Topic: BTC to 5000$ soon - page 35. (Read 36740 times)

> Why do you, for example, insist to believe in your referred sources?

Occam's razor. What's likely to be the most likely explanation? That the guy who commissioned ARPANET would know why he commissioned ARPANET, or that some random on the Internet would know better?

That this can or can't be disproved is bollocks, and a cop-out: my statement is clearly falsifiable. If you don't believe that Charles Herzfeld commissioned ARPANET for the reasons he said - you should be able to construct a falsifiable premise of your own.

...and why on Earth would you say something if you didn't care whether it was true or not? Can we infer from your promotion of $5000 that a similar lack of care was involved?

I agree that it is common to believe that the Internet was created by the military so that it would persist during a war and in situations where nodes go offline. I also didn't know that such a claim is considered a misconception by some people. But then again, there are opponents to just about anything these days. Is it really a common misconception? I have no way of knowing nor do I care in the context of this topic. It's yet another of these things that cannot be proved nor disproved. Your evidence is not really evidence. And yes, I refuse to believe and no it is not a mistake. Why do you, for example, insist to believe in your referred sources? Don't you think it is human nature to come up with ideas that make other people seem wrong on the pursuit of academic fame, for example? It seems to apply to your misconception theory. But these same people, when confronted with ideas that threaten their description of the world, will do anything to defend it and while doing so they chant how much they think they like it when new science proves old science wrong, how ironic.

Meh, the Internet wasn't designed top persist during any sort of war - that simply wasn't a design goal. But yes, nuclear and non-nuclear wars are different. The mistake you made was to repeat a common myth. The mistake you now make is to refuse to believe that you could possibly have erred, in the face of evidence.

I know you made a wild prediction.

I can only cite the people who did invent the Internet, correct. "Barking what fits my agenda", I like that. The topic is ludicrous, it really doesn't need my help sabotaging it.

I'm not talkscheep, I'm not a bear troll. I've been in Bitcoin for a long time, I've been in it seriously since that Slashdot article, bought a GPU, started mining in earnest. I believed - and continue to believe - that there's a possibility that Bitcoin could be huge, many, many orders of magnitude bigger than present. I just don't think we'll convince people that that's possible if our analysis is sketchy hopium and we dismiss any criticism out of hand.

Well, for starters, I never said that the Internet was designed to persist during a nuclear war. So if you insist on clinging so dramatically to that part of my reply, then at least do it correctly. There's a huge difference between a nuclear war and a war in general. So what mistake could I have ever made? Just because you have wet dreams of me having made a mistake does not imply that I have actually made any. Wishful thinking busted. What is also laughable in your behaviour is the fact that you actually think that you can prove me wrong while in reality it is quite impossible. It just portrays you as a rhetoric dilettante.

You see, I made a wild prediction based on vague calculations that in their essence cannot ever be falsified. Trying to do so only shows the attempter's lack of wisdom. What is more, it is impossible to win an online debate, and since you seem to be rather serious in your business I can only guess that you're either an excellent troll such as myself or a typical idiot who still has a lot to learn. Either way, you have not contributed constructively to this topic. If all you wanted to say was that in your opinion the Internet was not to designed to survive a nuclear war then why didn't you just state that and leave the making of conclusions to every reader themselves?

It's of course good to know that some people perceive it as a misconception that the Internet was designed to survive nuclear wars but then I would ask --- did you invent the Internet? Since the answer is no, you have no way of knowing the full story around the conception of Internet. You just bark what fits your agenda and it is damn obvious that in this case your agenda is to sabotage this topic.

I guess the target of $ 5000 it is very far from reality today. but if the $ 500 it will probably happen. behold, if the price of bitcoin slowly rose like today, bitcoin price could be $ 500 in March next

I think the bitcoin price will go to $1000 soon this year, but $5000? It might be reached in 3 year's time.

Nope Dude, See Gold is good for jewelry and use in some industrial production processes, but as the price increases, it becomes less useful for both those uses, he says whereas Bitcoin on the other hand, actually becomes more useful. It becomes more useful as a money transfer rail and as a ledger of financial transactions. So it will come in use No need to worry dude.

I don't care about it that much, either - it's straying well into off-topic. However, you raised it. You - presumably - persist in your claim despite being shown evidence to the contrary. Disprove that evidence, or accept you made a mistake. Incidentally, here's Charles Herzfeld, ARPA's director at the time discussing why ARPANET was created, what the goals for it were - and weren't. But don't just take his word for it, Google is your friend.

The reason it matters is - you made an appeal to your legendary status. I'm of the opinion that, particularly where matters of money is concerned, accuracy is better than longevity. If you raise a topic it looks pretty shabby trying to deflect criticism by calling other participants "brats", dismissing them because you perceive them to be comparative newbies. Particularly when, in the same post, you repeat a common myth.

What I am saying is, we shouldn't underestimate 'the powers that be'. Their tools seem limited, the crisis seems imminent and yet they manage to kick the can again, and over again. Definitely longer that many of us can afford staying exposed on the market. They also have quite a lot of good brains working for them. All and all, I like what ZeroHedge and Turd Ferguson write, they both are doing fantastic job in educating people (I guess you already know their webpages, if not is a must read!), but I am afraid the process of re-shaping the PM markets and bringing the real value to the gold, silver, and Bitcoin as well, will be much longer and harder than we may expect. It may include another rounds of QE and creative book keeping (job reports, etc.) to show that we are still afloat. My point of view on the PM prices evolved in the last five years from a gold-bug-like to more and more agree with Martin Armstrong's point of view https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/, who seems to be sceptical about real re-valuation happening any time soon.

Bullshit. You have no way of knowing the real reasons why the Internet came to be. You're just quoting stuff that fits your agenda, trying hard to argue with me on the matter that I do not care about.



You are right, in Starcraft matches the player that has clearly lost the game says gg and resigns. The other player won't get to destroy the loser's town. Only AI will fight it until the last drop of blood. From here we can induce that when it becomes clear that bitcoin is the shit worldwide there are suddenly no opponents left to humiliate on their loss. However, I also think that our current condition is not as bad as you have put it. There is no single entity that controls everything and who makes the rules. The fact that we are presented such image is in itself a reason to believe that it is not true because boasting about one's power is a sign of weakness.

Not to mention some other coins will contend bitcoin in terms of usability so it is even possible that we won't see it reach $5000 even in 10-20 years time.

@ uki

What are you views on a potential gold revaluation as another tool to combat the global economic crisis.

The powers above are starting to run short on tools to combat the problems, QE, low interest rates havent worked.  Now we are moving to negative interest rates then what?

our next target is 500$ not 5000$, to reach 5000$ it will take a long time to bitcoin, maybe 10-20 years when everyone start using bitcoin as major payment option worldwide.

You said, and I quote, "Besides, the Internet was designed to persist during war." It wasn't, that's a common misconception. Persistence during war wasn't a design consideration. A separate study into voice-communications by the RAND corporation looked at using packet-switching for persistent during an exchange of nuclear weapons - that's where the misconception comes from. Whether or not the Internet might survive such an exchange is academic, unless you'd like to revise your "Besides, the Internet was designed to persist during war. " to "Besides, the Internet might persist during war".

Love the Satoshi stuff, keep it coming.

Myself, I have also a bit of experience in the market of physical silver (have bought some shiny stuff for me as well, remember $4 price and $50 as well), and I am very sceptical about seeing even three digit silver in the next 2-3 years. I repeat, I have heard similar opinions from many PM-bugs (PM stands for precious metals) and whereas some of the fears are truth, the 'end of the world as we know it' (aka the end of the great Keynesian experiment) theory is made under the assumptions that the 'powers that be' will play boldly and blindly their game to the final crash without re-adapting to the changing conditions. I think this assumption is invalid, and it was already demonstrated that if you own the cards, the table, the referees you can change the game as it pleases you at any given moment.

If that's true then where's the proof that the Internet would not survive a war? It's kind of dumb to argue whether the Internet was designed to survive wars or not when what really matters is if it actually would survive a war or not. And the stuff you quoted yourself indicates that the later work on Internetting did emphasize robustness and survivability, including the capability to withstand losses of large portions of the underlying networks. So WTF dude?

And you just admitted that you kinda forgot about Bitcoin after that.  It says everything about you. Satoshi invents the greatest technology after Internet and you kind of forget about it. Just STFU and leave, you're embarrassing yourself.

The Internet was not designed to persist during a nuclear war.:


(ARPANET was "an internet", a network-of-networks. It grew to become the pre-eminent internet now known as The Internet.)

...and $4 BTC? Pah, get off my lawn! It took me 4 days to mine my first 50 BTC with a CPU, and they were only worth $0.10! I kinda forgot about Bitcoin after that, until Slashdot ran a story about Dollar-parity ("OMG! How can magic internet money be worth more than the Dollar? It's unpossible!").

You realize that a full blown nuclear war is the worst possible scenario that will never happen? The other humanoid species would simply not let that happen. What I am referring to is a false flag nuclear attack or a false flag asteroid hit to a specific location on Earth not the whole Earth. Besides, the Internet was designed to persist during war.

Have some respect for a legendary member, brats. I have seen Bitcoin ever since it was trading 4$ each. I remember times when a regular PC mined 1 whole bitcoin per day. Now is the time to accumulate cheap bitcoins and physical silver. 5000$ bitcoins are a very pessimistic prediction, a more probable scenario would include at least 10 000$ bitcoins since it would account for human psychology, fear of missing out and panic buying.

You are right, this is just not realistic with the market price of today, I think it will even cost many years to even reach this amount, so soon its for away if you aks me.
I think its just a matter of time but it will take years to reach this, the bitcoin itself will go to a higher amount this year because of the halving but not to such a high amount.

If you call 0.000001% a realistic possibility, it is your choice. I doubt we go that far, for the reasons I stated above.