Topic: US Marshalls auction...what time will results/winner be announced today? - page 3. (Read 4951 times)

you like the word "substance", huh?

"So much better than my points! We can even include links to websites to "prove" that we are using deep analytical tools in breaking down the arguments of others? Incredible!"

There's a difference between "prove" and "add substance."  There's not much you can prove in the realm of speculation.  But when there's already 78+ articles about the death of bitcoin within the last few years, and bitcoin is still not dead, that's got SUBSTANCE. I'm still waiting on your reasons why you think it should be easier for the government to kill Bitcoin than PirateBay.

"Are you a scholar? May I read your published work anywhere?"

Are you a scholar?  More importantly, are you trying to imply that one has to be a scholar in order to add support and substance to their views rather than just stating an empty opinion?

"The analysis you provided in this thread so far, I must say, it is groundbreaking:

-a link to a website and even the number of articles written?! Incredible research.
-analytically deep comments like "Yet Bitcoin still is top dog by Billions and Billions of dollars", man, the ability to look up market cap on coinmarketcap is the stuff of legend."

I linked to a website that shows 78+ articles written in the past few years that are trying to convince people that Bitcoin is dead.  Bitcoin is still alive and well.  That says a lot about the agenda of the media.  


"man, are you sure you are not satoshi himself? Because, this level of analysis is really unheard of."

Thanks!!  

"ONE MAN, ONE DESIRE... in 2016, THERE WILL BE AN EPIC BATTLE OF INCREDIBLE BLOCKCHAINEAN PROPORTIONS. "

Is that your attempt to be funny?  So I add substance to the view that there's already a battle going on between blockchain instances yet Bitcoin is still exponentially higher and exhibiting a very strong network effect...and you attack that?  You are attacking me for adding substance whereas you're all just like "Whatever, there's no guarantee of anything"  

"Truth is, every single point brought up as "substance" doesn't go much further than "because I said so". This is not substance, this is not scholarship, this is not anything but your semi-informed opinion from having read a bunch of bitcoin blogs and this forum. It would be fine, but, you pretend it is otherwise."

My "semi-informed opinion" is much more informed than yours.  People can feel free to scroll up and read the substance I added to my arguments they can see you are your trolling friend's constant bloviating and your attempt to appear as bitcoin bulls with all kinds of unsubstantiated bearish opinions.  They should just start at the beginning of the thread, however, as ever since i called the OP out on not adding any support to his bearish statements that were made to look bullish, they've been trying to convince readers that they actually do add support to their views....without adding any support at all.

"Speculate all you want, and I think you are right in betting on bitcoin, but to pretend that your "analysis" in this thread is anything other than you having read this forum and a few wikipedia entries is a joke."

You're a joke.  I added support to my responses and you attack me for trying to add supporting information.  Baseless opinions are so much more acceptable around here  

  ok bro, whatever you say

He has added ALL KINDS of substance guys... including feces, it seems.

No, you just bloviated yourself into a Stupid bloviation, you Stupid Person.
Now deal with it

I don't think you can.  Bloviating means talking without any substance.  I've added all kinds of substance.  Therefore, you are a troll.  
And I am a Troll Slayer  

There's a difference between using caps for EMPHASIS, and EXAGGERATING THE USE OF CAPS TO SUCH AN EXTENT AS AN ATTEMPT TO HUMILIATE AND DISCREDIT A GUY USING SUBSTANCE AND REASONS IN HIS RESPONSES TO A BUNCH OF TROLLS AND SHILLS WHO ARE JUST TRYING TO AFFECT SENTIMENT WITH A BUNCH OF EMPTY RHETORIC AND BASELESS BELIEFS.  

 

CAP LOCK = CRUISE CONTROL 4 COOL!!!11!11!one

My Caps were used as emphasis in my SUPPORTED ARGUMENTS. LOL  
Feel free to add caps to supported arguments of your own.

Yes of course the media will want people to think that Bitcoin is only going up because of some ponzi scheme.  That is standard operating procedure.  

"All of these responses are no good; they act much in the same way his responses act towards your points."

Why are you wasting your time in a forum category about speculating if you think all responses about speculation are no good?  You are either a troll or you are retarded.


"The only difference in my mind is that you are stating these positions as being guaranteed outcomes..."

No, the only difference is that I'm actually adding substance to my positions with an explanation that adds specific reasons and doesn't bloviate on and on about how my opinion is subjective and I have experience in GPAA and I don't think this and I don't believe in that and I like the color blue, and I like to wear white shirts on thursdays, and I like to eat cereal for breakfast, etc.. ... .. No substance.  No reasons.  Just opinions and beliefs.

"Further, he has stated he doesn't wish to impose his views on you and you are arguing that he should be FORCED to accept your position."

First off, I'm not forcing anyone to accept my positions.  I'm requesting REASONS for a particular opinion or belief.  If you're not adding substance to your views here, you might as well just be masterbating.  
 
"Look over what you wrote:

-The first thing, for example, you simply wrote an entire paragraph stating that the way in which he has written is not convenient for you."

Yes, it's absolutely not convenient to intellectual progress to just state a view in a speculation thread with absolutely no reason why. You might as well not even participate.

"I actually think it would be easier to damage BTC vs piratebay... but, that is for another time."

  Where's your reason why!?  YOU ARE BLOVIATING  


"I hope those advantages are enough. But, there is no guarantee of that."

I have already stated that there's no guarantees.  But should I have to state that?  Isn't that obvious?  Isn't it implied that nobody knows the future IN A THREAD ABOUT SPECULATION.  My god, all I'm asking for is SUBSTANCE.  I don't need a guarantee.  


"Yahoo was vastly ahead of GOOGLE (same for myspace vs FB)... network effects alone are not necessarily enough."

Finally!  You attempt to add substance.  Yes, there's no guarantee that Yahoo was going to stay top dog forever.  But it certainly was used by hundreds of millions of people and made shit tons of money.  There are big differences with Yahoo, however, when compared to Bitcoin.  Bitcoin is completely open source.  It's development potential is distributed.  If something came around that offered a superior property that bitcoin needed but didn't have, Bitcoin could be updated rather quickly.  So it's not so easy to bypass Bitcoin the way Google bypassed Yahoo.  

"Pretending what you wrote is "analysis" is silly. "

You seem to think all speculation is opinion and adding substance to your views is silly.  It's fortunate for me that I don't invest according to the same principals


"Pretending that because the network has not been successfully attacked means it CANT be attacked is silly."

I'm not pretending anything.  There's been plenty of attacks on Bitcoin.  78+ "Bitcoin is dead" articles from the mainstream media over the course of the last few years is very telling to the actual resilience to bitcoin and the actual agenda of the mainstream press. http://www.bitcoinobituaries.com

"But, to really analyze this is a complex issue demanding a formal paper. I don't think we should hold one another to that standard on a forum like this - but then, we have to let someone else get away with saying "hey, this is my personal opinion, this is my hunch, etc" without demanding more from them then we are willing to do ourselves."

Bahaha!  What a bunch of hubris.  OK, so let's not hold ourself to standards such as adding support and substance to our views.  

I DO demand much more from myself.  Notice that throughout this entire thread I have added substance and support for my arguments.  I don't bloviate on and on.  

Bloviate: to talk at length, especially in an inflated or empty way.

 

MORE CAPS!!!!

Anyway, just to stick to the thread. I have a hunch we will find out early next week that the losing bids for the auction were above the 400 dollar mark. I'm betting on higher prices next week because of it. 

On the FUD side, my main concern over this week has been trying to find out how much of an influence MMM really had on the price move. I'm worried that even if the entire scam was actually not all that significant it will still be presented as such in the media.

Medium term, if MMM proves to not be a problem and the block size debate gets "resolved" properly (I think the entire issue has been overblown) - I would be ultra bullish.

$400-800 is the band I would logical up until around the middle of next year. Just so I don't get confused with a bear, my 2020+ number is over 10,000. Way over, in fact, as we get closer to the full supply being available to the market (3030's). 

I'm pretty sure that spelling words in all caps is bloviating.

Anyone who bloviates the way that guy did are either newbs who are completely out of touch, or they are more likely trolls.  Bloviating is seriously the number one identifier.

"To be perfectly frank, I felt your level of analysis in responding to him was no "deeper" or more "substantial" than any of his answers to you."

Would you care to address WHY you felt that way, and specifically WHICH PARTS of my responses you are referring to.  Pleases quote my response and add your reasons...or else, you are also very guilty of: BLOVIATING

Ok,

I thought I read all exchanges, maybe I missed some... if so, I apologize.

Regardless, I just don't read him as that big of a FUD/skeptic... there are some many worse examples on this forum. Not sure why his cautious but optimistic reading of the potential of BTC left you so annoyed at him.

Anyway, let's leave it at that. We will soon know if we made the right choices.

To be perfectly frank, I felt your level of analysis in responding to him was no "deeper" or more "substantial" than any of his answers to you. I think, in truth, that neither of you can properly value this technology. That if we are right (since all three agree that BTC could be huge / trillions in market cap) we will have great returns. Otherwise, we bust.

That is about all that seems CERTAIN right now. That you imply that there is certainty in the moon shot and the tech is what I find problematic.

Btw, I find it problematic for others (this is, in a way, a warning to you on the matter), I have risked what I think reasonable and I have done so knowing it can fail - you, on the other hand, seem certain it WILL GO MOON, this makes me worry you have in fact risked more than you can afford to lose.

I hope you are right... for what it's worth, and have put my money and time on your side of things.