Search content
Sort by
Showing 20 of 944 results by tabnloz
Whenever the ghost of Anonymint gets back on his 73rd account, I would like him to comment on my statement that people got the game theory of BCH vs BTC wrong:
You are correct. Random noobs on this forum INCORRECTLY stated that the only valid game theory path was to dump BCH (think it was derived from some nonsense Szabo said). He made the error of assuming you're required to keep one token at all. The real optimal path is to dump both of them in event of rough consensus attack, meaning what's going on right now. If you refuse to dump both for whatever reason, then the optimal path to try and minimize loss would just be to hold all of them.
I like to consider my hedl BCH as an insurance on the unlikely black swan of BTC losing value as the real chain.
You are correct. Random noobs on this forum INCORRECTLY stated that the only valid game theory path was to dump BCH (think it was derived from some nonsense Szabo said). He made the error of assuming you're required to keep one token at all. The real optimal path is to dump both of them in event of rough consensus attack, meaning what's going on right now. If you refuse to dump both for whatever reason, then the optimal path to try and minimize loss would just be to hold all of them.
Wouldn't logic dictate that if this fork is backed by Wu and Ver, with their millions of dollars, then they aren't just going to let it die? Seems plain as day to me that it will be dumped and pumped repeatedly.
OP is prolly trolling. Everyone knows the long game is the winning game.
Think I remember his shitposting from the last bear market.
In general holding is a winning strategy because the market, like OP, is still going through puberty.
I mean, exchanges are still going down during dumps, ETH can't handle ICO load and dumps on 4chan Proof of Vitalik, Bitcoin has been debating scaling for years.
Big ups, big downs, but the bet is that crypto as a whole starts taking market cap from gold, forex etc etc.
Post 2020 halving should be the real deal
In Australia they have Aboriginals which are literally modern day cavemen. Their govt has bent over backwards to try and integrate them into society, but they have the lowest IQ on the planet (something like 60-70), so it always fails miserably.
This is more complete shit. Please stick to an area where you have some idea.
1. Aboriginals are not modern day cavemen. I live in an area with a large Aboriginal population and can confirm your ignorance.
2. Please provide evidence of the government 'bending over backwards' and I counter with almost 200 years where Aboriginals were considered as 'flora and fauna', kept as slaves, murdered, jailed. No education, not allowed to vote, children taken from parents, culture destroyed.
3. I don't know the data on IQ, but I can vouch that none of my Aboriginal mates are 'slow'.
As an aside, Aboriginal culture is very interesting, for example the Dreamtime and other mythology; historically important and surprisingly accurate in many instances.
Bubbles are caused by cheap credit. See US after dot com implosion - rates were lowered way too much for way too long. The advent of MBS's meant that loan originators didn't have to 'keep' the loans on their books anymore - they sold them on (for fees) to bigger institutions, who packaged them into MBS's (for fees) and sold them off. Not wanting to lose their fees (and bonuses), participants all the way up the line found ways to keep making / packaging / selling more and more loans to more and more borderline customers (who were either greedy, liars or duped).
The common sentiment was that housing could not crash nationwide as it had never done so before, and further, there were only a handful of people who actually understood how the housing bond market worked. Even CEO's of the biggest funds had no idea. They just knew packaging them up and selling them on was very very profitable.
Australia survived the 2008 meltdown, largely due to Chinese stimulus and demand for resources. However it did see an eventual drop in interest rates as global demand slowed in every sector apart from mining. Wage growth has gone nowhere even close to matching house price growth. Low wages hasn't led to less real estate being bought, it has seen people go into more and more debt (check out household debt to gdp stats). Credit is cheap and easy to get. The upswing in housing prices comes from record interest rate lows coupled with a stable job market (now ex perth, Darwin). Wages may not have gone up in years but the cost of servicing a loan has lowered (until recently) - even when you traded off low rates vs price increases.
The problem for Sydney now is that yields are well below inflation, so there is no logical reason to buy as an investor other than chasing capital gains. it is a mania, and has become so unaffordable that a large % of wages now go to mortgage debt. The result is that the retail sector is dying. Rents are high but demand is weak because most of it goes to paying off the banks.
If rates were to rise even 1%, around 20% of households would be screwed, in severe mortgage stress. Australia doesn't control the wholesale rate it pays for credit, that it mostly driven by the wholesale markets. On top of that, Australia's banks are heavily weighted towards residential mortgages, some have over 40% assets in interest only loans and property makes up nearly half of the banks assets. Its an accident waiting to happen.
The common sentiment was that housing could not crash nationwide as it had never done so before, and further, there were only a handful of people who actually understood how the housing bond market worked. Even CEO's of the biggest funds had no idea. They just knew packaging them up and selling them on was very very profitable.
Australia survived the 2008 meltdown, largely due to Chinese stimulus and demand for resources. However it did see an eventual drop in interest rates as global demand slowed in every sector apart from mining. Wage growth has gone nowhere even close to matching house price growth. Low wages hasn't led to less real estate being bought, it has seen people go into more and more debt (check out household debt to gdp stats). Credit is cheap and easy to get. The upswing in housing prices comes from record interest rate lows coupled with a stable job market (now ex perth, Darwin). Wages may not have gone up in years but the cost of servicing a loan has lowered (until recently) - even when you traded off low rates vs price increases.
The problem for Sydney now is that yields are well below inflation, so there is no logical reason to buy as an investor other than chasing capital gains. it is a mania, and has become so unaffordable that a large % of wages now go to mortgage debt. The result is that the retail sector is dying. Rents are high but demand is weak because most of it goes to paying off the banks.
If rates were to rise even 1%, around 20% of households would be screwed, in severe mortgage stress. Australia doesn't control the wholesale rate it pays for credit, that it mostly driven by the wholesale markets. On top of that, Australia's banks are heavily weighted towards residential mortgages, some have over 40% assets in interest only loans and property makes up nearly half of the banks assets. Its an accident waiting to happen.
................
Home loan standards are being reduced worldwide as a form of damage control to compensate for falling wages.
Cheap credit isn't a primary cause, its a symptom of underlying issues involving growing wealth and wage inequality, a higher inefficient tax burden strangling economic growth and prosperity with increasingly restrictive regulations which strangle the livelihood of small businesses we rely upon to create jobs.
Credit & debt are always the cause.
The credit boom has been ongoing since the 80's, while cheap credit via low interest rates has been touted as the solution for any popping bubble thanks to the actions of Greenspan post dotcom bust - he lowered rates to entice spending, kept them low for too long, leading to the housing bust - what assets benefit from cheap credit? Real estate, stocks and retail spending.
Post 08 when Greenspans folly came home to roost, Bernanke did the same thing, going ZIRP. For countries that were not affected or who benefitted from China's infrastructure boom (Australia, Canada), low rates and a stable job market has seen parabolic price growth in housing.
In Sydney & Mebourne, saving for a deposit is extremely hard for anyone without parental help. Then, most get in with interest only loans, meaning that capital gains is there main priority.
BTW, wealth and wage inequality are a result of globalisation; the reduction in tariffs back in the day by the WTO cancelled out the main stumbling block for companies to not keep workplace and workforce in country. After they were reduced, companies packed up and headed to cheaper labour destinations (China esp). This is why you have the rust belt in the US and such disaffection in the UK and Europe where industries left families, towns etc decimated. No more 'job for life', the old manufacturing staples of middle class life fucked off in a generation.
Couple this with deregulation of finance, lobbying overtaking politics and a number of other trends, then you see the destruction of the middle class which goes a long way to explaining the wealth and income gap.
As we all know it's getting more and more expensive to buy a house, and the rate of growth currently associated with investing in a house is just phenomenal, and obviously too good to not be a bubble. We all know that. However, WHEN will this bubble pop?
More and more houses are being built but the demand for it just continues to go up. And many houses are bought and just left to sit there, not even rented out, fueling the problem further because investors just want a safe and profitable investment.
What do you think the governments can do to avoid this? Put a limit on houses per person? Your opinions?
More and more houses are being built but the demand for it just continues to go up. And many houses are bought and just left to sit there, not even rented out, fueling the problem further because investors just want a safe and profitable investment.
What do you think the governments can do to avoid this? Put a limit on houses per person? Your opinions?
Have you done a "big short" kind of research ? Have you visited abandoned neighbourhoods ? Have you heard people getting unusual credits ? Have you heard people giving unusual credits ? If so, how many ?
I believe you, but you can't just say it's a bubble because the sector is growing fast. Where I live it's the same, but it's mainly because of the chinese coming here to live, and other countries like Brazil and centre of Europe where is becoming more and more insecure.
Here's some boots on the ground research, from a year or two ago but the signs are there + many more example of loan fraud continue to pop up (see the work of LF economics).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=roNbsqxemyI
You would have to be mad to buy in Sydney at the moment. The risk / return is awful, yield is paltry (less than bank deposits). While I have no doubt that prices can run a lot further up, I think there is an equally good chance that they don't.
Quote
It's you that have learned nothing. Israel and the US support the most violent muslim factions called "shia" in places like Saudi Arabia because they're essentially just tribal warlods that build dysfunctional civilizations.
So the most violent faction in Saudi is Shia? The Shia minority there has been severely quelled, jailed, beheaded by the ruling family. Wahhabism and Salafism have the strongest influence in Saudi.
Quote
They support those factions to try and destabilize the middle east to keep them at bay (basically the Wolfowitz doctrine in action).
Wait, I thought they destabilised the ME to send refugees into Europe so they could continue banking and get rid of whiteness?
So the Kingdom the US sells billions in arms to, is linked to via the petrodollar and refuses to even mention in relation to 9.11 - they're actually trying to overthrow them by supporting a minority group within that country? The Wolfowitz doctrine was more along the lines of the Shock Doctrine iirc, to wipe a country clean and start again, giving corporations free reign to implement free market policies, no?
Quote
While the Sunni in places like Syria are a little less terroristic and build more functional nations. Israel make believes some made up religious text grants them just about the entire middle east, as seen in the following picture, so Israel and the entity they have taken over (the US) support and create organizations like ISIS to destabilize those regions to come in after and take them over:
So Sunni Syrians are less terroristic but Israel created ISIS (Wahhabi / Sunni) so they can come in and take over?
Syria wasn't known for its terrorism pre-2011. Alawite Assad, was quite a brutal dictator in his own right - treating the Sunni minorities harshly.
Quote
The jews also operate their usury banking scams against every other race on earth, subverting the native inhabitants sovereignty and freedom. They know that high IQ homogeneous populations ALWAYS kick them out or exterminate them rather than remaining slaves (as has happened in different countries over 100 times now expelling jews), so they attempt to flood these countries with 3rd worlders to create a bunch of different warring factions where nobody can come together for common interests to overthrow them. A standard divide and conquer strategy.This is why the jew is currently attempting to destroy nations like Sweden, Norway, Germany, and the rest of Europe with a 3rd world Islamic invasion
So now the jews are concocted a long term plan to destabilise the Assad regime in 2011, so that by 2016 millions of people, after sticking it out for 5+ years in a war zone, will flood into Sweden, Germany and Norway, just so the Jews can maintain their usury scams and not be kicked out because they were such a menace with their enormous expat populations in those countries?
Quote
Their plans have been right out in the open for a long time to try and destroy white civilizations and have even been endorsed by jews like Einstein:
Now they not only want to take over the Middle East because you posted an image of a Zionist promoting 'greater israel', but they are clandestinely also going to destroy whiteness by taking over the US and then the rest of the other white countries.
Well, look out China. Obviously they have infiltrated the Chinese leadership and convinced them to biuld the OBOR so they can then take over India, Sri lanka and the whole Silk Road just so they can run banking scams.
re-post for cuckoldcube:
This is why Europe is being flooded with 3rd worlders right now - a divide and conquer strategy.
I hate to break it to you, but there's only 3 real powers in this world right now: whites, jews, and asians. Everyone else is just some type of pawn or insignificant bystander while the murderous death cult known as international zionism actively plots against everyone else.
This is why Europe is being flooded with 3rd worlders right now - a divide and conquer strategy.
I hate to break it to you, but there's only 3 real powers in this world right now: whites, jews, and asians. Everyone else is just some type of pawn or insignificant bystander while the murderous death cult known as international zionism actively plots against everyone else.
Your stock response to each and every problem is 'Jews'. At least you don't have to think or learn.
Europe is flooded by migrants as a direct result of war and political bullshit. The removal of Gaddafi to help facilitate the removal of Assad. The removal of Saddam. The geopolitic petrodollar pandering to Sunni Saudi, the demonizing of Shi'ite Iran.
If anything, it is power that leads people, not religion.
What do you think the governments can do to avoid this? Put a limit on houses per person? Your opinions?
Housing bubbles are caused by the average wage of poor to middle class income brackets declining over time.
Lower wages lead to less homes and real estate being bought. This leads to the average value of real estate declining on reduced demand due to less consumers being able to afford them.
It might be fair to say: housing bubbles are symptomatic of wealth inequality/wage inequality. All of the wage increases which were supposed to go to poor to middle income earners instead went to CEO's. This wealth and wage inequality weakens the economy and creates negative effects such as: housing bubbles.
There are a few different perspectives to the housing issue. The media seldom covers any of the relevent ones.
Bubbles are caused by cheap credit. See US after dot com implosion - rates were lowered way too much for way too long. The advent of MBS's meant that loan originators didn't have to 'keep' the loans on their books anymore - they sold them on (for fees) to bigger institutions, who packaged them into MBS's (for fees) and sold them off. Not wanting to lose their fees (and bonuses), participants all the way up the line found ways to keep making / packaging / selling more and more loans to more and more borderline customers (who were either greedy, liars or duped).
The common sentiment was that housing could not crash nationwide as it had never done so before, and further, there were only a handful of people who actually understood how the housing bond market worked. Even CEO's of the biggest funds had no idea. They just knew packaging them up and selling them on was very very profitable.
Australia survived the 2008 meltdown, largely due to Chinese stimulus and demand for resources. However it did see an eventual drop in interest rates as global demand slowed in every sector apart from mining. Wage growth has gone nowhere even close to matching house price growth. Low wages hasn't led to less real estate being bought, it has seen people go into more and more debt (check out household debt to gdp stats). Credit is cheap and easy to get. The upswing in housing prices comes from record interest rate lows coupled with a stable job market (now ex perth, Darwin). Wages may not have gone up in years but the cost of servicing a loan has lowered (until recently) - even when you traded off low rates vs price increases.
The problem for Sydney now is that yields are well below inflation, so there is no logical reason to buy as an investor other than chasing capital gains. it is a mania, and has become so unaffordable that a large % of wages now go to mortgage debt. The result is that the retail sector is dying. Rents are high but demand is weak because most of it goes to paying off the banks.
If rates were to rise even 1%, around 20% of households would be screwed, in severe mortgage stress. Australia doesn't control the wholesale rate it pays for credit, that it mostly driven by the wholesale markets. On top of that, Australia's banks are heavily weighted towards residential mortgages, some have over 40% assets in interest only loans and property makes up nearly half of the banks assets. Its an accident waiting to happen.
The Middle East is a snake pit, a den of vipers far worse than what Trump has found in Washington.
We were just discussing this.... now news breaks, post Trump visit and straight after another London attack, that the Gulf States + Saudi have cut off ties with Qatar.
Is this the Saudi's offering up Trump a scapegoat for terrorism funding? Is it due to Qatar's supposed alliance with Iran or Turkey?
Here is WaPo's take - due to comments of Emir
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2017/06/01/whats-going-on-with-qatar/?utm_term=.a501f18eaa84
It's also on the back of UAE ambassadors emails being hacked, showing working relationship with pro Israeli think tank.
Reality is that Israel and Saudi make US do all the dirty work -- because they're clueless on handling themselves.
Don't think they make them per se, it's part of the complexity of their strategies in the region.
Israel can't do the dirty work itself overtly (like invading Iraq or Syria). Not because it is clueless but because it is as much as a political & strategy battle as anything else. Saudi / Israel work with each other behind the scenes whenever it suits them, much like they worked with Iran. If Israel were to invade Syria or Lebanon the outcry would be immense and force other Muslim countries to go on the offensive. Whereas when it happens internally (Gaza / West Bank) nothing happens as israel has nukes.
But let's play out a scenario - if the US abandons the Saudi's, what happens to Saudi? It already funds most of the terrorism. Overthrow (Iraq, Libya) and destabilisation (Syria) has massively increased the terror threat in Western countries whether the action was right or wrong. So the risk is that the House of Saud gets replaced with a *worse* option and leads to Iran becoming the regional superpower. Iran gaining dominance, via any scenario as Shia's, is the worst possible outcome for the Saudi's / Qatari's.
I think this defines the US Saud relationship. Oil for global reserve dollar tradeoff - we keep our end of the bargain in return for you helping us in the region. Then you have to factor in the Syria / Iran / Russia alliance.
Re: What if I buy 3BTC now and forget about them for 10 years???
I am wondering, what would happened if I can get some cash to buy 3 BTC that means at the prices of this moment 1 BTC = 2,252 USD so would be 3BTC= 6,756 USD and forget that I Have them for 10 Years???
By then, you'll have a single block reward, more or less; a One Blocker.
Re: Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion
Next target - Gox solvency 
Roflmao. Spit up soda. Damn You.
But then, in a twist of fate only possible in Bitcoinland, Karpeles gets the ultimate revenge as the price taps solvency and then collapses.
Gox 2, Bitcoin 0.
MA's latest is on Bitcoin, where he likens the volatility of btc to the crash in mutual funds in the 60's (ie, funds dropped by 80% when the Dow dropped by 25%). He just sees it as an asset with high volatility and not a currency or store of value. But he also says that after the crash, the tech may be the future.
There will undoubtedly be more rises and falls but overall the cryptocurrency field is an entire ecosystem with myriad uses in so many other industries that looking at it as simply an asset class misses the big picture. The bitcoin unit is only part of the whole; without a thorough understanding of the system it can be difficult to assess it holistically. I think Armstrong may have stopped at a mostly superficial comprehension.
Since Armstrong first started posting about Bitcoin, he seems to have changed his stance. It has been suspected that there wasn't enough data for Socrates to develop a high-confidence forecast. Whether that has changes, who knows?
One thing to note is that Armstrong is calling for the DOW to rise significantly. If anything, crypto would be aligned with private assets and therefore rise along with equities in the near-term.
Additionally, Bitcoin is a politician's wet dream: tracking and control with a keystroke. It appeals to all parties but will eventually trap users.
Yeah, his initial stance seemed to be that government is too powerful and will destroy it when necessary. Now, he seems to think the tech is worthwhile.
But I think there might be a few flaws to his latest post
- BTC is unlike Mutual Funds as it is not an easily obtainable, retail asset
- BTC faces a negative media led narrative
- The volatility of Bitcoin may be a red herring when taken on a risk adjusted return basis (ie the volatility to the downside is dwarfed by returns on price to the upside)
- BTC operates independent of governments, central banks
Looking at 2 scenarios, how will BTC react:
1) Massive economic shock / recession / stock market downturn
Would Bitcoin also see a large selloff as the old 'sell what you can, not what you want' meme is lived out?
Are enough people invested in BTC also heavily invested in the stock market, where a stock margin call would lead to a large dumping of BTC?
Would an initial dip be followed by a massive rise in this case (ala gold in 2008)
Would BTC be seen as a safe haven asset and see a tremendous inflow in during this kind of event? (seems possible based on Brexit, Trump).
2) Crack up boom. Dow hits 40,000 etc
Will this see Bitcoin also rise, as in all boats get floated?
Does BTC see its relevance wane, as the good times are here again?
As for MA, take out his ECm & talk of super computers and his overall thesis on the collapse of government is quite common. Many macro guys have similar theories, just packaged differently. But to be fair, MA has been saying it a lot longer.
He has also been exceptionally accurate.
One thing that has disappointed me is his assessment of Bitcoin, and cryptocurrencies in general. His latest post regarding Bitcoin indicates that he considers it to be just like any other single-class asset. I am left wondering whether he has genuinely studied the system to understand the intricacies and how it differs from any other asset, not to mention the scripting capabilities.
OK, that's interesting. Armstrong is very up to date on at least some technologies, I suppose that no one can be up to speed on everything. Still, he writes on money, freedom and history; one would think he would have looked into Bitcoin some more.
Bitcoin is a different asset class, he should be following it more.
MA's latest is on Bitcoin, where he likens the volatility of btc to the crash in mutual funds in the 60's (ie, funds dropped by 80% when the Dow dropped by 25%). He just sees it as an asset with high volatility and not a currency or store of value. But he also says that after the crash, the tech may be the future.
https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/markets-by-sector/foreign-exchange/bitcoin-alternative-currencies/
...
r0ach
Well, I myself found Bitcoin to be interesting enough to take a punt. For me, BTC is really more of an "opportunistic speculation", particularly that there is a low probability it will go to zero, but a reasonable chance it could go way higher.
Nice back & forth with steve. I ALWAYS like talking with experts, even if their views might be wrong. Perspective.
Even if Armstrong winds up being very wrong on predictions (and his record is not that good IMO), I very much value his views.
Perspective. And he does take a long view, something few others do.
But, I ain't payin' nothin' for his research.
r0ach
Well, I myself found Bitcoin to be interesting enough to take a punt. For me, BTC is really more of an "opportunistic speculation", particularly that there is a low probability it will go to zero, but a reasonable chance it could go way higher.
Nice back & forth with steve. I ALWAYS like talking with experts, even if their views might be wrong. Perspective.
Even if Armstrong winds up being very wrong on predictions (and his record is not that good IMO), I very much value his views.
Perspective. And he does take a long view, something few others do.
But, I ain't payin' nothin' for his research.
i think along the same lines. For anyone around since before the first $1000 spike, Bitcoin has had a very asymmetric risk - defined downside, massive upside potential. It has clear utility and even if it does not eventually fulfill other functions of money, it is well worth the risk. it is highly likely it will never be the new gold standard, but rather more possible that increased adoption leads to a much higher price in the medium term.
This is why I don't understand the vitriol by Roach et al that is so dogmatic on fundamentals, suppression of metals etc etc.
As for MA, take out his ECm & talk of super computers and his overall thesis on the collapse of government is quite common. Many macro guys have similar theories, just packaged differently. But to be fair, MA has been saying it a lot longer.
Re: Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion
That dude will win a Pulitzer for that insightful news article.
and as is always the case with these idiotic articles, comments are epic.
already added to Bitcoin Obituaries, that didnt take long
https://99bitcoins.com/bitcoinobituaries/
shows how far we've come in a few short years - back in 2013/2014 the comments would have been largely skeptical of Bitcoin. Now, its unanimously pro btc. We're still not mainstream yet, but taking this kind of thing as a signal, it won't be too much longer.
Re: Speculation Rule: buy when others are irrationally pessimistic or too cautious
Not sure why the hate for @iamnotback.
I actually think his posting has been quite measured and reasonable in this thread.
He posited a theory, gave his reasoning and updated it accordingly.
I'm not expecting it to be 100% accurate to the minute or cent or bit, nor should anyone else.
I actually think his posting has been quite measured and reasonable in this thread.
He posited a theory, gave his reasoning and updated it accordingly.
I'm not expecting it to be 100% accurate to the minute or cent or bit, nor should anyone else.