Stay in bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies for the long ...

We're Going Down To A Market Cap of ~$420bn (Volumetric Observations)

This is a very basic take from a volumetric analysis of Bitcoin. Data dates back from yesterday, but today's confirms this prediction.
DISCLAIMER: THIS IS NOT FINANCIAL ADVICE. DO YOUR OWN RESEARCH. THIS IS JUST ME SHARING MY OWN. Hopefully to kill some of the unnecessary FUD out here.
I'll go briefly over the following points:
  1. How we call this prediction for BTC.
  2. Extrapolation to global market cap and other cryptos.
  3. What it means for the crypto space.
  4. Why this information should help you.
Note: I'm not a native english speaker so please forgive in advance any approximation in terminology. Hopefully you can correct my words rather than criticize (assume it's logically correct but using the wrong words, before bashing. I'll humbly accept any criticism too, the point is to discuss.)

1. Volumetric Analysis

Observe this chart, especially the horizontal volume bars on the right, relating to pricing: https://i.imgur.com/ePOS4Ag.png
(Source: Trader of Futures, Published on Jan 29, 2018 on YouTube, link at the bottom. You can watch the video if you want more details about volumetric charts).
Most people look at Technical Analysis from a price standpoint (candles, etc), but this is more backward-looking than forward. In essence it shows what has happened, not what is about to happen.
From a volume standpoint though, you can effectively characterize two very important aspects of a given value:
You can see very clearly that BTC is dull right now over January (horizontally), there's not much incentive to upset the current (downward) trend. Down moves are strong, comparatively to consolidations (horizontal/up moves).
You can also identify the following support levels:
Notice how the volume is much bigger below 8.4k than it is above: this is strong sign that many people are comfortable buying below 8.4k, indicating that there are little chances we go below (everything will be bought). This is currently the strongest next support level for BTC.
Notice also how it's much, much bigger below $5k: reasonably we can assume that BTC cannot move lower. If we break the 5k barrier, it will be bought almost instantly in the $4k-$5k range.
It's all intuition and sentiment, but given the current situation of cryptos (see 3. below), it is very likely that we will go down to 8.4k. It is also very likely that we'll pick back up after that.
Currently, there is resistance around $12k. To break above that level, we'd need volume (horizontally, a push up with enough weight). We'll see how it goes once this bear phase becomes bull again. It's hard to know when the shift back up will happen, but I'd expect in February, and breaking past $12k in March or so.

2. Extrapolation to global market cap and other cryptos (top 25)

Based on prices from yesterday, a dip to $8.44k for BTC would be about 0.85 its price when I took the values (9913 at the time).
It seems that the market is vastly correlated to BTC globally, so if we simply assume a linear move for the market globally, here's what we can expect:
https://i.imgur.com/nJb5Uiw.png
In blue, a 0.85 dip. In pink, a 0.51 dip down to $5k-ish.
Again, it's very likely we will hit the blue values. It's possible, although rather unlikely we'll hit the pink ones.
For any value that's not in this chart, just multiply your coin's current value ×0.85 to get a feel of how much lower it will likely go.
For a more thorough price prediction, we should look at volumes (in pricing, Y-axis) of each cryptocurrency. I don't have time to do that, but you can and would therefore identify the proper support levels for each coin. I assumed here that it's overall "about good enough" to get a feel.

3. The crypto space right now

This is the most subjective part of this post so I'll just echo general sentiment.

Some people have a clear interest for cryptos to go down temporarily

Now that the crypto market has been somewhat legitimized, more and more people want in. They're not willing to buy at ATH obviously, so many are waiting. Others already in are taking profits as they see/saw this bear coming. It's all normal and a factual expectation of any market soaring high, then pausing a bit before going much higher if the underlying fundamentals are good.
The crypto scene right now is a bit of both, good and bad fundamentals (from the tech which is good but mostly beta/alpha, to the use-cases and general legal environment which is uncertain for now and therefore more on the bad sides of things, until such time we clear these unknowns).
Basically, whales are now waiting for the right time to enter. This is our $8.4k support level, as long as there's no major event to upset it (war, stock market crash, basically any macroeconomic bomb).

The somewhat official Bitcoin (BTC) is currently falling out of favor

Versus other cryptos, BTC dominance over the market went from 66% to 33% in a month. It's a huge loss of dominance that it's very unlikely to recover. Many people are already predicting that Ethereum (ETH) will soon take it over.
People also realized that BTC was no more viable as a "peer-to-peer electronic cash system" (words taken from Satoshi Nakamoto in the white paper) and that many other cryptos could be valid candidate. The space is in tremendous innovation, it's a really before-early-adopter phase right now.
Internally regarding Bitcoin itself, there is also much controversy due to forks over fundamental disagreements (namely Bitcoin Cash BHC) and a questionable new direction taken by self-proclaimed official caretakers of BTC (namely "Blockstream").
This is the reason for the feud between Bitcoin (BTC) and btc (BCH). I won't go into it here, but let's just say that overall it's a bit of shitshow that doesn't reflect good upon any bitcoin fork right now, and that appearances can be very, very deceiving, willingly or not from their respective promoters. Personally, I've been flabbergasted at what I've discovered, and I'm pretty sure it will be a big bomb if it ever reaches the attention of major media (it probably won't though).
Basically, BTC is falling out of favor fast from the general public, and this is causing the general crypto market as a whole to pause, reflect, and probably evolve, but that's never as smooth as it seems.
My personal prediction is that the top 3 coins a year from now may possibly not include any bitcoin(s).

Tether, Bitgrail, Bitconnect: time to do some cleaning

These are just examples of FUD-inducing events (some would say with good reasons!) that keep nagging this space with pains that keep it volatile and uncertain.
It's not clear at all when the crypto market will become suitable enough for the real mainstream to enter, not even questioning its use cases for now. But there are thresholds in security, trust, compliance that we have yet to pass with flying colors.
Again, this is causing more uncertainty. Since it's very hard to pinpoint the exact reasons for a surge up or a fall down in value of crypto-values, market actors are taking a stance back before making their bigger moves. Ergo, wait, see what's what.

South Korea, China and the USA are to make big legal moves

We don't know yet what will the legal situation be 6 months from now. What's sure is that official authorities have taken a big deep look at cryptos now, and Asia is by far the biggest investor especially in the mainstream. We're nowhere near that level in the west, although the importance of the USA in the global economy amplifies its decisions from a media standpoint.
Europe is also making moves, although as usually these days, it's a bit of an old dwarf versus Asia and America; its rather conservative population is unlikely to make massive moves (a notable exception is Switzerland for its relative independence from the EU).
This is again more general uncertainty, especially in Korea and China, that begs investors to wait a bit before they move. Hence, the bear is making its run. Big money, the kind that has a clear interest for a lower price, isn't doing anything to stop that trend (see first point).

Big, real, good projects take time

If you look at the development roadmaps and expectations from big projects team members (ETH, NEO...), you'll see that they expect to meet certain very important milestones (notably in scaling) by 2019 or even 2020. We're not there yet for general mainstream VISA-threatening adoption, guys. We still have A LOT of work to do.
Did I already mention that this market needs time?

4. What this information all means for you, how does this help?

Obviously the most important parts were 1. and 2. regarding your investments.
You now have a clearer picture of where we're going, most likely. You can anticipate how much your values will drop if they keep going down. So you can now arm yourself with patience, knowing that it is to be expected.
A bear market sometimes makes casualties, in the form of values (coins, companies, entire sectors...) that had no solid-enough grounds. There are bankruptcies, some teams/projects get bought. Others earn their legitimacy, too.
Don't panic. Just rationalize your investments:
  • Are the projects you support solid? It's not about being big (top 25) or small (in the high hundreds on CMC...), it's about being good, realistic, solving problems. It's about having people that can deliver on their objectives (track record, experience, behavior with other actors and on social media). I have more confidence in some rank 1,000-ish cryptos in my portfolio than some top 25.
  • How deep are their pockets? Dedicated their team? Can they withstand a month or even year-long bear market? Can they keep the payroll going until there's money coming in, i.e. a valid product? How timely is their product versus the chances of adoption? (this is why I insisted on making part 3. above).
You can't necessarily know the real answer to all these questions unless you're an insider, but some projects are better than others at making these unknowns known. Trust your intuition. If something feels off to you, it probably is to some degree. Question is, how comfortable are you supporting them with your own money?

Final words

Expect the dip to continue.

Until you see a market cap of ~420 billions, it's just the natural continuation of current volumes. It's OK, you already know (now...) what it means in terms of numbers in your portfolio. You wouldn't be here in the first place if you weren't ready for dips in-between highs.
If we break below that, sub-$400bn, then chances are we'll be heading for a 50%-ish dip, down to ~250bn. It's OK, too. Don't panic sell. Just be brutally honest with yourself before that, to let go of projects that you don't really believe in (moonshots ICOs and over-hyped coins), remain confident as ever in the ones you trust to see the light eventually.
This is a long term game, we're before early adoption in terms of tech.
There will be many such dips before we get there.
But we'll get there, eventually. That's what we all believe. And we have solid grounds for that belief, it's not faith, it's an educated guess based on how this world and business works.

If you want to double in (buy more), look at volumes to get a general bearing on your favorites.

Look at volumes on your coins. On the general market. Look how big people are moving, not just how high/low a given value is moving (it could be very low volumes and mean not much, if anything at all).
Don't be the sucker that only looks at candles. Spoiler: good traders don't really care for candles. Price analysis. TA. This is all just a reflection of the past. Volume is where it's at to anticipate moves, and you can only mix that with experience and intuition for the market. That's what investing on markets means.
You should never invest in something you don't understand, in a company or project you can't judge for yourself. For instance I understand tech, so I'm comfortable investing in Silicon Valley tech companies. But I know shit about retail even though I read Sam Walton's and Jeff Bezos biography. So I don't invest in those. If you invest in crypto, you should at least know a bit about crypto-tech itself, and you should know about the industry your particular projects are targeting.
None of this post is financial advice (I'm not qualified for that). But this is my only investing advice for you: know what these guys you're giving money to are doing. Be able to have an opinion about their goals, how it fits in the real world.
That's it, peeps. Already long enough I guess.
I'm hoping some nice fellow redditor can make a guide to volumetric analysis on tradingview.com or something.
Have a great day.
Link to the video that inspired me to make this post: https://youtu.be/DMFK6_gA_H4

EDIT: QUICK UPDATE 2018-02-02 10:44 UTC

We're now standing right above the support level for [email protected]$8.4K-ish (Y-axis volume profile). So far this estimation seems to be about right. [disclaimer: it's not just me, several people called this a month ago, I'm actually late to this party.]
  • Answering comments about graph analysis of any kind:
Remember, it's not only graph analysis: a good part of guesstimating markets is just that, guessing, based on intuition/sentiment/experience, whatever you call it. The news do matter, so do the fundamentals (the tech, the target market/sector's readiness for adoption of products (aka S-curve), the legal environment, etc.). Part 3 in this post is mostly why I drew such conclusions from the volume profile, and why I ultimately felt we were going down (and could still go lower). This doesn't change my general feeling that cryptos are here to stay and will be a major part of the economy in the 2020's. Nonetheless, volume profile is a strong indicator of future performance, unless major event —extrinsic (e.g. global crash/war etc.) or intrinsic (e.g. bad fork, legal issues, etc.), for a period about as long as the retracing (here, 4 months, so whatever you infer from these charts above could only go as far as April or so). I feel the market is too new and volatile to infer much further from graphs, after that it's only sentiment.
  • Back to our chart:
We broke below the average growth line from early October (white line + "!" on this graph). I don't think it's very significant, but some people would, so I included it. Notice we only have 2 strong lows to draw this, one (middle) is weak-ish.
There's a big buy wall underneath our current $8.4K support level, so chances are we'll rebound. If we do break below however, we're headed towards the yellow arrow/line ($5K, $250bn market cap or lower if other cryptos keep falling below BTC, and they very well might in average if this is a sanitizing event —which is very much needed for the sanity of this space, imho). Looking at the overall ordered volumes (horizontally), the current fall isn't very much sustained however, about average, indicating a dull movement upset only by previous volume profiles as we speak. An influx of good news could reverse it. Otherwise... brace yourselves.
Edit 2018-02-02 23:30 UTC: the market seems to have stabilized around $410 bn.
Edit 2018-02-07 13:05 UTC: We've hit a low of $270~280 bn, BTC tried the $6K level but bounced. News from the USA seems to have a positive effect, possible recovery ongoing (it's an integral part of the way we read these charts today). Volumes are stronger than ever on this rising trend. We may still see a bigger dip or two but general trend imho looks to be upwards.
We are currently testing a resistance level around $8500 for BTC. (Next one above is 12K-ish and then there's no foreseeable bound. Below we sit above a direct fall to $5.5K).
Edit 2018-02-09 01:50 UTC: We're not in the clear yet, imho. The sentiment is still bearish. There are signs of bulls waiting to come in but we're testing a rather strong resistance level kicking off around $8,400. Below the current $8K price, we do have to confirm or find a floor before we bull back up (last support on Feb 6th was at $6K, history shows a support level around 5,400 (from Nov 12) but volume profile suggests we could test slightly below, $5K support from mid Oct).
I am still observing this market before making another post. I'm about half confident that we're seeing the last bears.
Right now I don't have anything else to say to you other than what I'm personally doing: I'm holding, not buying this dip just yet; waiting to see a second confirmation of the support level in the $5K~6.5K range (i.e. support level). I want to make a most educated decision in the aftermath of this crash. I plan to buy in just after the bull market resumes, once I've had several (at least two) possible confirmations (might be RSI, might be volumes, might be some news/sentiment, might be just a textbook 'W' too).
On the way up, regardless of when it happens, we still have to retest several resistance levels: $12.2K, 13K, 14.6K. BTC is very uncomfortable for some reason around $12K, so I expect turmoil in these areas.
Here's my non-professional advice for crucial times: don't be too hasty. Don't panic over 20% when your end game is 200% or ten times that. Don't fear of missing out by a day or even a week when you're in for years... Many (educated) people still believe $30K~40K for BTC by year's end to be a rather conservative estimate. I concur. So who gives a f--k about $2K more or less now? ; )
Edit 2018-02-12 20:20 UTC:
This time, the volume profile I outlined 11 days ago was rather spot on.
I'm still observing the market honestly, we're in a bit of a horizontal move right now. We did stretch almost to $250bn in the dip, but it seems $420bn really is/was the consolidation average box. It's hard to predict which way it's gonna break out in the short term. (for more info, see "Bitraged" videos on YouTube, they really nail it in their current videos, lots of educational value too; I really like their channel).
What's sure is that, everyday we spend at this market cap is all the more ground to "validate" this $420bn value; in other words as we accumulate historical volume at this level, it means that the crypto market really is worth it (increasingly certainly not less). That's a reassuring sign imho.
I think the real consolidation will happen later this year, probably at a higher market cap, when "good" coins/projects start siphoning the "bad" ones. Big finance involvement (and their many audits, reports, evaluations, etc. destined to their major customers) will sort out the market hopefully more rationally than it is today. I expect this to slowly be reflected on rankings like CMC.
Regarding Q2-Q3, there are increasingly many more signs that the future looks bright overall. However I'm thinking that the involvement of big financial institutions (FI) will likely result in much more regulation and therefore the death of many not-so-fantastic projects/coins, and some exchanges as well. I hope this will truly be the year of decentralized exchanges, so that we have an alternative to big FI's exchanges (I personally would use both, for different purposes).
Personally I'm regrouping my assets around projects I really really trust, those with a promising basis and already established demand (e.g. fiat-to-crypto gates, or crypto management solutions for the mainstream), while planning on investing in some hot-shot ICOs during Q1.
Thanks again for all your comments and pms, I very much appreciate the discussion.
submitted by ikkei to CryptoCurrency [link] [comments]

Safe Harbours and Storms | Monthly Portfolio Update - May 2019

Truth is confirmed by inspection and delay; falsehood by haste and uncertainty. – Tacitus
This is my thirtieth portfolio update. I complete this update monthly to check my progress against my goals.
Portfolio goals
My objectives are to reach a portfolio of:
*$1 598 000 by 31 December 2020. This should produce a real income of about $67 000 (Objective #1) *$1 980 000 by 31 July 2023, to produce a passive income equivalent to $83 000 (Objective #2)
Both of these are based on an expected average real return of 4.19%, or a nominal return of 7.19%, and are expressed in 2018 dollars.
Portfolio summary
Vanguard Lifestrategy High Growth Fund – $745 158 Vanguard Lifestrategy Growth Fund – $43 119 Vanguard Lifestrategy Balanced Fund – $77 915 Vanguard Diversified Bonds Fund – $105 821 Vanguard Australian Shares ETF (VAS) – $80 408 Betashares Australia 200 ETF (A200) – $246 012 Telstra shares (TLS) – $1 937 Insurance Australia Group shares (IAG) – $13 376 NIB Holdings shares (NHF) – $8 178 Gold ETF (GOLD.ASX) – $85 424 Secured physical gold – $13 652 Ratesetter* (P2P lending) – $23 262 Bitcoin – $132 720 Raiz* app (Aggressive portfolio) – $15 130 Spaceship Voyager* app (Index portfolio) – $1 883 BrickX* (P2P rental real estate) – $4 629 Total value: $1 598 624 (+$57 037)
Asset allocation
Australian shares – 40.9% (4.1% under) Global shares – 22.3% Emerging markets shares – 2.6% International small companies – 3.3% Total international shares – 28.2% (1.8% under) Total shares – 69.1% (5.9% under) Total property securities – 0.3% (0.3% over) Australian bonds – 5.5% International bonds – 10.5% Total bonds – 16.0% (1.0% over) Gold – 6.2% Bitcoin – 8.3% Gold and alternatives – 14.5% (4.5% over) Presented visually, below is a high-level view of the current asset allocation of the portfolio.
Comments
The portfolio has experienced strong growth through the month, with a total increase of around $57 000.
This fifth month of continuous growth has seen an important event occur ahead of schedule. Portfolio Objective #1 - which is the 'median income' FIRE target that was the goal set at the start of this record in December 2016 - has been narrowly achieved.
[Chart]
My expectation at the beginning of this year was to reach this particular goal only at the end of 2020. This itself was shifted forward from the original goal of passing a slightly lower median income objective by July 2021. The net result of all of this is that a higher absolute portfolio objective has been reached more than two years early.
This achievement may be temporary, as it comes following the equal second longest run of monthly gains in this record. Just an average monthly fall could easily see the portfolio dip well below the objective again, and a prolonged downturn in share markets could easily lead to major declines which would take some time to recover from. At this stage, given that my final Objective #2 is still some distance away and further accumulation is planned, this prospect does not overly concern me.
The portfolio performance this month largely reflects the same drivers that have dominated performance since the journey began. These drivers have been new contributions and increases in Australian shares (through Betashares A200), particularly since the Federal election. In addition, there has been a significant increase in the price of Bitcoin. This led to a portfolio growth which was the sixth highest in the record to date.
[Chart]
Credit card spending has been significantly lower than average over the past month. It has been the lowest level in six years in fact. As the series below indicates, however, it is a volatile measure.
Once financial year 2018-19 figures on distributions are finalised early next month, it's likely the the red line of distributions, which currently is an estimate based on low December half year figures, will be revised up. This in turn could mean a return to distributions on average coming close to meeting credit card expenses.
Progress
Progress against the objectives, and the additional measures I have reached is set out below.
Measure Portfolio All Assets Objective #1 – $1 598 000 (or $67 000 pa) 100.0% 137.3% Objective #2 – $1 980 000 (or $83 000 pa) 80.7% 110.8% Credit card purchases - $73 000 pa 91.8% 126.0% Total expenses - $96 000pa 69.8% 95.8%
Summary
Progress over the last few months has been swift and surprising. Timelines set less than six months ago have been met, and the portfolio has entered into the 'between' phase of being above my minimum Objective #1, but some distance from my ultimate goal (Objective #2).
Part of the process of adapting to this phase is understanding its true nature - its permanence or otherwise, and looking through short-term movements to try to discern the underlying picture. In short, inspection and delay.
This what lies behind recent posts seeking to analyse the income potential of the portfolio, and longer term trends in distributions and expenses. Seeking the additional data point of what this portfolio delivers currently is the reason I am straining forward to see the size and shape of the end of June distributions.
The advice commonly offered in the financial independence community at this point is crystal clear. Pay less attention to the numbers, and start exploring and building the life you desire now. The advice is so universal, and so intuitively sensible that I do not ignore it. With Australian and global equity markets poised as they are, however, I feel a resisting force going too far down this path. This is mostly stemming from a suspicion that prior to the goal being reached there might be one or more unavoidable challenges to come.
This may be linked to an increased probability of Australian interest rate reductions, and even the entry by Australian monetary authorities into some form of quantitative easing. As inflation stalls, and housing markets decline, the macroeconomic conditions appear less predictable than at any time since 2009. Some of the global financial trends and developments that are of most concern are well discussed in the most recent Incrementum AG In Gold We Trust report, which has as its theme tracing declining trust across the global financial system.
While that outlook might suggest protective action, overall I am comfortable with the extent of my diversification across less-correlated assets. It should be remembered that I felt similar unease two years ago - and that indulging in market timing at that point would have had high opportunity costs.
In any case, more and more it is evident that the performance of the portfolio is not something that can be materially altered by one or two monthly investment decisions. Rather, it is a function of the interaction of unstable markets with the compound effect of hundreds of smaller individual investment contribution decisions taken over the past decade or so across a range of different market conditions.
Following on from my quick Bitcoin and gold correlation analysis last month, I was interested to see this 'portfolio optimisation' based analysis on the potential role of Bitcoin in a portfolio, using just seven years of historical data. Also, this What's Up Next podcast on finding the right time to retire is a fascinating discussion of the issue of knowing when it is time to put into action FIRE plans. Finally, Aussie HIFIRE has recently pulled together a post highlighting the different voices in the Australian FIRE blogging community for readers.
As winter takes hold, the portfolio is prepared for as yet undefined challenges and storms that may emerge, and I remain intensely curious at what the coming set of distributions will disclose about the distance I still have to travel. One port gained, the next leg of the journey beckons.
The post and graphs can be viewed here.
submitted by thefiexpl to fiaustralia [link] [comments]

The New Crypto Order & Escaping Financial Repression

The Vigilante’s View
It is our first issue in months that bitcoin hasn’t hit an all-time high! And it’s the last issue of the year. And what a year for cryptos it was.
To put it in perspective, bitcoin could fall 90% from current levels and it will still have outperformed stocks, bonds and real estate in 2017.
Bitcoin started 2017 at $960.79.
At the time of this writing it is near $13,000 for a gain of 1,250% in 2017.
And, bitcoin was actually one of the worst performing cryptocurrencies in our TDV portfolio in 2017!
Ethereum (ETH) started 2017 at $8. It has since hit over $800 for a nice 10,000% gain in 2017.
That’s pretty good, but not as good as Dash which started the year at $11.19 and recently hit $1,600 for a nearly 15,000% gain.
I hope many of you have participated in these amazing gains! If not, or you are new, don’t worry there will be plenty more opportunities in the years ahead.
It won’t all be just home runs though… in fact, some of the cryptos that have performed so well to date may go down dramatically or collapse completely in the coming years.
I’ll point out further below why Lightning Network is not the answer to Bitcoin Core’s slow speeds and high costs. And, I’ll look ahead to 2018 and how we could already be looking beyond blockchains.
Yes, things are moving so fast that blockchain just became known to your average person this year… and could be nearly extinct by next year.
That’s why it is important to stick with us here at TDV to navigate these choppy free market waters!
New Years Reflection On The Evolution Of Consensus Protocols
Sooner or later crypto will humble you by its greatness. Its vastness is accompanied by a madness that is breathtaking, because you quickly realize that there is no stopping crypto from taking over the world. The moment you think you have everything figured out, is the moment the market will surprise you.
We are for the first time living and witnessing the birth of the first worldwide free market. Throughout this rampage of innovation, we all are implicitly aiming for the best means of harnessing consensus. As we leave this bountiful 2017 and aim at 2018, it is important for us to meditate and appreciate the progress we have made in transforming the world through the decentralization of consensus. It is also important to reflect on the changes in consensus building we have partaken in and those yet to come.
Consensus is the agreement that states “this is what has occurred, and this is what hasn’t happened.”
Throughout the vastness of history, we humans have only really had access to centralized means for consensus building. In the centralized world, consensus has been determined by banks, states, and all kinds of central planners. As our readers know, any centralized party can misuse their power, and their consensus ruling can become unfair. In spite of this, many individuals still praise the effectiveness of consensus building of centralized systems.
People from antiquity have had no other option but to trust these central planners. These systems of control have created still-water markets where only a few are allowed to compete. This lack of competition resulted in what we now can objectively view as slow innovation. For many, centralized consensus building is preferred under the pretense of security and comfort. Unfortunately, these same individuals are in for a whole lot of discomfort now that the world is innovating on top of the first decentralized consensus building technology, the blockchain.
Everything that has occurred since the inception of bitcoin has shocked central planners because for the first time in history they are lost; they no longer hold power. We now vote with our money. We choose what we find best as different technologies compete for our money.
What we are witnessing when we see the volatility in crypto is nothing more than natural human motion through price. The innovation and volatility of the crypto market may seem unorthodox to some, because it is. For the first time in history we are in a true free market. The true free market connects you to everybody and for this reason alone the market shouldn’t surprise us for feeling “crazy.” Volatility is a sign of your connection to a market that is alive. Radical innovation is a sign of a market that is in its infancy still discovering itself.
In juxtaposing centralized consensus building with decentralized consensus building, I cannot keep myself from remembering some wise biblical words; “ And no one pours new wine into old wineskins. Otherwise, the new wine will burst the skins; the wine will run out and the wineskins will be ruined.” – Luke 5:37
The centralized legacy financial system is akin to old wineskins bursting to shreds by the new wine of crypto. Decentralized consensus building has no need for central planners. For example, think about how ludicrous it would be for someone to ask government for regulation after not liking something about crypto. Sorry, there is no central planner to protect you; even the mathematical protocols built for us to trust are now competing against one another for our money.
These new mathematical protocols will keep competing against one another as they provide us with new options in decentralizing consensus. As we look unto 2018, it is important that we as investors begin to critically engage and analyze “blockchain-free cryptocurrencies.”
HASHGRAPHS, TANGLES AND DAGS
Blockchain-free cryptocurrencies are technologies composed of distributed databases that use different tools to achieve the same objectives as blockchains.
The top contenders in the realm of blockchain-free cryptos are DAGs (Directed Acyclic Graphs) such as Swirlds’ Hashgraph, ByteBall’s DAG, and IOTA’s Tangle. These blockchain-free cryptos are also categorized as belonging to the 3 rd generation of cryptocurrencies. These technologies promise to be faster, cheaper, and more efficient than blockchain cryptocurrencies.
Blockchains were the first means of creating decentralized consensus throughout the world. In the blockchain, the majority of 51% determine the consensus. The limits of blockchains stem from their inherent nature, whereupon every single node/participant needs to know all of the information that has occurred throughout the whole blockchain economy of a given coin.
This opens up blockchains to issues akin to the ones we have been exposed to in regards to Bitcoin’s scaling. It is important to make a clear distinction in the language used between blockchains and blockchain-freecryptocurrencies. When we speak about blockchains it is more proper to speak about its transactionconsensus as “decentralized”, whereas with blockchain-free cryptocurrencies it is best if we refer to transaction consensus as “distributed.”
Swirlds’ Hashgraph incorporates a radical and different approach to distributing consensus. Swirlds claims that their new approach will solve scaling and security issues found on blockchains. They use a protocol called “Gossip about Gossip.” Gossip refers to how computers communicate with one another in sending information.
In comparison to the Blockchain, imagine that instead of all of the nodes receiving all of the transactions categorized in the past ten minutes, that only a few nodes shared their transaction history with other nodes near them. The Hashgraph team explains this as “calling any random node and telling that node everything you know that it does not know.” That is, in Hashgraph we would be gossiping about the information we are gossiping; i.e., sending to others throughout the network for consensus.
Using this gossiped information builds the Hashgraph. Consensus is created by means of depending on the gossips/rumors that come to you and you pass along to other nodes. Hashgraph also has periodic rounds which review the circulating gossips/rumors.
Hashgraph is capable of 250,000+ Transactions Per Second (TPS), compared to Bitcoin currently only allowing for 7 TPS. It is also 50,000 times faster than Bitcoin. There is no mention of a coin on their white paper. At this moment there is no Hashgraph ICO, beware of scams claiming that there is. There is however a growing interest in the project along with a surge of app development.
IOTAs DAG is known as the Tangle. Contrary to Hashgraph, IOTA does have its own coin known as MIOTA, currently trading around the $3 mark. There are only 2,779,530,283 MIOTA in existence. The Tangle was also created to help alleviate the pains experienced with Blockchain scaling. IOTAs Tangle creates consensus on a regional level; basically neighbors looking at what other neighbors are doing.
As the tangle of neighbors grows with more participants the security of the system increases, along with the speed of confirmation times. IOTA has currently been criticized for its still lengthy confirmation times and its current levels of centralization via their Coordinators. This centralization is due to the fact that at this moment in time the main team works as watchtower to oversee how Tangle network grows so that it does not suffer from attacks.
Consensus is reached within IOTA by means of having each node confirm two transactions before that same node is able to send a given transaction. This leads to the mantra of “the more people use IOTA, the more transactions get referenced and confirmed.” This creates an environment where transactional scaling has no limits. IOTA has no transaction fees and upon reaching high adoption the transactions ought to be very fast.
Another promising aspect about IOTA is that it has an integrated quantum-resistant algorithm, the Winternitz One-Time Signature Scheme, that would protect IOTA against an attack of future quantum computers. This without a doubt provides IOTA with much better protection against an adversary with a quantum computer when compared to Bitcoin.
ByteBall is IOTA’s most direct competitor. They both possess the same transaction speed of 100+ TPS, they both have their own respective cryptocurrencies, and they both have transparent transactions. ByteBall’s token is the ByteBall Bytes (GBYTE), with a supply of 1,000,000; currently trading at around $700. ByteBall aims to service the market with tamper proof storage for all types of data. ByteBall’s DAG also provides an escrow like system called “conditional payments;” which allows for conditional clauses before settling transactions.
Like IOTA, ByteBall is also designed to scale its transaction size to meet the needs of a global demand. ByteBall provides access to integrated bots for transactions which includes the capacity for prediction markets, P2P betting, P2P payments in chat, and P2P insurance. ByteBall’s initial coin distribution is still being awarded to BTC and Bytes holders according to the proportional amounts of BTC or Bytes that are held per wallet. IOTA, ByteBall and Hashgraph are technologies that provide us with more than enough reasons to be hopeful for 2018. In terms of the crypto market, you don’t learn it once. You have to relearn it every day because its development is so infant. If you are new to crypto and feel lost at all know that you are not alone. These technologies are constantly evolving with new competitive options in the market.
As the technologies grow the ease for adoption is set to grow alongside innovation. We are all new to this world and we are all as much in shock of its ingenuity as the next newbie. Crypto is mesmerizing not just for its volatility which is a clear indication of how connected we are now to one another, but also because of the social revolution that it represents. We are experiencing the multidirectional growth of humanity via the free market.
Meanwhile Bitcoin Is Turning Into Shitcoin
It is with a great degree of sadness that I see bitcoin is on the cusp of destroying itself. Bitcoin Core, anyway. Bitcoin Cash may be the winner from all of this once all is said and done.
Whether by design or by accident, bitcoin has become slow and expensive.
Many people point out that IF the market were to upgrade to Segwit that all would be fine. I’ll explain further below why many market participants have no incentive to upgrade to Segwit… meaning that the implementation of Segwit has been a massively risky guess that so far has not worked.
Others say that the Lightning Network (LN) will save bitcoin. I’ll point out below why that will not happen.
Lightning Networks And The Future Of Bitcoin Core
If you’ve been following bitcoin for any length of time, you’re probably aware of the significant dispute over how to scale the network. The basic problem is that although bitcoin could be used at one time to buy, say, a cup of coffee, the number of transactions being recorded on the network bid up the price per transaction so much that actually sending BTC cost more than the cup of coffee itself. Indeed, analysis showed that there were many Bitcoin addresses that had such small BTC holdings that the address itself couldn’t be used to transfer it to a different address. These are referred to as “unspendable addresses.”
In the ensuing debate, the “big blockers” wanted to increase the size of each block in the chain in order to allow for greater transaction capacity. The “small blockers” wanted to reduce the size of each transaction using a technique called Segregated Witness (SegWit) and keep the blocks in the chain limited to 1MB.
SegWit reduces the amount of data in each transaction by around 40-50%, resulting in an increased capacity from 7 transactions per second to perhaps 15.
The software engineers who currently control the Bitcoin Core code repository have stated that what Bitcoin needs is “off-chain transactions.” To do this, they have created something called Lightning Networks (LN), based on an software invention called the “two-way peg.” Put simply, the two-way peg involves creating an escrow address in Bitcoin where each party puts some bitcoin into the account, and then outside the blockchain, they exchange hypothetical Bitcoin transactions that either of them can publish on Bitcoin’s blockchain in order to pull their current agreed-upon balance out of the escrow address.
Most layman explanations of how this works describe the protocol as each party putting in an equal amount of Bitcoin into the escrow. If you and I want to start transacting off-chain, so we can have a fast, cheap payment system, we each put some Bitcoin in a multi-party address. I put in 1 BTC and you put in 1 BTC, and then we can exchange what are essentially cryptographic contracts that either of us can reveal on the bitcoin blockchain in order to exit our agreement and get our bitcoin funds.
Fortunately, it turns out that the video’s examples don’t tell the whole story. It’s possible for the escrow account to be asymmetric. See:. That is, one party can put in 1 BTC, while the other party puts in, say, 0.0001 BTC. (Core developer and forthcoming Anarchapulco speaker Jimmy Song tells us that there are game theoretic reasons why you don’t want the counterparty to have ZERO stake.)
Great! It makes sense for Starbucks to participate with their customers in Lightning Networks because when their customers open an LN channel (basically a gift card) with them for $100, they only have to put in $1 worth of Bitcoin. Each time the customer transacts on the Lightning Network, Starbucks gets an updated hypothetical transaction that they can use to cash out that gift card and collect their bitcoin.
The elephant in the room is: transaction fees. In order to establish the escrow address and thereby open the LN channel, each party has to send some amount of bitcoin to the address. And in order to cash out and get the bitcoin settlement, one party also has to initiate a transaction on the bitcoin blockchain. And to even add funds to the channel, one party has to pay a transaction fee.
Right now fees on the bitcoin blockchain vary widely and are extremely volatile. For a 1-hour confirmation transaction, the recommended fee from one wallet might be $12 US, while on another it’s $21 US. For a priority transaction of 10-20 minutes, it can range from $22-30 US. Transactions fees are based on the number of bytes in the transaction, so if both parties support SegWit (remember that?) then the fee comes down by 40-50%. So it’s between $6 and $10 US for a one hour transaction and between $11-15 for a 15 minute transaction. (SegWit transactions are prioritized by the network to some degree, so actual times may be faster)
But no matter what, both the customer and the merchant have to spend $6 each to establish that they will have a relationship and either of them has to spend $6 in order to settle out and get their bitcoin. Further, if the customer wants to “top off” their virtual gift card, that transaction costs another $6. And because it adds an address to the merchant’s eventual settlement, their cost to get their Bitcoin goes up every time that happens, so now it might cost them $9 to get their bitcoin.
Since these LN channels are essentially digital gift cards, I looked up what the cost is to retailers to sell acustomer a gift card. The merchant processor Square offers such gift cards on their retailer site. Their best price is $0.90 per card.
So the best case is that Lightning Networks are 600% more expensive than physical gift cards to distribute, since the merchant has to put a transaction into the escrow address. Further, the customer is effectively buying the gift card for an additional $6, instead of just putting up the dollar amount that goes on the card.
But it gets worse. If you get a gift card from Square, they process the payments on the card and periodically deposit cash into your bank account for a percentage fee. If you use the Lightning Network, you can only access your Bitcoin by cancelling the agreement with the customer. In other words, you have to invalidate their current gift card and force them to spend $6 on a new one! And it costs you $6 to collect your funds and another $6 to sell the new gift card!
I’m sure many of you have worked in retail. And you can understand how this would be financially infeasible. The cost of acquiring a new customer, and the amount of value that customer would have to stake just to do business with that one merchant, would be enormous to make any financial sense.
From time immemorial, when transaction costs rise, we see the creation of middlemen.
Merchants who can’t afford to establish direct channels with their customers will have to turn to middlemen, who will open LN channels for them. Instead of directly backing and cashing out their digital gift cards, they will establish relationships with entities that consolidate transactions, much like Square or Visa would do today.
Starbucks corporate or individual locations might spend a few USD on opening a payment channel with the middleman, and then once a month spend 6 USD to cash out their revenues in order to cover accounts payable.
In the meantime, the middleman also has to offer the ability to open LN channels for consumers. This still happens at a fixed initial cost, much like the annual fee for a credit card in the US. They would continue to require minimum balances, and would offer access to a network of merchants, exactly like Visa and MasterCard today.
This process requires a tremendous amount of capital because although the middleman does not have to stake Bitcoin in the consumer’s escrow account, he does have to stake it in the merchant’s account. In other words, if the Lightning Network middleman wants to do business with Starbucks to the tune of $100,000/month, he needs $100,000 of bitcoin to lock into an escrow address. And that has to happen for every merchant.
Because every month (or so) the merchants have to cash out of their bitcoin to fiat in order to pay for their cost of goods and make payroll. Even if their vendors and employees are paid in bitcoin and they have LN channels open with them, someone somewhere will want to convert to fiat, and trigger a closing channel creating a cascading settlement effect that eventually arrives at the middleman. Oh, and it triggers lots of bitcoin transactions that cost lots of fees.
Did I mention that each step in the channel is expecting a percentage of the value of the channel when it’s settled? This will come up again later.
Again, if you’ve worked in the retail business, you should be able to see how infeasible this would be. You have to buy inventory and you have to sell it to customers and every part that makes the transaction more expensive is eating away at your margins.
Further, if you’re the middleman and Starbucks closes out a channel with a $100,000 stake where they take $95,000 of the bitcoin, how do you re-open the channel? You need another $95,000 in capital. You have revenue, of course, from the consumer side of your business. Maybe you have 950 consumers that just finished off their $100 digital gift cards. So now you can cash them out to bitcoin for just $5700 in transaction fees, and lose 5.7% on the deal.
In order to make money in that kind of scenario, you have to charge LN transaction fees. And because your loss is 5.7%, you need to charge in the range of 9% to settle Lightning Network transactions. Also, you just closed out 950 customers who now have to spend $5700 to become your customer again while you have to spend $5700 to re-acquire them as customers. So maybe you need to charge more like 12%.
If you approached Starbucks and said “you can accept Bitcoin for your customers and we just need 12% of the transaction,” what are the odds that they would say yes? Even Visa only has the balls to suggest 3%, and they have thousands and thousands of times as many consumers as bitcoin.
The entire mission of bitcoin was to be faster, cheaper and better than banks, while eliminating centralized control of the currency. If the currency part of Bitcoin is driven by “off-chain transactions” while bitcoin itself remains expensive and slow, then these off-chain transactions will become the territory of centralized parties who have access to enormous amounts of capital and can charge customers exorbitant rates. We know them today as banks.
Even for banks, we have to consider what it means to tie up $100,000/month for a merchant account. That only makes sense if the exchange rate of bitcoin grows faster than the cost of retaining Bitcoin inventory. It costs nothing to store Bitcoin, but it costs a lot to acquire it. At the very least the $6 per transaction to buy it, plus the shift in its value against fiat that’s based on interest rates. As a result, it only makes sense to become a Lightning Network middleman if your store of value (bitcoin) appreciates at greater than the cost of acquiring it (interest rate of fiat.) And while interest rates are very low, that’s not a high bar to set. But to beat it, Bitcoin’s exchange rate to fiat has to outpace the best rate available to the middleman by a factor exceeding the opportunity cost of other uses of that capital.
Whatever that rate is, for bitcoin, the only reason the exchange rate changes is new entry of capital into the “price” of bitcoin. For that to work, bitcoin’s “price” must continue to rise faster than the cost of capital for holding it. So far this has happened, but it’s a market gamble for it to continue.
Since it happens because of new capital entering into the bitcoin network and thus increasing the market cap, this results in Bitcoin Core becoming the very thing that its detractors accuse it of: a Ponzi scheme. The cost of transacting in Bitcoin becomes derived from the cost of holding bitcoin and becomes derived from the cost of entering bitcoin.
Every middleman has to place a bet on the direction of bitcoin in a given period. And in theory, if they think the trend is against Bitcoin, then they’ll cash out and shut down all the payment channels that they transact. If they bought bitcoin at $15,000, and they see it dropping to $13,000 — they’ll probably cash out their merchant channels and limit their risk of a further drop. The consumer side doesn’t matter so much because their exposure is only 1%, but the merchant side is where they had to stake everything.
If you’re wondering why this information is not widely known, it’s because most bitcoin proponents don’t transact in bitcoin on a regular basis. They may be HODLing, but they aren’t doing business in bitcoin.
Through Anarchapulco, TDV does frequent and substantial business in bitcoin, and we’ve paid fees over $150 in order to consolidate ticket sale transactions into single addresses that can be redeemed for fiat to purchase stage equipment for the conference.
For Bitcoin to be successful at a merchant level via Lightning Networks, we will have to see blockchain transactions become dramatically cheaper. If they return to the sub-$1 range, we might have a chance with centralized middlemen, but only with a massive stabilization of volatility. If they return to $0.10, we might have a chance with direct channels.
Otherwise, Lightning Networks can’t save bitcoin as a means of everyday transaction. And since that takes away its utility, it might very well take away the basis of its value and bitcoin could find itself truly being a tulip bubble.
One final note: there are a some parties for whom all these transactions are dramatically cheaper. That is the cryptocurrency exchanges. Because they are the entry and exit points for bitcoin-to-fiat, they can eliminate a layer of transaction costs and thus offer much more competitive rates — as long as you keep your bitcoin in their vaults instead of securing it yourselves.
Sending it out of their control lessens their competitive advantage against other means of storage. It comes as no surprise, then, that they are the least advanced in implementing the SegWit technology that would improve transaction costs and speed. If you buy bitcoin on Poloniex, it works better for them if it’s expensive for you to move that coin to your Trezor.
In fact, an exchange offering Lightning Network channels to merchants could potentially do the following…
1) Stake bitcoins in channels with merchants. These coins may or may not be funds that are held by their customers. There is no way to know.
2) Offer customers “debit card” accounts for those merchants that are backed by the Lightning network
3) Establish middle addresses for the customer accounts and the merchant addresses on the Lightning Network.
4) Choose to ignore double-spends between the customer accounts and the merchant addresses, because they don’t actually have to stake the customer side. They can just pretend to since they control the customer’s keys.
5) Inflate their bitcoin holdings up to the stake from the merchants, since the customers will almost never cash out in practice.
In other words, Lightning Networks allow exchanges a clear path to repeating Mtgox; lie to the consumer about their balance while keeping things clean with the merchant. In other words, establish a fractional reserve approach to bitcoin.
So, to summarize, Bitcoin Core decided increasing the blocksize from 1mb to 2-8mb was “too risky” and decided to create Segwit instead which the market has not adopted. When asked when bitcoin will be faster and less expensive to transfer most Bitcoin Core adherents say the Lightning Network will fix the problems.
But, as I’ve just shown, the LN makes no sense for merchants to use and will likely result in banks taking over LN nodes and making BTC similar to Visa and Mastercard but more expensive. And, will likely result in exchanges becoming like banks of today and having fractional reserve systems which makes bitcoin not much better than the banking system of today.
Or, people can switch to Bitcoin Cash, which just increased the blocksize and has much faster transaction times at a fraction of the cost.
I’ve begun to sell some of my bitcoin holdings because of what is going on. I’ve increased my Bitcoin Cash holdings and also increased my holdings of Dash, Monero, Litecoin and our latest recommendation, Zcash.
Other News & Crypto Tidbits
When bitcoin surpassed $17,600 in December it surpassed the total value of the IMF’s Special Drawing Rights (SDR) currency.
Meanwhile, Alexei Kireyev of the IMF put out his working paper, “ The Macroeconomics of De-Cashing ,” where he advises abolishing cash without having the public aware of the process.
Countries such as Russia are considering creating a cryptocurrency backed by oil to get around the US dollar and the US dollar banking system. Venezuela is as well although we highly doubt it will be structured properly or function well given the communist government’s track record of destroying two fiat currencies in the last decade.
To say that the US dollar is being attacked on every level is not an understatement. Cryptocurrencies threaten the entire monetary and financial system while oil producing countries look to move away from the US dollar to their own oil backed cryptocurrency.
And all this as bitcoin surpassed the value of the IMF’s SDR in December and in 2017 the US dollar had its largest drop versus other currencies since 2003.
And cryptocurrency exchanges have begun to surpass even the NASDAQ and NYSE in terms of revenue. Bittrex, as one example, had $3 billion in volume on just one day in December. At a 0.5% fee per trade that equaled $15m in revenue in just one day. If that were to continue for 365 days it would mean $5.4 billion in annual revenue which is more than the NASDAQ or NYSE made this year.
Conclusion
I never would have guessed how high the cryptocurrencies went this year. My price target for bitcoin in 2017 was $3,500! That was made in late 2016 when bitcoin was near $700 and many people said I was crazy.
Things are speeding up much faster than even I could have imagined. And it is much more than just making money. These technologies, like cryptocurrencies, blockchains and beyond connect us in a more profound way than Facebook would ever be able to. We are now beginning to be connected in ways we never even thought of; and to some degree still do not understand. These connections within this completely free market are deep and meaningful.
This is sincerely beautiful because we are constantly presented with an ever growing buffet of competing protocols selling us their best efforts in providing harmony within the world. What all of these decentralized and distributed consensus building technologies have in common is that they connect us to the world and to each other. Where we are going we don’t need foolish and trite Facebook’s emojis.
As we close a successful 2017 we look with optimism towards a much more prosperous 2018. The Powers That Shouldn’t Be (TPTSB) can’t stop us. As we move forward note how much crypto will teach you about ourselves and the world. In a radical free market making our own bets will continue to be a process of self discovery. Crypto will show us the contours of our fears, the contours of our greed, and will constantly challenge us to do our best with the knowledge we have.
Remember, randomness and innovation are proper to the happenstance nature of a true digital free market.
Happy New Year fellow freedom lovers!
And, as always, thank you for subscribing!
Jeff Berwick
submitted by 2012ronpaul2012 to conspiracy [link] [comments]

Removed comments from Economics subreddits - 07/23/18

And what has Germany provided the US in the last 30 years?
Comment removed from /Economics - Captian_Cocksmith - Created on 07/23/18 00:19:43 UTC - permalink
The low interest rates are a response to the expansion of credit. This sets off the inflationary boom which ends as money begins being priced to actual conditions. Optimistic investments 'above' the actual conditions suffer when the credit expansion ends or even inflects.
Comment removed from /AskEconomics - sh0t - Created on 07/23/18 00:30:26 UTC - permalink
You can easily google that information. Starting point: critical military bases.
Comment removed from /Economics - nutmeggerking - Created on 07/23/18 00:41:39 UTC - permalink
I like Steve Keen's take on this and his modeling of monetary flows:
http://www.debtdeflation.com/blogs/2010/11/05/solving-the-paradox-of-monetary-profits-2/
A recent Business Insider article put the blame on monopsony, which I also agree with.
Comment removed from /AskEconomics - sh0t - Created on 07/23/18 00:57:40 UTC - permalink
Critical military bases to protect Germany.. that's not helping USA..
Comment removed from /Economics - 162lake - Created on 07/23/18 01:07:08 UTC - permalink
You do realise that Ramstein Airbase is where your critically wounded soldiers get their emergency care right?
Also, you also realise that Germany hosts your drones communication operating in the mid east?
Comment removed from /Economics - tat310879 - Created on 07/23/18 01:21:39 UTC - permalink
So.. Germany has provided a base to fly USA drones. Your right, my bad USA can pay for 90% of Europe protection, tax our products, buy 70% gas from Russia and 50% oil from Russia while we protect them. Makes sense to me now. Thanks for the clarification.
Comment removed from /Economics - 162lake - Created on 07/23/18 01:25:56 UTC - permalink
The main gun for literally every main battle tank we've used in the last 30 years.
Comment removed from /Economics - kegman83 - Created on 07/23/18 01:26:48 UTC - permalink
Firstly, US is paying for no one's protection. What the Nato treaty entails is that each nation pledges to spend 2%of their budget to defence. It is like everyone bring a plate of food to a potluck. You are not spending a single dime into Nato.
Also, do note that no one told you to go full retard buy getting 11 aircraft carriers, and spend trillions invading Afghanistan or Iraq. That is on you, not them.
Finally, Germany, France and Europe in general could well protect themselves from Russia should they choose. They have the know how, the tech, the money and the population as well. Russia is weaker than Germany, not the other way round. Germany have plenty of allies even if you pull out.
You should really use your brain and stop watching Fox news once in a whilem
Comment removed from /Economics - tat310879 - Created on 07/23/18 01:33:11 UTC - permalink
How did Russia take Ukraine so easy? Because Russia controls their gas and oil supply. They shut off their supply, a week before they walked right across the boarder. Ohh guess what, Russia controls 50% of Germany oil, and 70% of their gas. I wonder where this is headed. France can't defend themselves, they can't even defend the streets of Paris because of the Muslim grooming gangs. And lastly how many countries paid 2%?
I strongly suggest you read your history books, before insulting others it is not justifying your point of view. God bless.
Comment removed from /Economics - 162lake - Created on 07/23/18 01:49:41 UTC - permalink
Are you seriously comparing Western Europe with Ukraine? Really? Are you that desperate in your argument?
France can't defend themselves? Really? What about their nukes? How stupid can you get?
Grooming gangs? Really? In that case i say the US is also weak because you can't even protect your kids from getting massacred yearly. Kindergarten kids being shot wantonly and there is shit all you idios can do about it. You cant even go to a concert in Vegas without being shot at. How about that?
Also, Germany is not as dependent of Russian gas supplies as they could easily ship them in from the mid East or Canada if need be. You heard about this thing called super LNG ships, right?
Then again, Fox watching Trumptards like you wouldn't even comprehend my arguments. You are really that stupid.
Comment removed from /Economics - tat310879 - Created on 07/23/18 01:57:25 UTC - permalink
Don't bother talking to that guy his whole post history is full The Danald bs and fake moon landing stuff
Comment removed from /Economics - johannthegoatman - Created on 07/23/18 02:00:43 UTC - permalink
The stupidity and ignorance of some Americans are just breath taking.
France can't defend themselves? That really took the cake. If they have a vague idea that France has a UN Security Council seat they probably thought they were there because they could cook well or something.
Stupid is stupid does.
Comment removed from /Economics - tat310879 - Created on 07/23/18 02:06:37 UTC - permalink
Billions and billions and billions of dollars of foreign direct investment in the US.
Comment removed from /Economics - lolexecs - Created on 07/23/18 02:18:21 UTC - permalink
This is why the rest of the world think Americans are fucking retards...
Comment removed from /Economics - Rec1umWrecker - Created on 07/23/18 02:23:06 UTC - permalink
Which they are going to keep selling us....
This isn't complicated people. The tariffs are just to make a point... you trade fair with us, you trade freely with us, we'll do the same for you.
Trump is NOT WRONG that non-tariff barriers against our products put us at an unfair disadvantage.
Comparative advantage and free trade are great, you people... so let's put those ideas into actual fair practice.
The point of raising tariffs isn't to have more tariffs forever... it's just to actually shake things up and get broad international reductions in tariffs... which is what will happen.
2 years from now, the US will have lower tariffs on imports overall than it did 2 years ago... and it will be thanks to Donald Trump being willing to flex our muscles and get the rest of the world to respect us and reciprocally lower their own trade barriers to fair levels.
Comment removed from /Economics - Nanarayana - Created on 07/23/18 02:24:42 UTC - permalink
some Americans
People, not Americans. France has Jean-Marie Le Pen too you know.
Comment removed from /Economics - RE5TE - Created on 07/23/18 02:25:23 UTC - permalink
Gilead is nearly bankrupting states with their cure for hepC
Medicine is a special breed since the vast majority comes from public dollars and then through lobbied monopolies that we grant to companies they can charge through the sky
Comment removed from /AskEconomics - datareinidearaus - Created on 07/23/18 02:25:44 UTC - permalink
Are you like literally seriously defending Amerikkka right now? :(
Comment removed from /Economics - EternalPropagation - Created on 07/23/18 03:04:28 UTC - permalink
Propaganda
Comment removed from /Economics - AFlyingMexican5 - Created on 07/23/18 03:39:35 UTC - permalink
Bad troll is bad.
Comment removed from /Economics - anothercleaverbeaver - Created on 07/23/18 03:40:43 UTC - permalink
Logic is useless without empiricism, isn't it? Seems to me that there is only best method to seeking truth, and that is the inductive method.
Does the following hold as analogous to your argument?
There are a certain number of birds in flight at this very instant on Earth.
It is improbable that we possess the means to measure the number of birds in flight at any instant with absolute accuracy.
Therefore we cannot develop a useful hypothesis regarding the number of birds.
If this is the logic of your argument that empiricism cannot provide useful and testable hypotheses for economic matters, then I dont believe you have a very solid argument.
Comment removed from /Economics - _Lazarus_ - Created on 07/23/18 03:56:36 UTC - permalink
Are you like literally implying that countries who export their goods to America are propagandized to complain when America imposes tariffs?
Comment removed from /Economics - EternalPropagation - Created on 07/23/18 05:21:19 UTC - permalink
No, that's not analogous. The analogous argument for economics would be: Hey I think I've figured out how to estimate the numbers of birds in the sky, and now I'm going to use that estimate to control their movement.
Comment removed from /Economics - d00ns - Created on 07/23/18 05:27:36 UTC - permalink
No. The Republicans base is ignorant and gets their news is propaganda.
Comment removed from /Economics - AFlyingMexican5 - Created on 07/23/18 05:29:30 UTC - permalink
Okay good. For a second I thought you were saying European tariffs on American goods were bad or something.
Comment removed from /Economics - EternalPropagation - Created on 07/23/18 06:20:29 UTC - permalink
Even in our quantitative economic studies we are basic it mostly on the fact that certain factors won't change - ceteris paribus (all things being constant).
Economics is boiled down to how humans organise our scarce resources. Humans do not always act logically; economys are complex and multi layered not every factor can be mapped; and we our cultures all impact how how individual economies work.
Simply put any quantitative research in macroeconomics is really just a theory that might work if we exclude 60% of all unpredictable factors and try to calculate for the 40%. It works sometimes but classical economics works best because we accept we cant make predictions and policies so lets just not try and hope the market organises itself.
Comment removed from /Economics - unstopablex5 - Created on 07/23/18 07:16:12 UTC - permalink
Yes, I understand that there are many factors. It is exactly the same in any other scientific discipline. There are no such things as exact values in chemistry or physics, there are only accepted values. And, there are situations where the traditional math breaks down. PV=NRT starts to break down if gases start to act not ideal like at high temperatures or if their collisions become elastic. But still, PV=NRT or c=wavelength x frequency are still useful models of what the relationships are between different things are.
I must say that I being a little harsh on the person that I was responding to previously. I am aware that there are Austrians that are perfectly happy to incorporate quantitative studies into their analyses, and that they call themselves Austrians to simply that their work has caused them to favor free markets and small government. I don't really have an issue with these people.
Comment removed from /Economics - Man-of-Sex - Created on 07/23/18 07:55:11 UTC - permalink
I’m going here in a week! Very excited
Comment removed from /Economics - onemanragecage - Created on 07/23/18 08:08:16 UTC - permalink
“We devised an alternative to austerity, focusing on higher growth..."
and more debt ;)
Comment removed from /Economics - Bitcoin_21 - Created on 07/23/18 08:24:22 UTC - permalink
before you upvote this guy's comment, just bear in mind he's a conservative and believer in alternative facts
Comment removed from /Economics - Strong__Belwas - Created on 07/23/18 08:26:53 UTC - permalink
Try and get the simple demand-supply wage-employment graph out of your head. Stop thinking of them as a trade-off, in reality they don't act against each other.
Comment removed from /AskEconomics - wraggy44 - Created on 07/23/18 08:38:35 UTC - permalink
It'd be interesting to see counterpoints to his statements instead of discrediting him through political beliefs and unclever expressions like "alternative facts".
Comment removed from /Economics - kairos - Created on 07/23/18 08:42:47 UTC - permalink
why?
if i say "as an american, i think this story is made up and trump is the greatest" you probably wanna know my political affiliations, that i'm not some guy with special insight as a member of that nation, i'm just politically-motivated to lie on reddit.
that's all
Comment removed from /Economics - Strong__Belwas - Created on 07/23/18 08:44:40 UTC - permalink
Because your economical/political ideologies don't make you right or wrong.
If you say "as an american, i think this story is made up and trump is the greatest", but back your arguments up with credible data/sources, then your contribution adds to the discussion.
If the sources are rubbish, then you point out the flaws in OPs sources and go on from there.
This is why comments asking for sources are pretty useful, because people who are full of shit tend to not be able to provide them or just link to rubbish (the odd blog post or something).
Comment removed from /Economics - kairos - Created on 07/23/18 09:15:17 UTC - permalink
where are the facts of the person i'm replying to
the thing is, you are making my point for me. people will just blindly believe the guy. they ought to know what his biases are.
Comment removed from /Economics - Strong__Belwas - Created on 07/23/18 09:17:42 UTC - permalink
You are assuming that I'm defending him, when I'm not. All I'm saying is that attacking his political beliefs doesn't make him wrong.
By labeling him as a conservative, all you're doing is leading people who have the same bias as him to believe him and people who lean the other way will not believe what he's saying.
In the meantime, (I think) most people here are smart enough to not take "being portuguese" as an authority on all things Portugal and expect some sort of source for his claims.
I will read (but, depending on the arguments, probably not respond) to any replies to this, as I think I've made my point clear enough and don't think there's much to be added to this discussion.
Comment removed from /Economics - kairos - Created on 07/23/18 09:29:50 UTC - permalink
They’re not smart enough because they believed him and upvoted him even tho he provided no evidence
Why are you singling me out for this is all I’m wondering. Guy makes a claim and doesn’t support it. I say “don’t believe everything you read on Reddit, this guy is politically biased and hasn’t offered evidence”
Seems like you should be directing your posts to that islamophobic bigot
Comment removed from /Economics - Strong__Belwas - Created on 07/23/18 09:50:48 UTC - permalink
Time to short Portugal
Comment removed from /Economics - mancala33 - Created on 07/23/18 10:05:21 UTC - permalink
sshhhhh.... nobody wants to hear that here.
Comment removed from /Economics - ThisOriented - Created on 07/23/18 10:09:34 UTC - permalink
You lost the discussion. Nowhere in these comments did he mention Islam. He mentioned his government has a history of misusing statistics to cover the truth.
Comment removed from /Economics - GodsGoodGrace - Created on 07/23/18 10:18:01 UTC - permalink
I will never get used to this new two-sentence headline structure.
Comment removed from /Economics - externality - Created on 07/23/18 13:36:22 UTC - permalink
This is all Trumps fault!
Comment removed from /Economics - kinypornaccount - Created on 07/23/18 14:39:41 UTC - permalink
that roar is the sound of money rushing into the accounts of the 1%
Comment removed from /Economics - sighbourbon - Created on 07/23/18 14:44:36 UTC - permalink
It's like you are trying to start /neoliberal2
Comment removed from /badeconomics - qchisq - Created on 07/23/18 16:22:14 UTC - permalink
Is this even worth an R1: https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2018/07/20/trump-were-playing-with-the-banks-money-on-markets-gain-since-el.html?__twitter_impression=true
Comment removed from /badeconomics - Araraguy - Created on 07/23/18 16:33:46 UTC - permalink
I will give it to you, I only shared my personal bias, it's quite frustrating to me to see opinions/articles saying how well Portugal is doing, it's enabling bad politics here.
And I'm not a conservative, I'm a minarchist/libertarian and yes I've criticized Islam (not Muslims), if that makes me a bigot, I don't know why, people criticize Christianity all the time and never heard anyone be called a bigot or cristianiphobic for it...
Comment removed from /Economics - Autosleep - Created on 07/23/18 17:00:22 UTC - permalink
"Lock the can down the road" socialism.
Comment removed from /Economics - Mynameisfatsoshady - Created on 07/23/18 17:00:36 UTC - permalink
And the really sad part is there’s more wealth now than ever before. The older generation is fucking it up for the younger generation. This is the ultimate travesty.
Comment removed from /Economics - Xerkzeez - Created on 07/23/18 19:42:25 UTC - permalink
Thank you GOP and Baby Boomers for selling us the ultimate scam of trickle down economics and low corporate taxes.
Comment removed from /Economics - LemonHarangue - Created on 07/23/18 20:36:32 UTC - permalink
Yeah, well, if you could convince younger people to vote during every election then maybe the politicians would pay attention to their concerns. As it stands now, young voters can't be counted on.
Old people vote. All. The. Time.
Comment removed from /Economics - KillYourTV - Created on 07/23/18 20:37:51 UTC - permalink
Yes
Comment removed from /Economics - Throwaway989972 - Created on 07/23/18 20:38:36 UTC - permalink
This is a non-substantive comment. This sub is meant for economic theory discussion, not normative conjecture.
Comment removed from /Economics - jackshiels - Created on 07/23/18 20:50:34 UTC - permalink
Trickle-down economics has never been an economic theory. It is a label given to supply-side stimulus by left-wing critics and a common talking point by economically ignorant users on this site.
Comment removed from /Economics - jackshiels - Created on 07/23/18 20:51:33 UTC - permalink
Now, I'm just curious, but does this have to do with the civil responsibility instilled in the greatest generation (oldest voters probably) or is it because of the age? Like will baby boomers vote as much as the greatest generation when they are aging into their mid-60s/70s?
Tldr do you vote more because you're retired or bc of the civil duty instilled your generation?
Comment removed from /Economics - WritersofRohan17 - Created on 07/23/18 20:51:48 UTC - permalink
you will not find it in textbooks
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trickle-down_economics
There's about thirty sources listed here that say you're wrong
Comment removed from /Economics - Plopplopthrown - Created on 07/23/18 21:01:10 UTC - permalink
https://www.reddit.com/conspiracy/comments/630wf1/how_the_federal_reserve_is_robbing_us_blind/
Are conspiracy things off limits?
Comment removed from /badeconomics - DHallahan - Created on 07/23/18 21:03:31 UTC - permalink
Once again, with feeling: it is not taught in economic textbooks.
Comment removed from /Economics - jackshiels - Created on 07/23/18 21:04:16 UTC - permalink
They've slowly come to learn that politics actually matter.
Comment removed from /Economics - FunAndGamesNStuff - Created on 07/23/18 21:06:43 UTC - permalink
Probably a bit of everything. Also more life experience which includes decades of local to federal politicians passing bills that you disagree with.
I'm only in my 30s and have watched myself and peers go from only really "caring" about presidential or governor elections to voting to even in every local election.
I really don't think it's a pride thing but more that people begin to realize more and more that they must vote to try to keep the things they want the same or to change things they dislike and voting is the easiest way to do it.
Comment removed from /Economics - garlicdeath - Created on 07/23/18 21:08:02 UTC - permalink
My dad just bought a new 350k yacht, while I struggle to meet my mortgage payments. He retired when he was 45, and expects me to be able to do the same...
Comment removed from /Economics - aesu - Created on 07/23/18 21:09:26 UTC - permalink
It’s supposed to be a criticism, reflecting what actually ends up happening with such policies instead of using the nice terms created by their proponents. Not being the word supply-side economists would like to use doesn’t make it invalid.
Comment removed from /Economics - BossaNova1423 - Created on 07/23/18 21:15:26 UTC - permalink
Why would I study macroeconomics, when it lacks even the predictive power of meteorology?
Comment removed from /Economics - wockyman - Created on 07/23/18 21:33:38 UTC - permalink
My answer won't be liked, but I'll say it anyway. It's because civic education was purposefully altered, diluted, and largely removed from the school system... and it was done on purpose for exactly this reason.
Comment removed from /Economics - arminiusreturns - Created on 07/23/18 22:39:20 UTC - permalink
Yeah, young people have among the lowest voter turnout rate. If they voted at the rate of people (especially white men) over 50 a lot of the state legislatures and Congress would look different than it does today.
Comment removed from /Economics - A7-23 - Created on 07/23/18 22:41:52 UTC - permalink
A-men. Why should I have to take Advanced Placement Government class to get knowledge that all kids should get outright?
Comment removed from /Economics - Bonzoso - Created on 07/23/18 22:43:54 UTC - permalink
What's wrong with low corporate taxes? It's just coming out of company growth, market cap, and potential wages. I see no reason at all to even have corporate taxes.
Comment removed from /Economics - radwimp - Created on 07/23/18 22:50:39 UTC - permalink
Why would you hang out in /economics if you don't care about economics?
Comment removed from /Economics - way2lazy2care - Created on 07/23/18 22:52:53 UTC - permalink
at least in my HS there was a required civics/government class for your senior year. AP Gov theoretically just aims the material at the test. In practice, this just means the best teachers teach AP Gov.
Comment removed from /Economics - eetsumkaus - Created on 07/23/18 23:02:53 UTC - permalink
Election day should be a national holiday.
This would mostly help government, finance, and other white collar professions.
Retail, healthcare, restaurants, etc. are working on all other federal holidays. What will make election day any different?
Comment removed from /Economics - raiderato - Created on 07/23/18 23:05:05 UTC - permalink
They shouldn't.
Comment removed from /Economics - raiderato - Created on 07/23/18 23:05:53 UTC - permalink
To be honest, I’m in my late 20s, went to college without the help of family/friends, worked hard to pay it off, have found a job in my field without too many obstacles, am about 70% of the way towards putting a downpayment on a house.
15/20 of my friends are doing just as well.
My sisters are doing just as well.
What the fuck is everyone talking about when they cry about opportunity in 2018?
Comment removed from /Economics - justin_truedoee - Created on 07/23/18 23:09:03 UTC - permalink
submitted by throwittomebro to reconomics_mod_audit [link] [comments]

The Crisis of Credit Visualized - HD - YouTube Litecoin Finance Mining Guide  YescryptR16 Algo  Speculative Coin Mining Gold & Silver VS. Bitcoin! - Why Not BOTH? Blockchain360 - YouTube What Really Makes The Rich Get Richer And The Poor Get ...

View live Ethereum / Bitcoin chart to track latest price changes. Trade ideas, forecasts and market news are at your disposal as well. BTC USD (Bitcoin / US Dollar) This is the most popular Bitcoin pair in the world. Bitcoin uses peer-to-peer technology to operate with no central authority or banks; managing transactions and the issuing of Bitcoins is carried out collectively by the network. Bitcoin is open-source; its design is public, nobody owns or controls this cryptocurrency and everyone can take part. Bitcoin price grew ... Mar 22, 2017 - Explore Bitcoin Macroeconomics's board "Bitcoin Macroeconomics", followed by 163 people on Pinterest. See more ideas about Macroeconomics, Bitcoin, Bitcoin faucet. Bitcoin Job: [HIRING] Macroeconomics proficient. Published 15.01.2018. Hi I’m looking for someone with good knowledge in intro to macro economics college level and is familiar with Aplia, a website for macroeconomic homework problems. Please PM me your qualifications for the job, thanks ... Bitcoin vs money supply. Currency Converter Help-Forex-Markets-The Economic TimesELITE EIGHT MACROECONOMICS GRAPHS The following eight graphs are the typical graphs used to interpret economic situations for the AP Macroeconomic course. LTC. Pared to the major currencies US dollar, the euro and the Japanese yen. The number of bitcoins in ...

[index] [31916] [30058] [42657] [40251] [34972] [39255] [33178] [50924] [29293] [16634]

The Crisis of Credit Visualized - HD - YouTube

Gigabyte Geforce GTX 1060 G1 Gaming Graphics Cards: https: ... AP Macroeconomics: Discussing Monetary ... Noob's Guide To Bitcoin Mining - Super Easy & Simple - Duration: 11:37. UFD Tech 2,415,152 ... This video shares principles for saving and investing money, from the book the Richest man in Babylon. If you have never read the book, you will be blown awa... 04:14 The 2 languages to win institutions over = 1) monetary theory/ macroeconomics AND 2) Bitcoin/ Cryptocurrency 06:05 Bridge the familiar with the unfamiliar (always relative) 07:18 Bitcoin is ... Josh Sigurdson talks with author and economics analyst John Sneisen about the recent growth of Bitcoin vs. gold and silver as the Google searches for "Buy Bitcoin" surpass searches for "Buy Gold ... Get the feature-length documentary at www.CryptopiaFilm.com to see our fancy graphics explaining this in more detail (plus all of the other drama going on in the space).

#