McAfee’s Dick Math: illuminating Bitcoin’s ACCELERATING price

26일 전

Dr. Albert Bartlett stated, “The greatest shortcoming of the human race is our inability to understand the exponential function.”

Imagine a caretaker that comes to check on his lily pond once a month. It requires 36 visits (i.e. months) for the pond to be completely covered with lily pads. But on the 35th visit the pond is only half covered. If not thinking in terms of exponential math, the typical human caretaker’s linear extrapolating, visual mind will be fooled into thinking there’s 35 more visits after the 35th visit before the pond will be fully covered.

Visual inspection of the following long-term Bitcoin price charts fools most humans to conclude that Bitcoin is “decelerating” more than it is.

The myopia is driven by:

1. A logarithmically scaled vertical, price axis which renders as visual “deceleration” any actual price acceleration which less than the chosen log scaling factor.

2. Comparing all the ATH price peaks to each other, presuming that they’re all topologically equivalent, when in fact they’re not.

There’s a repeating topological feature or fractal pattern `1-2-3-4-5` which repeats as `3-5-6-7-8` and `6-8-9-10-11`. Note `11` has not occurred yet.

McAfee tweeted May 2019:

“Bitcoin over \$400,000 in two years??? Anyone who can add and subtract, and who has even the slightest comprehension of point-set topology, knows, absolutely, that it can't be less than one mil within two years. Does no-one study math anymore?? WTF people?”

And tweeted:

“When I predicted Bitcoin at \$500,000 by the end of 2020, it used a model that predicted \$5,000 at the end of 2017. BTC has accelerated much faster than my model assumptions. I now predict Bitcoin at \$1 million by the end of 2020. I will still eat my dick if wrong.”

McAfee’s original July 2017 “eat my dick” tweet presumably correlated the future `10` peak to extant `4` and `7` peaks.

Thus McAfee presumably performed a model calculation (presumably much more sophisticated than this but perhaps approximated by) roughly comparing the regression fit of `1-2-4`, `3-5-7` and `6-8-10`. Noting that `10` had not yet occurred when McAfee published the said July 2017 tweet. McAfee assumed a model acceleration that would be roughly equivalent to the acceleration of `3-5-7` and this projected a model price of roughly `\$5000` at the end of 2017. My topological study isn’t sophisticated enough (yet) to know how or if he was able to pinpoint a peak for the end of 2017. I am just focused on mathematically explaining roughly how he presumably arrived at the acceleration of the model.

The following Bitcoin price data is lifted from my prior comment post on this topic 6 months ago in May 2019. I suggest also reading that linked post after reading this blog.

The `x` axis is days since Bitcoin’s launch (or since first data point) and `y` axis is price. First, the `1-2-4`:

Next, the `3-5-7`:

Finally, the `6-8-10` prediction model before `10` occurred:

The relative acceleration is the computed `C` data point. Remember from differential calculus that the second derivative `2C` of `A + Bx + Cx²` is the acceleration and the first derivative `B + 2Cx` is the velocity.

Note the acceleration `C` for `3-5-7` and `6-8-10` were presumed to be more or less equivalent (with insignificant differences in my computation being possibly attributed to using slightly different price data points and/or probably a lower level of holistic, mathematical sophistication in my topological model).

Yet as McAfee noted May 2019 when he increased his prediction to \$1 million, that Bitcoin had accelerated (and I compute by an order-of-magnitude!) during the actual `6-8-10` outcome:

My simplistic, non-holistic “topological” methodology for modeling the predicted price of `11` is to compare `1-4-5`, `3-7-8` and `6-10-11`. First, the `1-4-5`:

Next, the `3-7-8`:

Finally, the `6-10-11` at same acceleration of `3-7-8` and `11` arbitrarily at the end of 2020:

Without an increase in acceleration, that predicts only a maximum of `\$42,000` before the end of 2020.

Yet the increase in acceleration has been on the order-of-a-magnitude, so the `6-10-11` at order-of-magnitude increase in the acceleration of `3-7-8` and `11` arbitrarily at the end of 2020:

That presumption raises the maximum predicted price to `\$154,000` before the end of 2020.

Yet my simplistic method lacks a model for the change in the acceleration over time, which would require a cubic regression fit for `A + Bx + Cx² + Dx³`. Given that `6-10-11` will be of much greater duration compared to `3-7-8` than `6-8-10` compared to `3-5-7`, there will be more than an order-of-magnitude acceleration.

Additionally my model doesn’t account for the sudden change in velocity and acceleration for the final moonshot price rises to `5`, `8`, and `11`, because my model is not a complete point-set topological space model. All the data points need to be factored into a holistic model. For example, the above three data point model has the maximum price above `\$100,000` at the May 14, 2020 halving (i.e. 4144 days); whereas, other clues I’ve found are indicating \$26 – \$78k before the halving event.

McAfee is now claiming \$2 million before the end of 2020, which would require the following acceleration in an overly simplistic, quadratic regression model:

The slope of the moonshot to `5` from `\$0.56` on April 4 (`816` days) to `\$19` on June 8 (`881` days) was `\$0.28` daily. The slope of the moonshot to `8` from `\$99` on September 28 (`1723` days) to `\$1241` on November 30 (`1787` days) was `\$18` daily. The time duration from `8` to `11` at end of 2020 divided by the duration from `5` to `8` will be factor of `2.85`. If at the May 2020 halving event, then `2.6`. The slope could thus conceivably easily rise into the `\$30,000` per day range (`(18 ÷ 0.28) ^ 2.85 = \$143k` or `(18 ÷ 0.28) ^ 2.6 = \$51k` daily), which for a 65 day duration would be \$1.95 million.

I’m reasonably convinced that McAfee is probably correct, because if I measure an equivalent length moonshot into `11` from current price levels on a live version of the complete Bitcoin price history chart, then I get some price ranging from \$1.2 million to \$3 million.

The mistake nearly everyone is making is looking at the gradual price rise to `10` instead of the moonshot 65 day price rises into `5` and `8`. They make this mistake because they’re not grouping the point-sets into a topological space.

Bitcoin is about to shock the hell out of everyone.

And in more ways than one, because Core Bitcoin will likely also be destroyed at the halving event. Most everyone is going to be bewildered and lose everything. Especially likely many arrogant Bitcoin maximalists who ignored my detailed explanations and warnings.

Sort Order:  trending
·  25일 전

I believe McAfee is still lowballing.

The acceleration is not a continuous acceleration, it is like several booster rockets that have yet to fire.

The adoption curve has two components, the really early geeks, and the early adopters. Between these two, you have the pit of despair, or the chasm, where either normies start adopting or it becomes yesterday's geek play thing.
Crossing that chasm is at least a x10 boost in acceleration.

And, if that was all, we might not make McAfee's 1 mill mark (by a couple of months)

BUT! we have several other accelerators.

• Flight from The US dollar
• Flight from cash (as banks have ATM problems, then staying open problems...)
• Gold price spiking
• First major retailer accepts bitcoin/cryptos
• Trade deals moving to bitcoin
• and more

My only concern with this much acceleration is how soon does bitcoin break all the ETFs, and then soon after, when bitcoin goes no bid.

·
·  25일 전

BUT! we have several other accelerators.

Also the institutional money pouring in. PlanB published the stock-to-flows (S/Fs) model which is presumably causing many institutional investors to realize Bitcoin has a model for its valuation. This may also cause more people to front run the minted Bitcoin block reward halving than in prior halvings.

And the flight from all currencies around the world other than the dollar, as all economies peripheral to the USD reserve stumbling into the Minsky Moment. The HKD peg will also soon break, Hong Kong may be eventually subject martial law, war with Iran, BREXIT, militant 2020 POTUS election, confidence in fiscal discipline overrun by socialists/protesters in Argentina/Chile (Chile agrees to enshrine guaranteed government obligation to universal right to free welfare for everything in an upcoming rewritten Constitution), etc..

I elaborated on and summarized what billionaire hedge fund mgr Ray Dalio recent statements.

My only concern with this much acceleration is how soon does bitcoin break all the ETFs, and then soon after, when bitcoin goes no bid.

I emailed to warn Bakkt (also posted on the CEO’s Medium blog) that all their “anyone can spend” BTC will be donations taken by the miners at the halving event if the SegWit occurs as Craig Wright has warned, unless they change to using legacy addresses that begin with `1` instead of a `3`. They ignored me of course.

McAfee rightly points out that the real supply of transferable Bitcoin is probably only ~10 million BTC because of lost private keys.

And remember I posit that Craig promised to dump ~1 million BTC Core (not his legacy BTC which he will split before) tokens on the exchanges around the time of the May 14, 2020 halving event. He filed a public notice so he could legally sell less than 5% of Bitcoin’s total outstanding shares and even now Craig is pretending that the \$2 billion dumping will be forced on the David Kleiman estate. I posit that the entire Kleiman-as-Satoshi rumor and court case was/is an elaborate preplanned ruse, setup by the powers-that-be who created the 666 Bitcoin. IOW, Craig intentionally sued himself on purpose via Ira Kleiman. I speculate that Satoshi Nakamoto is just a fictitious name for a think thank of the remnants of the powerful families who control this world. Craig Wright is just a poster child clown they are using in a circus of deception to achieve their aims of global domination, control and enslavement.

So AFAICS the powers-that-be need to drive the price of Bitcoin skyhigh before the halving for at least two reasons:

1. So when they crash the price of Bitcoin (actually only Core will crash in price, but we will not be able to differentiate pricing initially because afaik legacy Bitcoin doesn’t trade separately on any major exchanges yet) and attack SegWit, the miners will be forced to (seek more income and thus) mine the legacy chain and partake of the SegWit booty taking (as many as can fit into each block and last time I checked there were 7 million BTC in SegWit addresses), which will crater the systemic hashrate on the Core chain but the mining difficulty will be stuck skyhigh, thus the Core chain will find a new block perhaps once a week or once a month. Core’s mining difficulty may never reset without manual intervention,and any such manual intervention would thus mean Core would no longer be a decentralized proof-of-work system. I posit if it occurs, this self feeding downward spiral is going to send Core to ~\$0.

2. All of us hodling BTC (even if legacy addresses) will receive a free airdrop of Core shit coins whether we like it or not. And we will owe income taxes on the full nosebleed Bitcoin price before the attack at the time Craig initiated the private chain which forces Core to fork. Federal income taxes are unconstitutional in the U.S. Constitution, but that won’t help us. Tax authorities do not let you carry forward 100% of losses to offset future capital gains, and you still have to pay the income due by April 2021 anyway! Thus the higher the price before the attack, the more income taxes we will owe. But by the time we get to sell those Core tokens (which necessarily must be after the attack because we are not privy to the private chain until Craig releases after initiating the attack dumping his split Core on the exchanges) those Core shitcoins will be worth-less.

And this focusing of all the Bitcoin into the hands of the whales is going to cause Bitcoin to go no ask, thus driving the price through the moon and on to Neptune and outer reaches of the Milky Way galaxy so to speak.

Nouriel Roubini points out probably correctly that Bitcoin has a Gini coefficient worse than North Korea. And the posited SegWit attack will concentrate the Gini coefficient even more and thus ring of Biblical prophesy:

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation+17&version=NIV

Babylon, the Prostitute on the Beast

9 “This calls for a mind with wisdom. The seven heads are seven hills on which the woman sits. 10 They are also seven kings. Five have fallen, one is, the other has not yet come; but when he does come, he must remain for only a little while. 11 The beast who once was, and now is not, is an eighth king. He belongs to the seven and is going to his destruction.

12 “The ten horns you saw are ten kings who have not yet received a kingdom, but who for one hour will receive authority as kings along with the beast. 13 They have one purpose and will give their power and authority to the beast. 14 They will wage war against the Lamb, but the Lamb will triumph over them because he is Lord of lords and King of kings—and with him will be his called, chosen and faithful followers.”

15 Then the angel said to me, “The waters you saw, where the prostitute sits, are peoples, multitudes, nations and languages. 16 The beast and the ten horns you saw will hate the prostitute. They will bring her to ruin and leave her naked; they will eat her flesh and burn her with fire. 17 For God has put it into their hearts to accomplish his purpose by agreeing to hand over to the beast their royal authority, until God’s words are fulfilled. 18 The woman you saw is the great city that rules over the kings of the earth.”

The passage ostensibly refers to the seven hills of Rome and/or Jerusalem, which is the great city that (even if surreptitiously) rules over the kings (i.e. top-down enslavers) of the earth.

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation+13&version=NIV

16 It also forced all people, great and small, rich and poor, free and slave, to receive a mark on their right hands or on their foreheads, 17 so that they could not buy or sell unless they had the mark, which is the name of the beast or the number of its name.

18 This calls for wisdom. Let the person who has insight calculate the number of the beast, for it is humanity’s number. That number is 666.

0.666 is 2/3. Number of the Beast might be the majority rule over the minority and the Babylonian effects it enables. In Byzantine agreement theory which considers possibly duplicitous voters, 2/3 threshold for the majority is the optimal balance between safety and liveness. 2/3 majorities are apparently the most stable threshold for voting. Too close to 50% oscillates with successive votes potentially working against each other (e.g. UK’s current Brexit).

Humans demand surety. We want insurance for everything. We will not accept the will of God. We herd together to subject (enslave) each other to our demands for surety like dumb sheep who will herd themselves right over a cliff.

5 The beast was given a mouth to utter proud words and blasphemies and to exercise its authority for forty-two months. 6 It opened its mouth to blaspheme God, and to slander his name and his dwelling place and those who live in heaven. 7 It was given power to wage war against God’s holy people and to conquer them. And it was given authority over every tribe, people, language and nation. 8 All inhabitants of the earth will worship the beast—all whose names have not been written in the Lamb’s book of life, the Lamb who was slain from the creation of the world.

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation+14&version=NIV

9 A third angel followed them and said in a loud voice: “If anyone worships the beast and its image and receives its mark on their forehead or on their hand, 10 they, too, will drink the wine of God’s fury, which has been poured full strength into the cup of his wrath. They will be tormented with burning sulfur in the presence of the holy angels and of the Lamb. 11 And the smoke of their torment will rise for ever and ever. There will be no rest day or night for those who worship the beast and its image, or for anyone who receives the mark of its name.” 12 This calls for patient endurance on the part of the people of God who keep his commands and remain faithful to Jesus.

13 Then I heard a voice from heaven say, “Write this: Blessed are the dead who die in the Lord from now on.”

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation+16&version=NIV

10 The fifth angel poured out his bowl on the throne of the beast, and its kingdom was plunged into darkness. People gnawed their tongues in agony 11 and cursed the God of heaven because of their pains and their sores, but they refused to repent of what they had done.

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Samuel+8&version=NIV

6 But when they said, “Give us a king to lead us,” this displeased Samuel; so he prayed to the Lord. 7 And the Lord told him: “Listen to all that the people are saying to you; it is not you they have rejected, but they have rejected me as their king. 8 As they have done from the day I brought them up out of Egypt until this day, forsaking me and serving other gods, so they are doing to you. 9 Now listen to them; but warn them solemnly and let them know what the king who will reign over them will claim as his rights.”

10 Samuel told all the words of the Lord to the people who were asking him for a king. 11 He said, “This is what the king who will reign over you will claim as his rights: He will take your sons and make them serve with his chariots and horses, and they will run in front of his chariots. 12 Some he will assign to be commanders of thousands and commanders of fifties, and others to plow his ground and reap his harvest, and still others to make weapons of war and equipment for his chariots. 13 He will take your daughters to be perfumers and cooks and bakers. 14 He will take the best of your fields and vineyards and olive groves and give them to his attendants. 15 He will take a tenth of your grain and of your vintage and give it to his officials and attendants. 16 Your male and female servants and the best of your cattle[c] and donkeys he will take for his own use. 17 He will take a tenth of your flocks, and you yourselves will become his slaves. 18 When that day comes, you will cry out for relief from the king you have chosen, but the Lord will not answer you in that day.”

19 But the people refused to listen to Samuel. “No!” they said. “We want a king over us. 20 Then we will be like all the other nations, with a king to lead us and to go out before us and fight our battles.”

21 When Samuel heard all that the people said, he repeated it before the Lord. 22 The Lord answered, “Listen to them and give them a king.”

Lyrics:

So, so you think you can tell
Heaven from Hell,
Blue skys from pain.
Can you tell a green field
From a cold steel rail?
A smile from a veil?
Do you think you can tell?

And did they get you to trade
Hot ashes for trees?
Hot air for a cool breeze?
Cold comfort for change?
And did you exchange
A walk on part in the war
For a lead role in a cage?

How I wish, how I wish you were here.
We're just two lost souls
Swimming in a fish bowl,
Year after year,
Running over the same old ground.
What have we found?
The same old fears.
Wish you were here.

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation+18&version=NIV

2 With a mighty voice he shouted:

“‘Fallen! Fallen is Babylon the Great!’[a]
She has become a dwelling for demons
and a haunt for every impure spirit,
a haunt for every unclean bird,
a haunt for every unclean and detestable animal.
3 For all the nations have drunk
The kings of the earth committed adultery with her,
and the merchants of the earth grew rich from her excessive luxuries.”

Threefold Woe Over Babylon’s Fall

9 “When the kings of the earth who committed adultery with her and shared her luxury see the smoke of her burning, they will weep and mourn over her. 10 Terrified at her torment, they will stand far off and cry:

“‘Woe! Woe to you, great city,
you mighty city of Babylon!
In one hour your doom has come!’

11 “The merchants of the earth will weep and mourn over her because no one buys their cargoes anymore

Haha, world has changed so much. Quoting some comments on the following 1970s live concert video:

Stadium full of Californians rocking out to a band with a Confederate flag as a backdrop.. and having the time of their lives. Weird how things change.

Look how beautiful Americans and America once was...

And that's how concerts should look like ...not everyone with a fu**ng phone in their hands to later upload a sht quality video on youtube...

something about females in the 1970's...not being made up or plastic looking....just them being them! My how times have changed! #natruallybeautiful

Bring me to that concert and shoot me the next day, my life's been lived

Life was so good back then! My girlfriend and I would hitchhike to the beach and spend the weekend. We'd sleep in a crash pad - you could always find friendly people who would share space and love. We had no fear. I ran away to the Caribbean when I was 17. Tried to see Led Zeppelin in Florida - was it 1971? - but for the first time ever, they were checking bags and I ended up spending the night in jail with about 150 other hippies! lol! Missed the concert but had a great time. I came back to the USA wearing hip huggers so low my pubic hair almost showed, a tiny crop top, and flip-flops, with a baby on my hip. They probably wouldn't let me fly today dressed like that! People communicated - didn't have their faces stuck in a phone or computer. I've loved my wonderful life! I'm so glad I grew up when I did.

Lyrics:

Just one more fix, Lord, might do the trick
One hell of a price for you to get your kicks

Comment:

Eerie story: after a night of partying in Jacksonville, Lynyrd Skynyrd guitarist Gary Rossington was involved in a car accident, which he survived; he was drunk and high at the time of the accident. Prior to this, the band members had been known for indulging in both drugs and alcohol. Ronnie Van Zant had started to have a "creepy feeling that things were going against [them]," so he wrote this song as a warning. Three days after the album's release, the plane crash happened and killed most of the band members.

·
·
·  25일 전

indeed, many of these things have a high probability of happening.

The thing is, the opposing forces, the light, is going to have an even more dramatic effect.

And if you understand astrology, God's clock, Jupiter is now in Sagittarius meaning over the next 8 years money will be completely changed.

So, instead of everyone paying that big bill to the IRS, i feel that everyone will stop paying taxes as they come to a realization that the govern-cement isn't giving them anything for their hard earned dollars.

·
·
·  23일 전

" That number is 666."

I have read that is a mistranslation, and it is actually 616.

glad to see that you still active. So far I have learned a lot from your old writings.

Since your are both well educated in consensus and in probability theory I have two concerns:

First concern is the build-in a priori assumption that Bitcoin is a store-of-value at all. Free from hindsight: 1634-1637 a tulip bulb also was a solid store for value, but on the ontological level it lags the thermo-dynamically hard-properties of a piece of gold.

Every extrapolation-based model implies, that the scaleability-trilemma is solved ON-chain... which is a strong assumption. The "coin" other than most people think, is an emergent property of the replicated state machine. The coin is not "zeros and ones" and it is not just the sum of all locally stored "copies". In fact there are no copies of the blockchain or the coin, because redundancy is bottom up and never top down. A part of the system (the single process/node) cant hold the emergent property of the replicated state machine. So coins only sit in the grid. Mutualy shared information does not make a copy. A copy is something with the same properties. I mean this is trivial for you but most people still don´t get it.

Their existence is directly dependent on the miners profitability and the miners profitability as far as I understood is dependent on >>ON<<-chain scaling.

Bitcoins correctness is only guarantied by constant validation of the distributed state. It is not quiescent. Even when there are no/not enough transactions, miners still need to validate. Ergo Bitcoins grid-storage is RAM and not ROM. Coins should not be considered as permanent or as Szabo calls it "secure property titles".

Second point is the mathematical rigor: Markets are fat tail distributed right? Hence convergence to the real mean is not observable in real time. Why you bother with those "predictions" at all? Even Nicks co-integration to PlanB´s prediction is based on a violation of the law of large numbers... I mean your reconstruction is rigorous because its not a prediction and has no strong assumptions but the object of your study, the prediction of MCAfee is just bogus?

·
·  26일 전

Thanks for raising these points. I’ve been discussing these issues recently in private email, especially in debate with precious metal bugs such as @r0achtheunsavory (aka realr0ach). And it’s good to summarize here in public now.

but on the ontological level it lags the thermo-dynamically hard-properties of a piece of gold.

The tangible mass of proof-of-work, which is all the mining hardware, is detached from the transferable information value. But I fail to see how the tangible mass is any less tangible than for gold.

Resources are burned to mine both gold and proof-of-work generated tokens. Idealized mining that is 100% efficient would burn no electricity and only burn the depreciation of the mining hardware due to Moore’s law.

Bitcoins correctness is only guarantied by constant validation of the distributed state. It is not quiescent. Even when there are no/not enough transactions, miners still need to validate. Ergo Bitcoins grid-storage is RAM and not ROM. Coins should not be considered as permanent or as Szabo calls it "secure property titles".

Ditto gold. Nothing is permanent. Would violate the inexorable trend to universal maximum entropy.

Gold can’t be used as currency anymore because it requires physical exchange but most of our transactions these days are virtual. And exchange requires market makers. Physical market makers can be rubberhosed by the authorities. Decentralized, virtualized market makers can in theory play Whac-A-Mole with Uncle Sam.

Every extrapolation-based model implies, that the scaleability-trilemma is solved ON-chain... which is a strong assumption.

Bitcoin is not intended to scale. It will be a 666 global reserve currency to enslave us.

Their existence is directly dependent on the miners profitability and the miners profitability as far as I understood is dependent on >>ON<<-chain scaling.

The price rises and mining hashrate can adjust to the profitability of the block reward at any price. The only requirements is that hashrate be higher than anyone in the world can 50+% attack. Also there’s another theoretical problem if the transaction fees become worth more than the minted block reward, but a rather small oligarchy of miners has an incentive not to cheat each other to create a death spiral. They will know which of them has defected.

In fact there are no copies of the blockchain or the coin, because redundancy is bottom up and never top down. A part of the system (the single process/node) cant hold the emergent property of the replicated state machine. So coins only sit in the grid. Mutualy shared information does not make a copy.

Agreed there is only one truth, which is very low entropy and highly ordered. And thus totalitarian and not resilient nor antifragile. Just like fiat currencies (they also don’t fork).

The one-chain-to-rule-them-all of proof-of-work as designed by Satoshi also has a poison pill game theory economics to kill all forks. I covered that in the Long-term advance notice and Rogue Wave threads at `bitcointalk.org`.

Note I think I have a design for a decentralized solution to this issue. I don’t see Bitcoin as the solution for mankind, only for blue-pilled zombie-kind. We red-pilled, awake, sapient humans will need a more resilient and relativistic form of proof-of-work.

Second point is the mathematical rigor: Markets are fat tail distributed right? Hence convergence to the real mean is not observable in real time. Why you bother with those "predictions" at all? Even Nicks co-integration to PlanB´s prediction is based on a violation of the law of large numbers... I mean your reconstruction is rigorous because its not a prediction and has no strong assumptions but the object of your study, the prediction of MCAfee is just bogus?

We all die but while we are alive we should not ignore the local orders around us, unless we want to go off into random loony state such as John Nash did for a while.

PlanB’s model probably fails when the opportunity cost to expand mining is less than the interest being paid in on global, sovereign Bitcoin denominated bonds in the post-dollar, reserve after 2028 or 2032.

Bitcoin can’t be worth 100% of all financial assets in the world. That would require the world stop. Even PlanB acknowledges that. He wonders whether his model will cease when the S/F ratio is the same as for gold. I don’t think so. I think Bitcoin’s marketcap will worth an order-of-magnitude more than gold.

P.S. Thank you to @appreciator, @likwid et al for the huge upvotes on this blog. Appreciate the gesture.

·
·
·  25일 전

Thanks for your great responses! :)

·
·

This post is promoted by @tipU voting service under #newsteem rules funded by lauch3d :)
The upvotes are not profitable and 20% of the payment is donated to @steem.dao and other steem projects.

·  24일 전

Cryptotourist wrote at the BCTalk forum:

@roachtheunsavory (aka realr0ach) wrote:

Cryptotourist wrote:

I still don't know exactly what to make of Anonymint's claims

Anonymint knows what he's posting is complete bullshit because you can't have a sky high Bitcoin price without mining cost of production expanding by orders of magnitude to match it. If we go by the same metrics as the last pump and dump scam hitting around \$20k with \$3k cost of production, for Anonymint's "\$1 million Bitcoin" claim after just a single halving, you would need the equivalent of \$150,000 cost of production to facilitate the same pump and dump scam to \$1 million.

Now lets sing Kumbaya together, and pray that McAfee's future sacrifice will not be in vain. ::rolleyes::

r0ach, then you need to explain how the Bitcoin price attained a multiple in excess of `30` of the stock-to-flows price in the past? So with a S/Fs model price of \$100k in 2020, and a potential multiple as high as `30` due to the acceleration and potential increase in front running the halving under way, that implies a \$3 million price in 2020 is plausible.

Shown on the above chart is a multiple of `21` for the `\$16.85` closing price, but intraday price peaked above `\$30`.

The cost of production rises as systemic hashrate does. If we accept your claim that cost of production must be some minimum fraction of the block reward (and by what theory can you assert there must be such a relationship?), your argument distills down to an inability to manufacture or repurpose enough mining equipment fast enough. So perhaps even GPUs will become profitable for mining Bitcoin again for a while.

Also keep in the mind that of the ~10 million BTC for which the private keys have not been lost, about ~7 million of them (last time I checked) are stored in SegWit addresses which will be donated to the legacy miners in 2020 if the SegWit attack occurs (which I think will be the event that drives the price of the legacy Bitcoin skyhigh). Thus the block reward can be perhaps orders-of-magnitude higher than normally, which as I say may facilitate mining with GPUs again until all of the SegWit donations have been taken (only so many can fit in each block).

Which btw, means that while the SegWit attack is ongoing, the transaction fee attached to your legacy Bitcoin transaction must be greater than the value of the SegWit donations that can be taken instead of including your transaction in a block. Which is why mostly none of us will be able to sell Bitcoin at the \$1+ million price in 2020. By the time we are able to get our transaction included in the blockchain (2022?), the likelihood is much greater for us being walled off from doing so by the governments’ automatic nosebleed high income tax on obligatory airdropped Core tokens, capital controls, blockchain blacklists to be enforced by miners, proof-of-source-of-funds, KYC, AML, etc...

Dismiss the math of deterministic chaos (c.f. also) at your own peril.

·  25일 전

Great post even though i cant say im very familiar with the methodologies used to make the calculations.

If im honest i mainly consider these predictions absolute nonsense simply due to the presuppositions used, generally those that are seen as being accepted by the target audience.

But regardless, its interesting seeing a post like this, if only to experience what it looks like being deep in "the discussion" like you apparently are.

·
·  25일 전

Thanks for the candid feedback.

If I had a PhD in topological math, I would probably be able to make a more convincing mathematical argument as to why the topology I chose fulfills the requirements for a topological space. In topology they are looking for invariance of fixed points, and properties such as connectiveness, etc.. Refer to the Wikipedia and Quora links I provided in the blog.

Yet as I reason about the numbered key points I chose and my conceptualization of the repeating pattern I see, I find no other pattern which is rational and congruent to some consistent logic or axioms. So I think I have identified the rough sketch of the topological space.

If we trust that McAfee is in fact the math genius that many have vouched he is, and we can see there’s some basis, then I must presume he has worked out the more complete point-set topology using the full suite of numerical methods and algorithms he would be familiar with in his PhD education.

Unfortunately I do not have enough free time right now to go learn a whole new field of higher mathematics and all the expert methodologies employed in the field. So I have to take some reasonable short-cut that is readily available to me.

If we are correct about the topology indicating a move `10-11` analogous to `4-5` and `7-8`, then any comparable moonshot (just use your ruler on the chart) takes us easily to \$1 million.

Frankly I am hoping the price moves up gradually first into the halving maybe to \$30k or so, because if the price rises from \$10k to \$1+ million within 65 days, the exchanges are likely going to break. Transaction fees might skyrocket. Mempool backlog for transactions could become egregious. Many potential problems.

·  25일 전

I am reminded that String Theory is elegant, mathematically beautiful. However, that mathematical elegance can be used to describe almost any conceivable universe, and is not very useful to describe the one we're in exactly because of that.

@lauch3d well points out that tulips were not simply digits, but real world items and their value crashed not because of mathematical miscalculations, but real world issues. Maths work great in hindsight, but not so well in the real world to predict value. So many different events could utterly void this calculation I am boggled that effort is undertaken to make it.

War, pandemic, the ongoing solar minimum, gamma radiation burst, solar flare, censorship, corruption, a better DLT, on and on. There is no conceivable limit to the actual events that can not be calculated but that can be counted on to affect politics, finance, and people.

Your calculations could turn out to be right, but I'm not holding my breath. McAfee's dick is safe, because even he is not loony enough to cut it off no matter if he has to eat his words. Sure things never are, and people that tell you they are are either fools or scammers in my experience.

BTC is not calculations, even if most people think that's all it is (PoW). It's a poltical force, and war is politics by other means. Do note that living things, which people are, never actually increase in population exponentially. At least, not without plummeting in population with equal vigor. BTC only has value because people give it value, and people are frangible.

·
·  25일 전

BTC is not calculations, even if most people think that's all it is (PoW). It's a poltical force, and war is politics by other means.

Indeed. And deterministic chaos math applies to such interrelated complex systems. All those factors may show up as patterns in price chart. Armstrong’s computer can predict “black swans” such as 9/11 because the markets move in anticipation of the event (some people knew ahead of the event and for example shorted the airlines and thus these fat tail events are really not entirely black).

Do note that living things, which people are, never actually increase in population exponentially. At least, not without plummeting in population with equal vigor.

Everything plummets eventually including even our solar system. Yet that’s vacuous while the distant future collapse of what birthed exponentially is still alive. Saplings grow exponentially to oak trees, but oaks trees neither grow to the moon nor cease to have a relevant existence.

I am reminded that String Theory is elegant, mathematically beautiful. However, that mathematical elegance can be used to describe almost any conceivable universe, and is not very useful to describe the one we're in exactly because of that.

Indeed any universal model devolves to unbounded entropy over unbounded time and thus the undifferentiated multiverse where the past, present, and future all exist simultaneously and so that nothing exists.

Our perception of our existence requires the lack of an omniscient total ordering. That total ordering may exist in some sense theoretically, but it is imperceptible because perception is not frictionless. Without friction which allows for the existence of partial orders and relativistic perception, perception would not exist. So then once we lose the perception of total order and complete information, our relativistic perception gives rise to all these phenomenon that we claim to exist and we attempt to employ mutual information to order our existence, but at scale of course nothing exists (i.e. rather is undifferentiated randomness) and everything devolves to unbounded entropy, yet the perception of that bound is never attained because discernible perception requires friction. If we could be omniscient we could not perceive our existence. Randomness or entropy (aka disorder) increases as the distribution of uncertainty becomes more uniform. So in unbounded entropy, everything is equiprobable, including the past, present, and future.

@lauch3d well points out that tulips were not simply digits, but real world items and their value crashed not because of mathematical miscalculations, but real world issues. Maths work great in hindsight, but not so well in the real world to predict value. So many different events could utterly void this calculation I am boggled that effort is undertaken to make it.

War, pandemic, the ongoing solar minimum, gamma radiation burst, solar flare, censorship, corruption, a better DLT, on and on. There is no conceivable limit to the actual events that can not be calculated but that can be counted on to affect politics, finance, and people

Because of friction there’s local order in chaos and friction gives rise to oscillation:

Armstrong wrote:

The interesting demonstration here is that (1) this is not my personal opinion, and (2) it illustrates that there is a hidden order within what appears to be chaos. Here is the output of our Chaos Modeling for the Dow Jones. This clearly illustrates that there are trading plateaus which exist where the market will trade and then breakout to a new plateau. This is taking the daily data of the Dow Jones Industrials from 1918 up until 1991.

The key here is this plot represents absolute PROOF that there is order behind the appearance of chaos. How can we even predict a turning point unless there is hidden order behind the false image of chaos.

Armstrong wrote:

Here is a photo of starlings flying. Not only do they comply with the cyclical movement patterns, but the group is neatly formed that even complies with the science of chaos. Look at this illustration of the Chaos formation of weather data. There are boundaries that confine all movement at the extremes. Chaos was discovered by weather. What on the surface appeared to be random, actually contained hidden order.

Edward Norton Lorenz (1917–2008) was an American mathematician and meteorologist, and a pioneer of chaos theory. He discovered the strange attractor notion and coined the term butterfly effect. His strange attractor illustrated that within what appeared to be random chaos, there was actually incredible hidden order. His discovery has illustrated that predicting the future is highly complicated because (1) we are dealing with a massive amount of variables not a single cause and effect, and (2) this complexity constitutes a nonlinear system that produces the unpredictability yet within defined outer parameters.

Within any data series if we are talking about weather or markets, to the uninitiated observer who does not see patterns in charts like the the movement of starlings, they only see trajectories that appear to jump around making hair-pin turns and reversing direction only to swing back and re-reverse without warning. This is the majority who buy or sell because the group in doing so and feel comfort in collective reinforcement.

Nevertheless, their chaotic random appearance of weather or markets with respect to the behavior is like Lorenz’s strange attractor always orbiting within the shape of the system in a orderly manner confined by the outer-boundaries. The strange attractor is the actual map of all the possible states within the system yet conform to the fascinating shape defined by those outer-boundary limitations on all movement.

The entire economy is still a non-linear system that on the surface is massively unpredictable from moment to moment, yet is strangely bound within predetermined confines. This is why I state that you CANNOT predict gold or any market in isolation. Everything is connected and there is a form to this madness.

Armstrong wrote:

Behavior began to appear and this seems to be an emergence that springs from large distributed systems of data. This phenomenon we also experience in our human existence. We may taste some food, then we just have to have it as often as possible for a brief while. We eat too much of it and then suddenly our taste for it declines. The same will happen with a new song we listen to over and over again and then cannot stand to hear it one more time. This is a behavior that emerges and the same appears in computers. It does not make it “alive” but this is actually cyclical development. In any large-scale distributed system of data, there will emerge a cyclical pattern of what data is being referred to most often.

Go to a casino and just watch a roulette table. In theory, every number has an equal chance of winning. But in reality, the numbers will be cyclical. Some numbers will never come up while others repeat. It does not matter what system you look at, it will always revert to a cyclical pattern. This is the secret of nature. Observe the roulette wheel closely. The reason the house changes dealers rotating them is because this changes the cycle on that table. The cycle is not YOUR luck that will emerge from a string of times you might gamble, The house cycle differs with each dealer and that is the key to running the casino. This is why the casino rotates dealers because they fall into cycles and like counting cards, with a keen eye and an understanding of complex cyclical systems, you can see the the patterns emerge. (for your information, if I go to a casino and play roulette, within 15 minutes they come and say they recognize me as a”player” and want my name; casino understand cycles).

What emerges from any system is the unforeseen behavior arising out of sufficiently large groups of raw data. The real father of Chaos Theory was Edward Norton Lorenz (1917-2008) who was an American mathematician and meteorologist. Lorenz was certainly THE pioneer in Chaos Theory. A professor at MIT, Lorenz was the first to recognize what is now called chaotic behavior in the mathematical modeling of weather systems.

During the 1950’s, Lorenz observed that there was a cyclical non-linear nature to weather yet the field relied upon linear statistical models in meteorology to do weather forecasting. It was like trying to measure the circumference of a circle with a straight edge ruler. His work on the topic culminated in the publication of his 1963 paper Deterministic Non-periodic Flow in the Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences, and with it, the foundation of chaos theory. During the early 1960’s, Lorenz had access to early computers. He was running what he thought would be random numbers and began to observe there was a duality of a hidden repetitive nature. He graphed the numbers that were derived from his study of convection rolls in the atmosphere. What emerged has been perhaps one of the most important discoveries in modern time.

Armstrong wrote:

This extraordinary complexity of that created the surface impression of chaos, hides amazing order hidden below. This Chaotic Behavior can be observed in many natural systems, from such things as weather to economics. Our problem has been mankind’s attempt to reduce everything he sees to simple minded one-dimensional cause and effect. This type of explanation of such behavior has restrained our ability to move forward in many fields, the least of which is not social-science that includes economics.

Deterministic Chaos may be the key to everything for within both nature and our social world, we are surrounded with complexity yet we try to rationalize everything to a single dimension unable to cope with the dynamics of the world in which we live.

We can’t employ math to predict where every leaf will fall onto your lawn. But large distributed systems of chaos (including markets or the Bitcoin phenomenon) have a statistical form of topological order which is distinct from random.

An exploration of topological properties of high-frequency onedimensional financial time series data using TDA

The results showed that EURUSD had both lower entropy and higher persistence in topological features than QN [quantum noise] data. This suggests that EURUSD data have properties that differ from random noise. The low correlation among the entropy calculations and persistence of topological features suggests that the persistence of H1 features tells us about a different feature than mutual information. The difference in persistence of H1 features between EURUSD and QN suggest that there is some additional useful information in the topological features. An investigation of what these topological features actually implies could be useful to further understand this topic.

·
·
·  24일 전

I cannot properly express my appreciation of your thoughtful and substantive reply, but neither can I agree that it addresses my central point: that BTC is unlikely to follow a calculable pattern in this world. Too many factors simply can't be reckoned with the relatively short history that has to date revealed impactors on BTC value, and they range from butterfly wings of little import to economic events that will result from the uncharted territory we are in with QE and negative interest rates potentially existential to BTC.

Consider population dynamics in Germany. Then consider how new impacts on German population affected it in the early 20th Century. Those impacts certainly were predictable, but the information enabling accurate predictions wasn't available to relevant parties at the time. We can look back now and say 'Well, that did this, and this did that. Perfectly within our models.' But prior to this and that those actors weren't part of the models, and those impacts weren't predicted, or even predictable. Today our models might include this and that, but I reckon it hubris to claim certainty, because no end of other impactors remain potential, and nominal to completely BTFO predictions.

It's nearly certain that various events will add influences to the system that is currently modeled, and that will dramatically change the results in unforseeable ways. Whether that's a new volcano in Iceland or Trump losing 2020 doesn't even matter. People are incapable of reckoning chaotic factors due to the very frictions of perception you well elucidated. In ancient systems, such as weather, long history enables us to reckon which factors are relevant. As you note weather is chaotic locally, but over long spans and wider regions it's relatively stable.

Predicting it, even with the massive amount of data we've collected, remains tentative still. It's noteworthy that massive political unrest over exactly predicting weather is ongoing today, with riots in Chile to secret government programs in Chinxui resulting from that disagreement. Ten years of BTC simply isn't nominal to incorporate such butterflies that might twist up it's digits like a tornado.

Like I said, you could end up right, but I'd be really surprised if events that have not affected BTC price, and thus are not influencing it's performance presently, don't before the end of 2020.

All that being said, I do wish you the best of luck. I think you need it in this endeavor.

Thanks!

·
·
·
·  24일 전

[…] that BTC is unlikely to follow a calculable pattern in this world. Too many factors simply can't be reckoned with the relatively short history that has to date revealed impactors on BTC value, and they range from butterfly wings of little import to economic events that will result from the uncharted territory we are in with QE and negative interest rates potentially existential to BTC.

I’m also employing expert information (which I have accumulated over the past years, c.f. also, also and also) which is addition to any information in Bitcoin price data.

If you read that comment post and dig into all the relevant linked information, it all fits together in a neat puzzle wherein I have figured out how the powers-that-be are going to destroy everyone who is hodling cryptocurrency at the May 14, 2020 halving event, yet simultaneously establish Bitcoin as their 666 global reserve currency asset exclusively for their subservient \$billionaires.

I have factored all the macro economic variables and everything you have included as variables into my holistic analysis. And so has the think tank of the powers-that-be who ostensibly created the diabolical Bitcoin and masterminded this globalized plan.

They’ve ostensibly been planning this for decades. It took me several years to unravel all the details of their plan.

So sit back and watch how information can reveal deterministic chaos and turn a “black” swan into a white swan.

Mark my words.

If you don’t subscribe to my world view even after exhaustively analyzing all of the information I have revealed in the relevant archives, then we will just have to agree to disagree until my predictions/expectations are falsified this coming May 14, 2020.

Note if the Bitcoin price has not made a significant new ATH before the halving event, then I will suspect that my timing for the SegWit attack is incorrect. And that will invalidate the timing of my thesis and the extra support for the \$1 million price. Because I presume the powers-that-be need a very high Bitcoin price at the halving event if they want to succeed with the SegWit attack by slowing the forked-off Core chain down to perhaps one new block found every week or month instead of every 10 minutes.

I ponder what will be the date that the powers-that-be (with their “fake Satoshi” puppet Craig Wright serving as the public face of the “attack”) start the private legacy fork? Cinco de Mayo?

Consider population dynamics in Germany. Then consider how new impacts on German population affected it in the early 20th Century. Those impacts certainly were predictable, but the information enabling accurate predictions wasn't available to relevant parties at the time. We can look back now and say 'Well, that did this, and this did that. Perfectly within our models.' But prior to this and that those actors weren't part of the models, and those impacts weren't predicted, or even predictable.

Everything was predictable for those whose model was holistic enough and included all the data that would have indicated such migration or whatever caused the population changes.

This is why Armstrong puts global information in his models even when asking his computer A.I. algorithms for models on specific countries. And he also includes non-economic data, such as current events from newspapers, acts of nature such a earthquakes/volcanos, results of political elections, etc..

It's nearly certain that various events will add influences to the system that is currently modeled, and that will dramatically change the results in unforseeable ways. Whether that's a new volcano in Iceland or Trump losing 2020 doesn't even matter.

It’s possible but highly unlikely that black swan event will occur to disrupt the rather short-term plan of the powers-that-be. Two decades to accomplish their Bitcoin world domination plan, is a very small window of time relative to abnormal black swans which they could not predict well, e.g. a major asteroid impact on the earth. They also factored the probability of these events into their plans. Armstrong’s models have detected cycles in earthquakes, volcanos, global warming/cooling, etc..

Scientists have now backtested a model of the sun’s magnetic fields which control the cycle in the sunspots which control our global cooling/warming (and this also appears to impact earthquakes and volcanos). This model indicates we are heading into a Maunder Minimum circa 2030.

There’s just not enough large-scale randomness in our earthly existence over a period of 2 decades to disrupt the powers-that-be.

Well that is unless for example they didn’t calculate/anticipate my technological capabilities and what I have up my sleeve to defeat them. But my plans will not come soon enough to stop this \$1 million Bitcoin price plan and the SegWit attack at the May 14, 2020 halving event.

Of course they probably did anticipate the technological designs for an alternative to Bitcoin which I have devised. So my challenge is to figure out how they plan to defeat such a design.

I’m playing 6D chess here. Wish you could get inside my mind.

All that being said, I do wish you the best of luck. I think you need it in this endeavor.

Absolutely. I am in for an unfathomable danger.

And even if I get one facet of the prediction correct, I will likely make a mistake on some detail which screws up the plans/designs I make.

I need help, but who to trust? And who is skilled/smart enough to help?

The powers-that-be have economies-of-scale. How many 180 IQ people do you reckon they have in these think tanks? Can they compartmentalize people with that high of an IQ? Or can they incentivize them to be diabolical? Or if your IQ is high enough do you come to the conclusion that there’s no other way forward anyway?

·
·
·
·
·  24일 전

Again, I have nothing but admiration and appreciation for this extensive and informative reply.

"If you read that comment post and dig into all the relevant linked information, it all fits together in a neat puzzle wherein I have figured out how the powers-that-be are going to destroy everyone who is hodling cryptocurrency at the May 14, 2020 halving event, yet simultaneously establish Bitcoin as their 666 global reserve currency asset exclusively for their subservient \$billionaires."

It will take me time to undertake to assess this information, so please accept my apologies for being unable to address this claim at present. I can neither dismiss it, nor confirm it now. However it dovetails with my deliberately vague and pessimistic expectations, which, frankly, surprises me, despite being amorphous enough to not be linked to specific events, such as the halving.

"Everything was predictable for those whose model was holistic enough and included all the data that would have indicated such migration or whatever caused the population changes."

These included migrations, but also two world wars, and an attempted Communist revolution between them. At the time, the myriad inputs which could have enabled researchers to generate more precise estimates were simply not possible due to tech contstraints and extant belief systems. One of Wilson's most influential advisors, 'the Colonel', certainly was amongst the prime movers during that time, and one extra shot of good scotch may have changed history. Given the enormous potential 'butterfly effect' even one pivotal individual can introduce in such desperate political clashes, while the general outcome of these events may have been estimable, it is not very likely that they would have resulted in very accurate population figures. For example, after WWII Patton was very unhappy with the suffering of native Germans, and may have personally enabled tens of thousands of individuals to survive via various mechanisms. Later yet, Gen. Smedley Butler was clearly unpredictable and did change history by revealing 'The Business Plot'. It is these kind of pivotal influences, and how they may concatenate or interfere mutually and with others, that strikes me as central to my general thesis. Given BTCs relatively low numbers of influential individuals compared to WWII, those individual rogue factors become more affective of predictability.

"It’s possible but highly unlikely that black swan event will occur to disrupt the rather short-term plan of the powers-that-be. Two decades to accomplish their Bitcoin world domination plan, is a very small window of time relative to abnormal black swans which they could not predict well, e.g. a major asteroid impact on the earth. They also factored the probability of these events into their plans. Armstrong’s models have detected cycles in earthquakes, volcanos, global warming/cooling, etc.."

I cannot fault you for temporizing, nor neglecting such events in your consideration, as the above discussion makes it obvious you have considered as many as you may reckon likely, and I will assume you did so rationally, given your unassailable adherence to reason IME. I am a skeptic almost from birth, and having burned me more than once with hubris, perhaps have resorted to insuperable belief in my errancy, and as a result project that on everyone else. That native impulse I concede has no basis in fact other than reading your words here, which I also concede I interpret through my cynicism. That may not mean you're wrong, but I'm gonna look =)

"Scientists have now backtested a model of the sun’s magnetic fields which control the cycle in the sunspots which control our global cooling/warming (and this also appears to impact earthquakes and volcanos). This model indicates we are heading into a Maunder Minimum circa 2030."

Good. However, @iceagefarmer regards that minimum to already be underway, and the 2019 agricultural season lends his alarmism considerable weight. The contrary warming propaganda is highly unlikely to be undertaken by instigators unaware of the solar cycles, yet the clashes may not eventuate per their plans. Humans are highly frangible. Greta could fall in love, or become outraged by a sandwich with crusts untrimmed. God only knows what impacts that could effect.

No AI or calculations could predict that, although deliberate matchmaking or something could. Greta's prominence may have precipitated such forethought, but I sure couldn't say so or no. Not sure Armstrong could either. I expect such variables are simply too many and low probability to be taken seriously. That is exactly the issue for me. Tens of thousands of individuals with potential to derange calculations to various degrees, like a flock of butterflies migrating early because some factory in Mexico has developed a new air freshener that unpredictably causes their pheromones to motivate them to do so. I simply can't accept all such variables could have been foreseen and nominally accounted for. If either of those variables comes up in the comments you recommend I read, I will concede only that I am incapable of being a better critic due to my personal lack of imagination, and then thank you for that valuable lesson.

"I’m playing 6D chess here. Wish you could get inside my mind."

Kudos. I am a crappy chess player. Another source of appropriate humility =p

"I need help, but who to trust? And who is skilled/smart enough to help?"

Personnel is the critical crux of my thesis. It's also a terrible weakness for me, and why I don't have any employees. I once fired and rehired a guy seven times in one day. Do not count on me for such a role LOL.

"The powers-that-be have economies-of-scale. How many 180 IQ people do you reckon they have in these think tanks?"

Thousands, all suffering from varying degrees of crippling hubris. Feynman was. I don't recall meeting any with that quality mental capacity that weren't.

"Can they compartmentalize people with that high of an IQ?"

Yes, but it definitely compromises their utility.

"...can they incentivize them to be diabolical?"

IME, it's not hard to do so with hubris impacted folks. This is why I consider criticism, shame, and regret to be my most valuable possessions.

"Or if your IQ is high enough do you come to the conclusion that there’s no other way forward anyway?"

I would not make that claim about me, but I am convinced that basic principles of physics render institutional power unsustainable, and utter freedom inevitable for our species. Decentralization is the cutting edge of all technological advance, because it increases the efficiency of tech. Every tech advance is an advance in decentralization, although there is a an ever decreasing lag time to disperse that tech. This results in temporary increases in the power of centralization, which has been advantaged as multiple advances across fields concatentate that power. However, the more advanced the tech, the shorter that lag time, and the greater the affect on power, so I also believe we have already passed peak centralization.

Eventually, however, the power of individuals is increased by every tech. Eventually decentralization renders centralization obsolete. It can only be prevented in one way: extinction of humanity. Anything short of that just changes the timeline.

Anyway, Imma look at the links above after business is handled tomorrow, God willing. I eagerly anticipate being schooled in the attempt. Nothing would please me more. In the likely event I am incompetent to reckon and address them, I'll thank you for that, and again commend you on your undertaking.

Every statement you make convinces me it is indeed commendable.

Thanks!

·
·
·
·
·
·  24일 전

Engaging discussion. Thanks.

One of Wilson's most influential advisors, 'the Colonel', certainly was amongst the prime movers during that time, and one extra shot of good scotch may have changed history. Given the enormous potential 'butterfly effect' even one pivotal individual can introduce in such desperate political clashes […] Gen. Smedley Butler was clearly unpredictable and did change history by revealing 'The Banker's Plot'. It is these kind of pivotal influences, and how they may concatenate or interfere mutually and with others, that strikes me as central to my general thesis.

Bear in mind the very long time frame of your example and the impacts that even very small changes in initial conditions could have metastasized over that long time frame given we are referring to population growth which is itself an exponential phenomenon.

Again I reiterate my point that Bitcoin as a functioning blockchain has only existed for a decade thus far and probably less than a decade more to go before the completion of the critical (de-)adoption/maturation phase of Bitcoin’s role in the world domination plan I have posited.

Given BTCs relatively low numbers of influential individuals compared to WWII, those individual rogue factors become more affective of predictability.

AFAICS, there’s nothing they (nor myself as potentially one of the “influential individuals”) can do this late in the game to change what I posit is going to occur on May 14, 2020 at the halving event. The Schelling point and Nash equilibrium (c.f. also, also and the Rogue Wave thread) is a “poison pill” that Satoshi designed into his longest chain rule for proof-of-work, which prevents anyone from defecting. There is only one logical choice for everyone, which is precisely a stable Nash equilibrium.

I could elaborate extensively on why influential actors have no economic degrees-of-freedom to deviate from the Nash equilibrium. Perhaps you could state some scenarios and I will attempt to respond to each in detail. For example, presume an influential actor wanted to somehow profit on the prior knowledge that the powers-that-be are going to drive the Bitcoin price skyhigh before the halving and then initiate the legacy Bitcoin restoration (aka the SegWit “anyone can spend” donations taking). How could they do so in a way that disrupts the plan or the plan’s economic and thus pricing effects? AFAICS, they can’t. If there was a way, I might be trying to do it. For example, I could approach the `trilema.com` dude (former DAO attacker) who self-reported having more than 0.5 million Bitcoins if I had a plan which would earn him more profit than participating in the SegWit booty taking (and he is also the original source of the logic for the eventual SegWit attack scenario).

Proof-of-work is decentralized and thus very difficult to disrupt. And its game theory prevents defection.

If you contemplated a very significant government might crackdown on Bitcoin right as they are trying to drive the price up before the halving, I would respond that Trump tried to get us out of Afghanistan but the powers-that-be arranged a false flag to keep our military committed there. There’s so much well defined topological order in the Bitcoin price chart because there’s so much low entropy control of the major factors, e.g. the very significant halving event which drives PlanB’s stock-to-flows model valuation is preprogrammed to occur every 4 years.

The downside of that is as you pointed out and I agreed with earlier, that longer-term Bitcoin is not antifragile because it does not tolerate forks. It is very low entropy because requires that one-longest-chain-to-rule-them-all total order. Dynamic systems with irreversible thermodynamics (i.e. past distinct from the future) require the existence of partial orders. This is why fiat money and the business cycle is so egregiously boom & bust. Before the formation of Federal Reserve in 1913, the economy had more frequent busts but those busts will not compare to the Great Depression or the Mother of All Busts coming circa ~2028 – 2032. The central banks kicked the can of the total order of debt growth far beyond any reasonable level. Totally destroyed the future of Western civilization.

I am a crappy chess player.

I’m also not an exceptional chess player presumably because it requires precisely computing a multitude of scenarios rapidly. I mean 6D conceptual “chess” (the figurative meaning of ‘chess’), wherein there’s perhaps less relevant permutations but more complexity of data to filter through to find the relevant, which is how I defined genius. My mind is more intuitive and visually mathematical and not exceptionally mechanically computational nor exceptional deep store of detailed memory. To overcome this, I have to be exceptional at choosing what to focus on.

Apologies if my prior post came across as hubris. I’m just a bit frustrated with not being able to impart all the details I what I have formulated in my mind (due to lacking time to communicate and apparently the volume of communication which would be required) and then being dismissed with the typical mayonnaise logic of “everything is random” so it is hopeless to try to unveil deterministic chaos.

In my prior post I stated one milestone which if not reached would cause me to significantly lower the likelihood of a \$1 million price in 2020. I might have a confirmation bias due to my world view. Maybe Bitcoin was created by a lone person in their garage and all the key design decisions such as a 4 year discontinuous halving cycle were just pulled out Satoshi’s arse. Lol.

I once fired and rehired a guy seven times in one day. Do not count on me for such a role LOL.

I finally realized I have a similar weakness. I gave up trying to hire and manage anyone. Anyone smart enough to really push the needle for me, also is too smart for me to manage them.

I do better when I just interact with those managing their own independent project where synergies naturally arise.

I would not make that claim about me, but I am convinced that basic principles of physics render institutional power unsustainable, and utter freedom inevitable for our species. Decentralization is the cutting edge of all technological advance, because it increases the efficiency of tech.

I’m also hoping for this. Otherwise I would have probably already swallowed a FUCKITALL pill. Devil in the details perhaps. I have been working on many technological details. Presumably others are also.

Every tech advance is an advance in decentralization, although there is a an ever decreasing lag time to disperse that tech.

I was also thinking about that today w.r.t. to this ZH article:

https://www.zerohedge.com/technology/rise-tech-totalitarianism

·
·
·
·
·
·
·  23일 전

I must confess I am increasingly aware I misinterpreted the intention of your OP. Honestly, given your demonstrated acuity, which I am unaccustomed to, I am not particularly surprised, but also note that to my credit this does not affect my considerations of your work.

"Perhaps you could state some scenarios and I will attempt to respond to each in detail."

I am incompetent to do so, and this is the core of my thesis: we can essay to consider the known unknowns, but the unknown unknowns are lurking in the outer darkness to lay waste to all our hopes and dreams nonetheless.

"Totally destroyed the future of Western civilization."

One of the central pillars of the free market is that fraud is not payable. In the aftermath of the meltdown coming, it will be all but impossible to claim this phase of that event is not utterly fraudulent. Market disruption that will be, but the West is plenty skookum to weather such a gale if it's overlords so desire. My fear is what they actually do desire, as it's not desirable from the standpoint of the common man, which is grossly apparent from the machinations undertaken to drive us there.

"I could elaborate extensively on why influential actors have no economic degrees-of-freedom to deviate from the Nash equilibrium."

A substantial part of my thesis is that folks apparently influential aren't all those influential. A significant actor may well presently be herding sheep in Kazakhstan. Eight years prior to the beginning of the Mongol Conquest Temuchin was not a powermonger, but an inconsequential shepherd stinking up the steppes.

What data is consequential is yet ineffable, as is the identity of the individual butterfly that flapped up Katrina.

"Proof-of-work is decentralized and thus very difficult to disrupt."

I refer you to USG warnings that the national electrical grid is susceptible to utter destruction by ~a dozen dedicated insurgents, which would effectively eliminate that PoW.

"Apologies if my prior post came across as hubris. I’m just a bit frustrated with not being able to impart all the details I what I have formulated in my mind (due to lacking time to communicate and apparently the volume of communication which would be required) and then being dismissed with the typical mayonnaise logic of “everything is random” so it is hopeless to try to unveil deterministic chaos."

I apologize in turn for dismissal of the estimable achievement in rational understanding you have undertaken with no little success with such drivel. I am incompetent to convey better that nothing is actually random, but that we are curious monkeys with gleams of understanding in our eyes rather than colossi striding across the galactic void wielding power in one hand and wisdom in the other. Don't feel bad I accused you of hubris, because no one is more accused of that by me than me, and no one has more reason to be humble than I.

I cannot fully express my gratitude that men like you exist today, apparently thirsting for criticism they yearn to be improved by, not sticking to their guns no matter what, but neither abandoning them until certainty they should convinces them. Right or wrong, that's the right road to reason.

Thanks!

Edit:

"Again I reiterate my point that Bitcoin as a functioning blockchain has only existed for a decade thus far and probably less than a decade more to go before the completion of the critical (de-)adoption/maturation phase of Bitcoin’s role in the world domination plan I have posited."

I reckon BTC is likely, as you yourself point out, to be part of larger plans stretching further back in time than BTC itself.

·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·  23일 전

One of the central pillars of the free market is that fraud is not payable.

Fraud is a free market activity. Survival of the fittest. Define fraud? Successful societies require property rights and cooperation. To the extent that fraud destroys those facets, it may be deleterious, yet it could also be beneficial by destroying a society which is itself a fraud— which is how I would described Western civilization today. The coming fraud free-for-all is a free market creative destruction phenomenon.

A significant actor may well presently be herding sheep in Kazakhstan.

Or writing this message from a \$300/mo rental house in Mindanao. Who formerly wrote million user adopted software from a Nipa Hut in the 1990s. Which prompted the Jews to come around offering to buy the venture in exchange for soon-to-be worth-less stock options.

What data is consequential is yet ineffable, as is the identity of the individual butterfly that flapped up Katrina.

But I already explained I do not think there is enough time for any butterfly effect to overcome the juggernaut inertia for what is coming on May 14, 2020. Of the ~10 million Bitcoins whose private keys are not lost, ~7 million are stored in “anyone can spend” SegWit addresses. If you don’t understand the myriad of details I have written in my (some now deleted) archives, then you would not share my holistic perspective.

"Proof-of-work is decentralized and thus very difficult to disrupt."

I refer you to USG warnings that the national electrical grid is susceptible to utter destruction by ~a dozen dedicated insurgents, which would effectively eliminate that PoW.

PoW difficulty scales to any level of systemic hashrate. Even one remaining miner running off of micro hydropower in some remote place in a rural area can sustain PoW.

The likelihood of knocking out all electrical power for the entire world (or even for the entire USA) is absolutely zero. Even an asteroid impact could not do that. Humans are ingenuous. There are so many ways to generate electricity. And with Bitcoin’s 10 minute block period, even shortwave radio can be employed for communication between mining nodes.

·
·
·
·
·
·  23일 전

More circumstantial evidence that I was getting too close to the truth. They deleted all the posts at BCTalk in the W.O. thread by THX 1138 which were attributed to “Shelby”. He was relaying messages to that forum for me. Compare:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=511107;sa=showPosts

http://archive.is/PRaHP

http://web.archive.org/web/20191119121015/https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=511107;sa=showPosts

Everyone should cease all activity at BCTalk. It is a disinformation gatekeeper controlled by the powers-that-be.

·  14일 전

Precisely Why Bitcoin Is Re-accelerating

The sudden rises in the Bitcoin price are due to sudden increases in the proof-of-work difficulty level. In the past that was due to onboarding better mining technologies. In 2020, this surge in difficulty will be due to massive funding from SegWit booty.

I commented on my subsequent blog Our Bitcoins Will Be Taken/Frozen By the Miners; Involuntary INCOME Tax on Frozen Bitcoin!:

EDIT: the stock-to-flows valuation model of a proof-of-work cryptocurrency is based on the cost of mining production. The marginal cost of mining rises to match the rise in mining rewards. Yet the average mining production costs rise faster than marginal cost, as the average efficiency of the mining hardware declines if price is rising very fast thus making a lot of inefficient mining hardware profitable again. Consequently hashrate rises slower and the most efficient mining hardware rises in value faster than marginal cost and mining rewards.

[…]

With the mining rewards rising to insane levels at the instant of the start of the posited SegWit “ANYONECANSPEND” donations redeeming because each block will redeems 100s or 1000s of Bitcoin donations as extra mining rewards (which what this blog is about), I suppose it might be plausible that GPUs become profitable for mining Bitcoin again until the most lucrative (e.g. large balances) of the SegWit donations have all been redeemed.

Don’t forget I recently reiterated that mining hardware is the tangible mass of a proof-of-work cryptocurrency, so thus it is a monetary component as also is separately the informational value stored in the private keys (i.e. both components have a monetary role to play!):

[…] suddenly no longer think so. It would require that the Herculean tangible mass of Bitcoin […] Bitcoin is just as tangible as gold, yet additionally has the incredibly important increase in utility because the transferable value is information and detached from the tangible mass.

Consequently the security of proof-of-work altcoins is going to become very vulnerable to 50+% attack with ASICs as the most efficient hardware is pulled to the blockchains that have the fastest rising mining rewards, i.e. blockchains with huge SegWit booties for miners. Perhaps this is the basis of Craig Wright’s warning about destroying the altcoins.

Six months ago I blogged in Secrets of Bitcoin’s Dystopian Valuation Model:

[…]

Uh oh, some of you may now really be contemplating if I’m Satoshi. 😲

So now we know why cryptocurrency scales so much faster to monetary dominance than the 1000s of years that gold required:

Compare the periods in the charts above to the following chart and note this is the reason the following interpretation is topologically incorrect:

(click to zoom to source)

Note that in 2013 which was the corresponding topological juncture as current fractal pattern, the price peaked at 20 times higher than the stock-to-flows model price. So that projects a ~\$2 million peak price in 2020/21:

(click to zoom to source)

·  25일 전

"The greatest shortcoming of the human race is our inability to understand the exponential function.

I disagree. Imho, human's greatest shortcoming is to see causalities and patters where none exist. Imo, the market (and especially BTC market) is random and unpredictable.

·
·  24일 전

“The greatest shortcoming of the human race is our inability to understand the exponential function.”

I disagree. Imho, human's greatest shortcoming is to see causalities and patter[n]s where none exist.

Agreed. For example the hysteria about man-made climate change which is a hoax foisted by politicians who want people to think they need a government to do something.

Imo, the market (and especially BTC market) is random and unpredictable.