AltcoinUK, I am not going to set a threshold as high as $112,000 for the donation bounty on that one anonymity invention, even though I think it is a very significant feature. I am just stating what my earning opportunity cost had been inflation-adjusted from 2001. So hopefully the market will understand I am not going to give that feature away for $10,000.

Quote from: QUEDOS on October 16, 2015, 08:33:36 PM

Armstrong ... half the time turn out to be quite accurate... something scarily accurate

Afaics, he has always been 100% accurate on the predictions that he labels as predictions, e.g. that gold would go down from 2011 to Spring 2016, that oil would crash from $100 in 2014, that Aug 23. 2010 would be the turn date for the end of the USA (the date Edward Snowden made his irreversible moves to expose on the NSA which is being reflected now in the desire to vote for any non-politician President and will later motivate the Patriots to civil war), that the stock market would continue rising from the August 2012 sell-off (with minimum potential 18,500 and maximum 32,000 - 40,000 depending on if making phase shift to private asset before or after 2015.75, which the later has been hence elected by nature), that 2015.75 would be the start of the Sovereign Debt Crisis Redux and would be much worse this second time coinciding with the turn up of the Cycle of War since 2014 and the expectation of hot war by 2017, etc, etc, etc.

When you refer to 50% accuracy, you appear to be referring to when Armstrong writes about the short-term trading timing models which are orthogonal to the macro-economic models referred to in the above paragraph. How many times have both I regurgitated and Armstrong written that PRICE and TIME are orthogonal in those models. Once you understand that if they are misused to demand a PRICE and a TIME, then they are only probablistic. Whereas, if they are used to try to understand the potentials of the market, then a savvy trader can have an overall probabilisticly higher ROI, i.e. not 50% because that would mean losses = wins or 0% ROI.

I am not sure if you intended your comment to be flippant or a compliment of the accuracy of this model in those cases where it was accurate (e.g. exactly turn dates to the day for various markets such as the Japanese market crash in 1980s, etc). But to the extent your comment was intended to be flippant on the 50% point, it would typical of those who come to this thread without any deep understanding and display their ignorance for everyone and feel smug about it. It is quite disrespectful to attack someone of his accomplishments and ethical love of mankind, without extensive evidence.

If you'd like to exhaustively document your claim, then go ahead and try. If you didn't intend the flippant interpretation, then please disregard my angst.