual survival strategy, although it is not helpful to the society.  The problem is civil obedience.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S2li9E_94MA

I switch between these approaches according as I pick my fights.


It is definitely too extreme and paranoid for many purposes.  Whether it is adequately extreme and paranoid for your purposes -- of that, you are the best human judge.

Why is this a 'failure'....we seem to have some 'dissonance' here.

You interpret these nodes as a new user...I see them as possibly being a previous user.  If you can divine the difference please tell me how it is done....IP addresses?  And TOR and proxy users?

Re. Neo...dismissing this story because of Cyprus' population size. C'mon.

Sorry if I appear 'dour' but 'facts' are subjective and I was taught to question those who have entrenched views or positions.  And anyway benzos make one neither happier or healthier (I believe Tamazepan is extremely carcinogenic).

We're talking about different things.  Peter R's chart referenced by AnonyMint was based on unique non-dust addresses.  He also ran the correlation to the active addresses, which I prefer because I consider it the best proxy for a commerce node.  I believe the gbianchi's chart, which described the I^2.26 fit was the first published fit of price to the latter factor.  I think that was done some time in November.


The number of people using bitcoin doesn't matter as much as the number of commerce nodes.  If everyone creates 10 addresses a day, and uses them for a transaction, then the number of active nodes will be the number of people times 70 (7 day rolling window).  In fact everyone creates addresses at some average rate.
The point is that the number of active users is proportional to the number of active addresses, to a first order approximation.  The number and sizes of their transactions will also play a role, but will be second order factors.  The same proportional reasoning applies to the unique addresses, but multiplied by the average age of the addresses.  The exponential fit is scaled by the multipler.  It doesn't matter what the multiplier is.  Thats how math works.

I have not, but will look for it when I have time. I think the overall reaction of the government towards cryptos is going to turn out to be very complex. And fascinating. And one thing to keep in mind, is that there will be no unified reaction, because "the government" is run by lots of people with conflicting agendas. With campaigns funded by more people with different agendas. And varying degrees of technical sophistication.


I have contemplated what sort of technical battle would ensue if the government decided to take explicit control of the blockchain.

For the sake of argument, suppose the government announced that all miners had to be "licensed" or "approved" or some such thing. How could the crypto community fight this? I suppose the community could fork the blockchain to make a branch run only by miners that were not government sponsored. Perhaps, there could be some underground network of anarcho-miners who are required to pledge their allegiance to the Ghost of Satoshi to become part of the network. There would ALWAYS be people willing to risk their lives to run this network. So I don't think the government could kill the network. What they could do, is prosecute people who are caught using the "unapproved" bitcoin blockchain. They'd probably have to crack down pretty hard. And whether they would be successful, I dunno.

Another question: what if two (or more) governments battle for control of the blockchain, so no one gets 51%? Does that mean Satoshi wins?

You aren't using your broker to do that for Bitcoin now, so you must be doing it manually. Or you are not reporting your small Bitcoin transactions.

I have often wondered if many are setting themselves up to be destroyed by the IRS by not reporting small BTC transactions.

I believe the dying socialism will use every little violation to rip us apart.

My perspective is viewed as too extreme and paranoid.

OK, thanks.

But here you are saying unique addresses....earlier Aminorex was saying 'active' addresses.

Now, I just went onto a couple of exchanges and created half a dozen new addresses.  But I'm still a single user.

I won't pretend to know the math but my wife (soon to be sold for BTC ) is a scientist and I know from her that all source data has to be analysed for standard errors, Cronbach, GLAs etc...its all beyond a thicky like me but the one thing I have picked up is that using 'raw' data is problematic.  So, do these calculations take into account this sort of thing?

AnonyMint is concerned about mass adoption, because he wants to save the world.  More power to him.  Being in the world, I think it could use some saving.  But his particular form of mass adoption is not necessary or to be expected during the time between now and the next two or three hype cycles.  IRS treatment of bitcoin can be harmful to mass adoption in the medium term, but good for institutional adoption in the near term.


It's not even a country really.  It's a disputed island with fewer people on it than live a what they call a "small town" in China.  



Which offer has more impact on price, 1000 BTC ask $0.5 north of BBO, or 1000 BTC ask at $3000?  I discount numbers that merit discounting.  If you fail to do that, then you will make irrational choices.


I won't try to fix your failure to understand why recently active addresses are valid value-adding nodes in a network.  I'm just not sure I could do much good there.


Just trying to make you happier.  You seem rather dour about the facts.  

I am extremely bullish because I believe fundamental factors will dominate over time.  The conjunction of compelling factors which are in bullish agreement is of the kind which are persistent and largely insensitive to the more problematic aspects.  Bearish factors tend to be fleeting ones.  They have a big impact, but it fades rapidly.  When the fundamental factors cease to paint a bullish picture,  I will change my approach.  Presently, the more bullishness I can convey to others, the better of they will be,  in my opinion.  It's hard to remain bullish when price crashes, when fiduciaries fail, when thieves are trying to hack you, bears spew FUD, the press is negative, DDOSers are attacking the forums and exchanges.  If people don't see the light at the end of the tunnel, they will fail.  Their hands will weaken.  Their DCA program will be forgotten.  If you want to make the world a better place, one where people who love freedom and human dignity are empowered, and those who love to enslave others decline in relative influence, then you've got to be a booster.  It's not easy to hold through such insane volatility.  It would be nice if we could all be that strong, but some are weak, and can use encouragement.

I wrote that upthread. Here it is again.

It is the number of unique addresses from the blockchain.info chart. And Peter R showed that n^2 correlates with price p. This is Metcalf's Law and Reed's Law.

I had explained in an upthread post that if we use a ruler on the n chart along the bottoms since 2012, then should currently be at 100,000 yet it is currently at 150,000.

Also there was a divergence since February where p declined but n rose. That divergence must be resolved. Will p rise or n decline?

If n must drop by 33%, then p price could drop to 0.67 x 0.67 = 45% of recent p (inconclusive to determine which recent p to multiply by .045, perhaps $450 - $600).

I also projected the bottom from July 2012 using compounding and I also get a $300 to $350 target for the bottom within next 2 weeks.

$450 is a lot closer to the bottom than $600 was. Risto is correct about that.

I wonder what the next catalyst will be to get the next wave of investors to rush in?

I am thinking the confiscations begin in Europe, but I think not that soon.

Any ideas? Just curious.

OK, no-one has still bothered to state what 'n' stands for (I'm assuming p = price) but it all sounds highly plausible.

Selling wife and kids as we speak.

Propaganda. Have you followed what Larry Summers said? They want digital currency so they can easily confiscate. The establishment is supporting Bitcoin because they can more easily track where all the money is.


It is very high on their list if it can grow.

They are trial ballooning different ways to bring the world onto a digital ledger so they can confiscate by pressing a button. Off chain on Bitcoin will be the mechanism to achieve this control.

They have nothing to fear from Bitcoin, because one pool already controls 50% of the mining. They could easily blacklist coins tomorrow if they needed to.

Now they just to manage their baby well to keep you all supporting their desired outcome of slavery.

Proof is in the facts. Bitcoin is not decentralized. You all are controlled by propaganda. The mining is already controllable by the government.

The key now is to manage it so you all don't wake up and move to an anonymous coin. To keep you all locked in by your greed and the thought the largest market size is best.



That makes two us. Born and raised to age 15 in New Orleans.