Topic: rpietila Wall Observer - the Quality TA Thread ;) - page 64. (Read 907231 times)

^My point is rpietila rolling his eyes is worthy of

The point is not whether he's correct or not, it's that apparently Parazyd thought he was changing his message.

Not sure why.  Shorters made out pretty good all year long, this week in particular [rolly eyes]

*Oh, forgot that BTC is now worth $10K+ according to rpietila, sorry [more rolly eyes]

He even rolled his eyes.

Huh

Ah, as was the case already with the tx growth in 2012, and further in 2013, don't you know it's all FAKE! It was fake then, and it is increasingly more fake now, and in 2015 it will be even more fake. That is the only likely and true explanation, and the only conclusion is to go short on BTC now. 

Obviously because fewer people are making more automated intrawallet transactions.

Nobody seems to want to explain why transactions is growing too.

So growth=less people and
no growth=less people?

Growth in number of address is becoming very regular though, which would point to automated generation (exchanges, mixers, etc.)

Previously the irregular variations were more of an indicator of humans activity being behind the change.

May I kindly suggest Nokia (Symbian) and Apple (iOS) didn't prove that installed base network effects in 2008 were unassailable. Android was a paradigm shift. The smartphone market battle is over given Android is approaching 80% market share and a billion users. The crypto-currency market battle has only just begun. It appears possible the same category of weakness may exist for Bitcoin et al, as did for iOS and Symbian; they may not be optimally open ecosystems thus scale less than optimally. I can't state this with certainty, but it is something worth pondering.

http://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/chart32-640x429.jpg

I believe rpietila and I are on the verge of sorting out our misunderstanding.

I was not asked to do the following. I do it on my own initiative.

I want to recognize publicly my actions (as evident in this forum) may not always appear perfectly stable, consistent, comprehensible, positive, and constructive. Although I could offer explanations in many cases which could perhaps correct misunderstandings and support that I am usually (or capable of being) stable, comprehensible, positive, and constructive, I would be dishonest with myself if I didn't admit that I have fault (e.g. at times taking on the role of antagonist) and especially to emphasize that an illness has exasperated my level of financial, physical, emotional, and mental stress. I know rpietila is intimately knowledgeable about how a stressful situation can go awry and the importance of recognizing and dealing with our own culpability in spite of the unfairness of serendipity at times. Apologies this statement is so abstract, because life is not as absolute as we want it to be. We need to be somewhat flexible to chaos. Nevertheless, I am cognizant of (although not perfectly compliant with) the criticality of consistent performance in business and ethics. Mea culpa on my part in terms of the perception of the above attributes.

So that this will not flair up again, I am cognizant of the way my actions must change on this forum not as much because of blame, but more so in the interests of not causing non-constructive detractions so as to maintain optimum production on the mutual goals of bolstering free markets thus (and) spreading good will even if at times we contribute and go about achieving those goals with differing experimentation and strategies.

But groupthink is rigor mortis. So who will speak up? The way to lead is to not criticize another's work, but to deliver a work that they potentially adopt. Analogous to how scolding a child is destructive, whereas leading the child to a new understanding is constructive. A tired sick person can revert to sulking instead. Not constructive.

also exchanges starting to make a new address after every deposit (and users getting smarter and doing the same)

The network value factor lends the price attractor its parabolic progress during linear network expansion.  Anything which is not a decline in adoption rate is massively bullish in the long run.  Just a matter of time.

I'd look to transaction count relative to number of addresses. While it is possible they could move in tandem due to independent factors, it is somewhat unlikely. So far it looks like both point to increased usage, and anecdotal factors (bitpay/coinbase signups) seem to support that. The rate of growth is modest though, in line with historical trends rather than accelerating.

hd wallets are starting to get used more and more, too. That should put some upward pressure on the address count, too.

I don't think the amount of used Bitcoin addresses matters in relation to anything. There's been a big number of Bitcoin mixers lately though. Maybe it's because of that.

Price low,
number of bitcoin adresses all time-highish

https://blockchain.info/charts/n-unique-addresses?timespan=2year&showDataPoints=false&daysAverageString=7&show_header=true&scale=1&address=

Payment details were sent in a PM several times with all subsequent PMs not receiving a reply from you. Haha, nice excuse (you won't take them from another username that is clearly me or which you can easily verify by asking me questions about details only I would know from when we used to be friends). I guess you are short on funds. Rather I assume you felt I was taking advantage (if so, that is a stingy myopia, because I was genuinely trying to find and suggest solutions to flaws and I did meet the precise requirement of the simple contract we stipulated).

And you even replied to the first (not subsequent) stating you didn't do such payments immediately and they get done within 14 days. Nothing ever arrived. The mods hereby have my permission to review the PMs in any of my accounts if you need some assistance to verify.

And that contract was when BTC was higher ($600 afair), because I immediately cashed out the BTC I did receive from the others who honored their contract.

My BTC address has never changed, since the time you are were giving me BTC to distribute to typhoon victims. It is a localbitcoins account in the name on my birth certificate (my real name which you know as matter of fact). So your implied claim about not being able to verify my identity fails on several levels.

P.S. I don't expect any BTC from you now. I moved on. I wasn't intending to bring it up, but you do by stating that the other accounts were not AM, but they were all me. So if that was the delusion you were using to support your fraud on me, then it is hereby refuted.

P.S.S. Apparently the same region of the Philippines was well prepared when another super typhoon hit this month. So improvement has been achieved.


Edit: I am okay with the outcome because the technical insight shared which fulfilled the requirements of the contract (which your Monero developers may or may not think is of limited value) also elucidated to myself how to do ring signatures correctly (which IMO no Cryptonote coins do yet afaik). I nearly always prefer increased knowledge over remuneration, if the two conflict.

What?! I asked the payment details in my PM to TheFascistMind (and never got them). Obviously I cannot take them from anyone else just because he claims to be a person I owe money.