Posts by Longview

    cryptocurrencies is to avoid that "stealing" by law. some corporate crypto


    Good luck to those suckers, and sorry for anyone believing that. The way banks operate today would give little confidence that any such scheme is other than some programmer's idea of how to sell "security" by incidentally opening up a whole new set of vulnerabilities-- whether by intention or otherwise.

    Max Nozin Agreed that the US dollar is over rated. But that is evidently not the consensus, which the foreign exchange markets surprisingly and continuously tell us that somehow US dollar is one of the few strongest currencies in the world today. Of course there are specific ad hoc arguments as to why the US dollar appears so strong. I personally believe it is essentially a passing phase and that the US dollar will eventually collapse (or be devalued) to reflect (as you point out) the immense debt the US has continued to accumulate.


    I feel it is important that folks don't get to enamored of the value of any symbolic asset. Art, real estate, antiques, precious metals, historic manuscripts, all can be stores of value.... no currency is likely to be a reliable long-term store of value. Hence my vitriol against crypto currencies. They have all the deficiencies of traditional currencies and then some....

    Max Nozin, I am sorry to see you still advocating here on behalf of crypto currency, (blockchain could potentially be a different situation). Currencies of sovereign nations, as we know, have problems enough and can only be a strong as the "full faith and credit" of such a national entity. Cryptocurrencies have not even that to back them. They will be completely susceptible to market manias and even more so than say "tulip mania", which at least had an entry cost.... that is some tulip breed or another was being bid up to unsustainable levels. Cryptocurrencies, in other words, have all the defects of any currency and even more, since there is no underlying value, no backing asset, no "faith and credit", no 5000 year tradition of desirability as an asset such as gold... which still costs quite a lot to mine and hence "create" as a currency. No restraints on cryptocurrencies, in spite of the argument "out of nothing" you seem to propose. Public gullibility is the only restraint. Bitcoin supporters do NOT "have a valid point". This is completely self-serving blather designed to "pump" the market. We only need to wait for the "dump" phase.


    Some aspects of blockchain as ledger technology may well turn out to have value to nation states, banks or international markets, but only after extensive development. Cryptography progress is always just a few of steps ahead of computational power and/or decryption algorithms-- it has always been and likely always will be... look at the history of cryptography and its important influence on the outcome of wars.

    how can these gases become ultradense ? What is their atomic structure ?



    My surmise is that the atoms of such a UD "gas" are far from being a gas. The atoms are intimately associated with a solid surface and thus have lost nearly all of their normal degrees of freedom in motion and may even have lost their normal debye radii constraints, possibly due to loss of valence band electronic interactions, now replaced by bosonic electronic conduction band interactions (?). I would guess that would be good for at least an effective density increase of around 500-fold. Getting to "ultradense", I don't know if the bosonic process might enable that. Perhaps, the "ultra-density" would also be a result of the immense "Nernst pressure".... Nernst pressure in electrolytic situations is said, or claimed, by some electrochemists to be many orders of magnitude greater than atmospheric (e.g. 10^47, p. 101 in Tadahiko Muzuno's "Nuclear Transmutation: The reality of cold fusion", very interesting book translated by our own Jed Rothwell)


    But that is just my ad hoc thinking on the subject.

    Glad to dialog on the subject with others who have alternate views.

    JohnyFive Please, get that cloud chamber up. I see they are pretty easy to build. Isopropanol, dry ice, fish tank, etc.


    Here is a sort half educated speculative guess, that may or may not accord with your observations (corrections welcomed):


    On an insulator, such as paper, charges can persist and be released over time, whereas on metallic foil they would enter into, or react with, the "Fermi sea" and be dissipated or neutralized instantly.

    DnG I don't know anything about that reaction-- tell us more. But, in my opinion such elements as Hg and Fe themselves would be a long way from producing excess energy due to nuclear fusion. Among those ingredients only aluminum could be responsible for fusion per se. And fusion with what? I suppose hydrogen and oxygen might be in there from ambient moisture (?).

    JohnyFive I don't think NaOH will do much good here. You are after enough potassium to overcome the very low flux of decay (1.26 billion year T1/2) for the 0.012% 40 K likely in the KOH or in the banana for that matter-- but unlike thorium (alpha emitter) the emission there is a 1.3 MeV beta (and a beta + that converts to gammas). Thoriated electrodes for TIG welding are quite common. Depending on the thorium content in such welding rods, you might get somewhere with this alpha emitter. Natural thorium has an even longer half life of 14 billion years (so nearly 12 fold lower inherent flux rate), but essentially the radio thorium is 100% of the natural isotope, so the 12 times longer half life is more than balanced by over 800 times as much radioisotope present. But, the thorium concentration in such rods is important, and whether a 4 MeV alpha serves as a checksource, may be another question. "White gas" lantern mantles are a famous source for radio thorium. I suspect the concentration of thorium in those is far higher than the welding electrodes.

    Here is another very recent opinion from a CMNS newsgroup moderator:


    "Be careful with those ICO's! They very rarely mention in their polished white-papers; their shell companies and the underlying shareholders agreements/cap tables which hold the assets, often offshore and mostly owned by the financial team which sets up token ICOs for a fee. This makes Wolf of Wallstreet and PE look like small time crooks in comparison."


    Zeus46, That is an interesting and "hopeful" article. Careful reading will show that a) the goal is still complete anonymity and b) the particular arrests made were the products of glitches and exceptions in the blockchain system.


    The idea of complete financial anonymity is both the attraction of cryptocurrencies such as Bitcoin, but apparently in this article, also a significant source of traceability and hence a drawback to actual anonymity. Note that Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies are striving to avoid those exceptions and glitches.

    Max Nozin It is the very feature you are touting (blockchain), that makes cryptocurrencies so dangerous, since that provides the anonymity and non-traceability.


    Appears you may be "invested" in more ways than one.


    So if we cannot name an investment with "100 percent security" (and no one can, or no one should) do you believe that somehow proves your point??


    Your comment: "Fixed income and us [sic] debt and alike apart " seems to suggest that you believe there are some exceptional investments. Wrong. US debt and fixed income securities are far from secure. If I interpret your comment correctly, it makes me think that you could benefit greatly from a review of economic history, such as might be found in a one year general economics course.

    I reluctantly point out that crypto currencies are perfect for kidnapping ransoms, funding contract killings, secretly supporting politically motivated agit-prop, and for false flag operations in general. I am certain Buffet had such in view when he adjudged them adversely.


    The only thing between the present laissez faire view of cryptos and the future intensive regulation of them, is public naivete evolving to public awareness.

    OK, go ahead, jump on in! You surely know of "tulip mania". Today the same forces can create immense apparent value out of literally nothing but an attractively-framed meme... propagated through, or planted in, the minds of an unwary segment of the public.

    Max Nozin wrote: Now how is this different from ICO except that you don't have to pay Kickstarter commission?


    With crypto-funding a donor likely has no recourse at all since the transaction is anonymized. It's a perfect storm for direct siphoning of the funds into pockets unintended by the donor. Any questions about fraudulent expenditure of the funds are completely unenforceable.... no traceable path, no jurisdiction, no enforcement of implicit or explicit contracts.




    Hold on, please. There are surely great differences. ICOs allow anonymity and non-traceability at various stages in the process. Kickstarter has inherent accountability. The difference is profound from the standpoint of potential fraud. Bitcoin and other cryptocurrency flotations are "not going to end well" to quote Warren Buffet. With cryptocurrencies you are investing far more in the currency itself, rather than in the claimed target entrepreneurial development.