No, for the past half a year or so I've been trying to learn all I can about market microstructure, quantitative finance, anything that makes money off of high variance.
Because if there's one thing I will bet on, it's that there's a ton of risk and volatility here in these hills, and there's probably money to be made somehow while it all crashes and burns.
Then there's the second level bait - since there are all these suckers out there, surely money can be made by predicting them!
And then it's turtles all the way down. You won't know if you're a sucker or at the very top level until it all comes crashing down.
> But critics called Dr Wright's claim into doubt when it emerged that part of the evidence the entrepreneur presented in public could have been generated using a string of digits linked to a seven-year-old transaction made by Satoshi, accessible via a search engine.
"It was a mistake to agree to publish my post before I saw his - I assumed his post would simply be a signed message anybody could easily verify," Mr Andresen told security researcher Dan Kaminsky when he challenged the scientist over the matter.
Also
https://www.wired.com/2016/05/craig-wright-privately-proved-...
I'm out of the loop; do you have any good summaries of this incident?
A major wake-up call for me in the crypto currency world was Gavin Andresen's ludicrous "validation" of Colin Wright as Satoshi.
When a so-called leader clearly does not even understand the basics you realise it's 98% shit. Sturgeon's law applies again. But I keep on forgetting that.