Ok one last quick two posts and then I really will be gone for a few days. Sometimes I think I am starting to understand Anonymint's password scrambling habits. OROBTC I agree with you that discussion of four-letter personality types does not really advance the discussion. I will avoid doing so going forward. Thank you for calling me out on that.

In terms of the recent sometimes eye glazing back and forth on entropy the reason it matters is that it has a very large impact on your #2 above. If I am correct for example then Martin Armstrongs solution of education is the right one. Also it means that Bitcoin (or something like it) may be a critical part of the solution. If TBTP is correct then Armstrong's is wasting his time as education will accomplish little or nothing and Bitcoin will become a part of the problem. Also Monero (or something like it) may be a critical part of the solution. I do not expect we will reach consensus on the entropy issue but I am sure that side discussion will wind down eventually probably due to mutual exhaustion.

I definitely agree that this thread is lacking suggestions for the individual. I would be happy to see more talk on that. I can tell you that one thing I did to was to ensure that my family was located in a city with 1) stable local finances and 2) a thriving information technology sector. If things go bad I am confident my local order will hold up longer then it will in other places. Also it significantly limits the risk that my home will be turned into a giant leaching mechanism. I can and will be hit at the federal level but at the local level there is a small buffer.
 

 

Citing special cases of localized efficiency doesn't vacate my assertion (and informal proof) that generalized, global efficiency is the maximization of entropy. Over the long-term systems self-organize (anneal) to prioritize global efficiency by eliminating Coasian barriers.

So sorry your view is too simpleton.

The generalized definition of efficiency does incorporate any domain (including capital formation) that is relevant to maximizing global entropy.

I was working on trying to solve the problem of not having to commit so tightly coupled to a platform, because I know how important this could be for scaling in the Knowledge Age. In that linked thread, I was getting deeper into the concept of the Theory of the Firm, why corporations exist and why the Knowledge Age eliminates them. Unfortunately I've had to put that on the back burner and it is very ambitious.

Ah I just bumped into my 2011 prediction on Google, which seems to be coming true. Yet another in my long list of correct conceptualizations that come to fruition.


Bravo! You got that aspect of the concept.  


Please read the "Financeability of Knowledge" section of the Rise of Knowledge essay linked from the opening post of this thread. Also understand that knowledge comes into existence serendipitously and thus it can't be centralized.

The one-world reserve currency NWO huddle of the masses will try its best to parasite and control the Knowledge Age, but will fail (and that is why I say the one-world NWO will be a eugenics death program). Nature will not allow the trend towards maximum entropy to reverse.

For example, ObamaCare is already gearing up to euthanize boomers. Obama already did it with the vet scandal. Much more of that to come.


Your conceptualizations are always too simpleton.

You are thinking that a connection is a flow of entropyheat, as in the concept that the probability of walking into a room with no oxygen is very unlikely because a vacuum is an unstable state and the higher entropy of distributed oxygen molecules will rush into the vacuum at the first opportunity. This was essentially CoinCube's myopia also, although (I surmise) he was already functioning at a higher level of understanding (and so if my assumption is correct, then it won't take him much effort to come to understand my perspective).

But connections between humans are not a flow of physical matter, but rather an interaction that increases the possible divergent paths of the outcomes, thus entropy increases (or it doesn't hahaha  ). For example, imagine two humans talking on the phone about possible ideas. The meeting of the minds synergizes and much more complex possibilities spawn (new information content is spawned serendipitous that couldn't be predicted a priori by the prior information content and that is a key difference between "random" generators regurgitating information content from the environment).


Black body radiation is so insignificant (except under acceleration where it is critical to phenomenon of gravity) to what is going on to maximize entropy it is not worth mentioning.

CoinCube had made a very astute communication to me in private some months ago wherein he argued very convincingly that he had at least until 2017 in the USA before needing to make any big changes.

I think CoinCube is correct to leverage the collective and the highest quality cities for some period of time, just as long as he doesn't wait too long and lose the opportunity to make any shifts that he wants to make later. This is why Armstrong is correct that there will be ingress into the dollar and USA as the rest of the world turns down.

The powers-that-be want a slow burn with propaganda to slide the masses into the NWO.

Thus the greatest disruption should come the soonest to those areas which are not Western mainstream and which are outlets for freedom that the powers-that-be wish to suppress.

Thus I would expect the powers-that-be to encourage a rise in threats to personal security (e.g. kidnappings, muggings, violence, paramilitarism, and other conflicts) in for example the wide open spaces in South America.

I see a slow burn of closing off all the outlets for individual freedom to funnel the mainstream masses into the cities and the NWO.

So if you play along, you can buy some time. The general thesis is that the NWO paradigm is not going to collapse overnight. It will slow burn and be juxtaposed against a rising Knowledge Age that won't assert itself entirely for some decade or more (Oxford U. predicted 47% share of job automation not be reached until 2033).

Eventually I believe that mainstream system turns into a eugenics paradigm, but it won't be there overnight. Even totalitarian, fascist Nazi Germany had to first be spawned through some 15 years of a socialist, communist Wiemar Republic. Roughly I would say the USA's Wiemar Republic began on Sept. 11, 2001. So we would be looking at some where between 2018 and 2024, before the USA turns internally violent. The turn towards overt fascism (hence they no longer even try to hide it) began on April 2013 with the Snowden revelations, but this is still in the very early stages of development towards fascist, totalitarianism.

Asia (to have a decline starting about now or 2016) will bottom by 2020 and begin to grow again. It appears this will be done in the context of a scripted fake proxy war between China and SE Asia neighbors with the USA & Japan pretending to be the antagonists. The point of this is to bring Asia into a Technocracy controlled by the global elite (the banksters) and the NWO trajectory. The economic bottoming of Asia in 2020 will coincide with a capitulation towards accepting the loss of a lot of freedoms on personal liberty, while in exchange granting the very high entropy free movement of people between all nations in Asia with the Asian Union to be launched in 2015 and gradually ramped up. For example expect the Philippines to effectively lose its bank secrecy as their banks harmonize with ASEAN norms.

All those who are buying gold and bullets, these won't even be needed (if you are in a high quality city) for some years yet and then later when you would need them, they won't be effective.

Think it out. No man is an island at least in the physical world (in the virtual world a man can be autonomous by leveraging expertise and anonymous but still not an island). If it is you defending your abode against reoccurring waves of roving paramilitaries, you have no chance no matter how many rounds of ammunition you've stockpiled. Your community is protecting you else you are toast. Ditto gold. If you community is against it, it is useless. As soon as you make one trade, word spreads you have gold and so the hunt begins to track you and mug you. The mainstream system is heading towards electronic money and outlawing all forms of physical black markets which can be easily ferreted out with stings, etc.. It simply won't be efficient to use gold to live off of.

The Knowledge Age virtual economy can easily adapt to anonymous crypto-currency. There are none of the insoluble issues as there are with gold being adopted as a currency.

So the bottom line is you should be investing in crypto-currency and not gold.

Gold should begin to rise in 2016 and you could probably safely hold it until 2017 or so, and sell out before the battle against gold intensifies. My stance is not to hold extensive stashes of gold into the tempest period of 2018+ (or when ever it begins), except for holding a small quantity of recognizeable coins for a "get out dodge" emergency stash you could use to perhaps trade for a safe passage. Gold will never again become worthy for individuals (it will remain worthy for institutions). We are entering the transition to the end for gold. Gold will probably rise to $5000 (max) but I would be a seller way before that probably on a double from $1000 to $2000 (or if luckily enough to buy the coming bottom at roughly $850 so perhaps hold for a triple if circumstances are favorable).

Gold will be worthy perhaps in high net worth cliques that agree to anonymity (or are insiders of the NWO) and use it as a physical accounting with which they can trade between other assets such as the NWO currency (if they are insiders) or anonymous crypto-currency (for the crypto-currency $billionaires perhaps). But I am not really confident that gold will be embraced by the crypto-currency $billionaires. I think they will prefer to buy businesses and code instead to hold as real assets and a basket of crypto-currencies (to counter risk of any one evaporating into thin air).

Moreover, make sure you are tax compliant. And make sure you don't fall into the upper 10% in terms of the net worth that the system knows you have. My stance is to be a nobody and be basically invisible.

So you will need to move your excess stored wealth into anonymous crypto-currency and Knowledge Age investments. I will be waiting there for you with my arms open waiting for you to make me a $billionaire (my fantasy lol).

The Knowledge Age won't destroy all stored wealth. It will destroy stored wealth that doesn't want to be actively invested. So any simple plans for investment, i.e. buy and HODL are destined to fail. You need to be able to think out what types of ventures and investments will succeed and work out the timing too. Sorry there are no shortcuts to being an investor, because you are only given that wealth if you are helping the knowledge to anneal to maximum entropy (see the Parable of the Talents in the Bible).

As for example OROBTC mentioning the thought of investing in another condo in Peru, I can't comment on the local market. I can only say that the entire world will shift radically socialist as the global economy turns down, and net worth will be targeted. Investing in the future of the developing markets seems fundamentally sound but don't know to what extent countries will diverge before they converge back towards growth.

My overriding thought is that net worth can become a dangerous liability. I am eager for anonymous crypto-currency because I don't wish to worry about the social liability my stored wealth can cause (I don't have any more stored wealth lol, so this more hypothetical for me at the moment). However, we don't yet know anonymous crypto-currency will be reliable. Thus I am more eager to invest myself into actual businesses and code in the Knowledge Age. But investing in ventures can be risky, so I can understand others will want to look for more generic investment choices. Short-term it appears buying BTC and gold at the coming final lows is a NO BRAINER.

That will provide a window of time (2 years?) to appraise developments and look for alternatives. The downside of investing in BTC is that it is not anonymous so any net worth there is going to have to be reportable to the society. Gold maybe could be done anonymously, but not forever. It might be possible to buy some gold anonymously on the coming low and cash out of anonymously in the near-term. It will vary according to each person's locale and circumstances.

It is possible to buy BTC or Monero anonymously. But it must be done very carefully.

So in summary, I say be invisible in a quality community, unless you are sure you can be entirely isolated and self-sufficient. Stockpile BTC and enjoy life, keeping an eye out for better Knowledge Age investments to diversify into but being very cautious about risk of fledgling ventures. Keeping in mind that the Knowledge Age is not only about programming, it is also any sort of entrepreneurship that incorporates mental effort as its main asset, e.g. Hoverbike.

I welcome feedback on this post. I like to see what the reaction and opinion of others.

Add: you might want to consider how your local community will adapt to the Knowledge Age. It seems perhaps we should be building virtual communities of ourselves within communities. For example, CoinCube astutely points out that his community's risk is primarily coming from the Federal level. For example, my risks in the Philippines is that I am not a citizen (still a USA citizen) and the changes coming with the rising Technocracy to be installed in Asia by the powers-that-be.

I realized today in New Orleans that at the rate things are going, none of us should be worried that we would be staying in a (repentable) jail/Hell for too long re: contributing your love/projects

As i said information is not created it is discovered, or carved out of the entropy of the universe. When 2 actors come together and communicate ultimately  its is done by sharing a state, not flow but entanglement! their later computation based on the new information doesnot increase the information content simply shifts focus, that is we asume fixed memory, or at least bounded. Now you can argue that actors can record information but still the argument holds because there is not infinite supply of memory, or that actors can coordinate to hold diffrent parts of information so as to maximize total capacity but that just shifts entropy up or down in the network hierarcy

But according to TPTB_need_war this is her fault...

http://money.cnn.com/2015/04/26/technology/revenge-porn-victim/index.html

I attributed this to OP as I thought TPTB_need_war was OP. I apologize for the error but his dumbfuckery is at an all time low. He blames victims for crimes against them.

That was true in the Industrial Age where stored monetary capital was paramount because production require large fixed capital investments and the mental assets were very insignificant portion of the costs of production.

The Knowledge Age changes this entirely. Click the link the quote post below.

You entirely ignored the entire point of my essays in the opening post of this thread.

I am getting tired of repeating this same damn concept over and over. Why can't commentators read the thread before commenting?

About responsability and judgement: in france, it seems they've chosen the path of considering the whole population as dumb as fuck.
i.e. they put people to announce the closing of the doors of each train's wagons that go to the suburbs (i think its a way to hire people from bad cities so they dont burn everything otherwise it makes NO sense, nobody is that dumb) ; in the train they make vocal announcement to tell you there are pickpockets (gypsies in reality, but they want want to discriminate) in the train and you have to CLOSE your bags ; and then on every media whenever somebody makes a nuance point he's immediately attacked as you were attacked by coinits and insulted of fascist (very annoying as they are the fascists) or racist or sexist. i think they do this because they dont think we can grasp nuance points.

whats worst is the more they keep doing this the more people get dumb

also, i wanted you to know that i used to think socialism was the way to go and the problem was just politicians, if only we could find a good one everything will be fine! now i realize its the government that is the problem. i dont think i would have ever understood that without learning about cryptocurrencies and reading your posts. how could i ? there is no other alternative that is looked at within our education system. the whole point of our education system is to JUSTIFY the present ideology.

this is also the reason i think why the only way for those that still live within the socialism paradigm is to crash and burn, though thats not even a sufficient guarantee for change. humanity crashed and burn made times during its history and every single time we made the same mistake. its like we are addicted to sucking the government tities like we sucked our mommy tities. we still are at a children stage : refusing to aknowledge our own responsability and judgement and decisions and mistakes.

thank you for showing the way

on the other hand, what do you think of buenos aires for moving short term?

PS: please keep posting your price predictions for bitcoin, you have an AMAZING track record

Indeed. Has your generation lost common sense?

Back in my day we sort of knew if you play with hand grenades, you will be maimed.

Your generation is so fucking entitled.

Who the fuck goes working in a danger zone without adequate security? An idiot.

How much more duh! can you be.

George Carlin joked that why do those people in Hawaii who build their houses next to active volcano wonder why they have lava in the living room. 

AnonyMint I can tell you only spent 5 minutes on this.

Reed's law is the unproven assertion of David P. Reed that the utility of large networks scale exponentially with the size of the network.

This so called law is obviously and intuitively wrong. It fails to acknowledge limits on the number of inbound and outbound connections a member in a group-forming network can manage. The actual maximum-value structure is much sparser than Reed's guesstimate would suggest.

http://spectrum.ieee.org/computing/networks/metcalfes-law-is-wrong


Although you won't admit it you are essentially trying to prove the second law of thermodynamics is wrong. You have no chance of success.  If you insist on trying you need to make the argument using the math of thermodynamics not business school guesswork.

You were correct before when you agreed with me that some top down constraints are needed to ensure convergence. You should return to your prior and correct insight.

It is clear you do not have the time currently to do this topic justice. I am content to leave the matter in dispute. Let's return to it later when you can give it more attention.