Topic: BTC to 5000$ soon - page 34. (Read 36740 times)

Hah, so you do admit that the Internet could have been designed to have warfare-persistence in mind, although in some petty cases it is clearly not so (captain Obvious to the rescue). So why the big drama around your childhood? Go tell your story to your father or something, I'm not a psychiatrist.

Well then you should find it trivial to falsify Charles Herzfeld's assertion. Give us some insight that the commissioner of ARPANET failed to give us. Incidentally, that sentence with which you now agree was in response to your apparent argument that everything the military designed was implicitly designed with warfare-persistence as a goal. I take it you've now given up on that argument, and we could move on?

Of course I agree with such a sentence. But that one occasion being the Internet is just laughable.

No answer? Can I assume you accept that the military do, on occasion, design things where warfare-persistence is not a design goal. Or would you like to try another desperate roll of the dice?

I remember I said something similar to you some time ago. How does it feel to taste your own medicine?

well sooner or later it will surely reach such a big price in my opinion, we just have to wait with patience and hope for the best, that the price will rise to the new heights as soon as possible

That's because you keep making strange-ass assumptions. If you focus on  what I'm saying, and not what you think I'm saying - or would like me to be saying - you should do better. Now, what was it about my non-warfare-persistence examples list response to your argument that you actually take issue with?

I'm getting doubts that you even know what the Internet is and how it works. If that's the case, I'm out. Seriously, you seem to know what an EMP is yet you fail to grasp that the Internet in its concept is not vulnerable to the EMPs at all. The power grid is vulnerable because the energy business is the only business that is not regulated. Typically regulation would require basic defence of the critical infrastructure against natural disasters but it's not the case with the power stations (at least not in the US). If the connections between nodes were properly shielded there would be no threat to the Internet from even a nuclear explosion.

How, exactly, am I "comparing the Internet with a civilian setting"? I listed numerous examples of the military designing things without warfare-persistence as a design goal - bridges in relief operations, administrative buildings in cities, limpet-mines. And "comparing the Internet with a civilian setting" was what you took from that? Honestly, I'm struggling to see how - or why - you would do that unless you were trying to deflect attention away from the issue at hand. Now, what was it about that response to your argument you actually take issue? (And, for bonus points, how might it be affected by your presumption of childhood trauma?)

Ah, that last paragraph helped explain much of the "how can you know?" drivel.

It's called expectation bias and you're full of it, which is sad. I mean  I'm sorry for your childhood dramas but comparing the Internet to a civilian setting is even more ridiculous than battling the Illuminati (which is by the way not what I am doing anyway, so again, expectation bias much on your side).

Perhaps you wish to present me with some evidence that clearly shows that I was worrying? 


How can you know? You didn't design the Internet. Neither did the commissioner. You should be intelligent enough to understand that what is written on the paper is a whole different story from what is really going on, especially when it comes to spending the taxpayers' money.


That truly is incredible. How do you know that?


Because I demand my readers to have a certain degree of base knowledge. I'm not into babysitting oblivious sheeple, I let them disagree with me while secretly laughing into my paw. The time is ripe for the end of the current financial parasitism all over the world. It's make it or break it year for the Illuminati. The demand for physical gold is a clear indicator that something big has started to happen, there's no place for argument here because these are all pure facts. The global shipping is said to have ceased. The Worldwide Economy is Grinding to a Halt. The migrant crisis, tensions regarding Turkey, Russia and Saudi Arabia. 2016 being the Jubilee year, gold and silver soar and markets crash. The Death of Economic Recovery in 2016 by Peter Schiff. I don't have to even mention that BTC block halving will soon take place. Also the US presidential elections and for fuck sake, there's a limited amount of physical gold and silver and other conventional stores of value. But there are a lot of cryptocurrencies that can now be put in test for the first time in the history during a global financial crisis. Remember why Satoshi invented Bitcoin? It was exactly for the situation that is currently unfolding. Hell, they are attempting to ban CASH. You have to be a totally delusional moronic sheep living under a rock to dismiss all these issues and I even didn't go into the QE and interest rates. For fuck sake, if you don't understand these basics there is nothing I've got to tell you.

I won't, don't worry. Though I have to admit I don't have a come back to your last paragraph - partly because I have little idea what you're saying or why it's relevant, but mostly because it's got nothing to do with my argument.

My argument, you will recall, is that the Internet was not designed with warfare-persistence as a design goal. It had specific design goals, of which warfare-persistence was not one. Charles Herzfeld has stated what the design goals were. All of this is falsifiable: you could disprove Charles Herzfeld, for example, by finding a collaborator prepared to spill the beans.

Your argument currently appears to be "military project implies warfare-persistence" Well, it's possible that the Seabees - the US Navy's "Construction Battalion" - had warfare-persistence as a design goal when they were repairing roads and bridges in the wake of Hurricane Georges. I guess warfare-persistence was certainly a goal when the Pentagon was first built - I don't believe anyone thinks it's a realistic goal for some modern military buildings, but perhaps the administrative buildings are all civilian-designed? Perhaps. The military design things to blow up, they design temporary things, they design things that won't ever be near any battlefield - they design things for all sorts of reasons. Incredibly, they aren't just in the business of waging and surviving war.

I keep coming back to this, but I guess it's the crux of the issue - why would you say something and not care whether it was true or not? Why would you post something on a public forum and then try and deflect any criticism? There's a great discussion to be had around BTC and gold and stores of value, but you seem hostile to any real discussion beyond the usual cheerleading.

And don't get kicked in the butt by the door on your way out.  

But seriously though, it doesn't take a genius to understand that if military creates something for their own use it is automatically meant to withstand war. It's so obvious that they don't even put it into the reports. And to make matters worse for you, it is outright trivial that a decentralized network of any kind is versatile at times of war. You're just trying to be a smartass by citing offtopic in a hostile way while you could as well as do it without the obvious stench of a saboteur all over the place.

By the way, the Internet is vulnerable to EMPs for the same reason the power grid is vulnerable --- because the civilian infrastructure hasn't been built in way that it would be resistant to electromagnetic pulses. When it comes to that, the Internet is the least of your worries. You will be without power, for months. If that's your argument then it's an outright doomsday argument that should be discarded even faster than a wild claim for 5k prices in the near term future. What crazy theory is next in your back pocket? That bitcoin wouldn't survive a zombie apocalypse? Come on, man, by now you just have to see your fallacy, it's so big and red and in your face.

Well if the price of $ 1000 it will probably happen this year, I agree with you. but I guess bitcoin prices will not rise as easy as it within 3 years. bitcoin price might be $ 5,000 during the next 10 years, it is the fastest. I write like that because in 2010 until now, bitcoin prices plummeted, once the price was worth $ 1,000, and now it costs less than half

When litecoin went to $5 the first ever time if anyone remembers there were several hundred K litecoin dumps on the way up past $3 - $4 but the price kept going.  In the end there was a second rally to $50 also.  Once the demand for bitcoin starts the next bubble will be huge, nobody really has enough bitcoin to dump imo because there really isn't that much of it around.

Yes, as you state I do know that there's a huge difference between a nuclear war and a war in general (electro-magnetic pulses from nuclear explosions create havoc for electromagnetic communications - pretty much all modern communications). I'm not sure why you're trying to derail this down that way, it really doesn't matter which type of war it is - ARPANET was not designed with warfare-persistence as a design goal.

Thanks for your admission. I sometimes wish threads were tagged "no analysis or thought here!" - it would make life much easier.

For some reason they look these threads here in speculation as basis of whether they buy or sell. The rankings though can very much convince them. if for instance a legendary member will comment about a dump that is going to happen and a some of them are going to sell.

No its not possible right now, the bitcoin itself is to low at the moment to get to such a high number if you ask me, I think the bitcoin itself is very good but the point is that the bitcoin is not even stable these days.
This year it will be highly unlikely that the bitcoin will go to a high amount even with the halving its not possible.

I'm seriously getting bored of you. Not only you seem to know that there's a huge difference between a nuclear war and a war in general. You now don't seem to see a difference between reasons to commission something and reasons to actually do something. What are you trying to achieve here anyway? Make me admit that I didn't care to explain deeply enough my reasons to believe that 5k prices are bound to happen soon? Yes I admit it, I didn't care and you cannot make me care more because it is not about convincing the opponents to see the light but it is about seeing who the opponents are, how they think, what's their average intellect is and so on.