World War III and BTC | Bitcointalksearch.org

ABitBack

hero member

Activity: 524

Merit: 502

Quote from: AlisonZ on September 12, 2013, 06:36:28 AM

I don't know what virtual world you are living in, though if we have a world war 3, bitcoin is gone. Everything is gone.
the last world war had no effect on technology as there was no internet to destory. Once that little black box in england is gone, we will have to start a fifth of the world again.
Humanity is to reliant on technology, world war 3 is not going to raise bitcoins strength, but it will destroy it along with everything that you use to access it.

That is just my 2 cents

Actually there were many scientific and technological advances during ww2, just to keep a competitive edge. http://www.expertreviews.co.uk/general/1286401/top-10-technical-innovations-of-world-war-2 actually really interesting!

Ww3 and Bitcoin. Shit people come up with sometimes.

Ecrypton

newbie

Activity: 36

Merit: 0

WWIII would put us back to the stone age ... we have to make a stone coin Roll Eyes

AlisonZ

newbie

Activity: 7

Merit: 0

I don't know what virtual world you are living in, though if we have a world war 3, bitcoin is gone. Everything is gone.
the last world war had no effect on technology as there was no internet to destory. Once that little black box in england is gone, we will have to start a fifth of the world again.
Humanity is to reliant on technology, world war 3 is not going to raise bitcoins strength, but it will destroy it along with everything that you use to access it.

That is just my 2 cents

crumbs

full member

Activity: 210

Merit: 100

Quote from: gooryheta on September 11, 2013, 06:35:12 PM

Quote from: Anon136 on September 11, 2013, 03:46:12 PM

i was just thinking that maybe ww3 would be hugely bullish for bitcoin because it would allow for commerce between the subjects of different factions when the governments could probably restrict such commerce through the traditional banking channels.

I believe WW3 would be atomic war, and no computer infrastructure will be present because of nonexistent power plant supply. So very bad scenario for bitcoin

You underestimate the creative force that is Bitcoin!

Bitcoin V2.0

icoins

newbie

Activity: 18

Merit: 0

Let's all go to Antarctica and confront the Rothchilds and Rockefellers in their underground bases about what they have done.

Quote from: gooryheta on September 11, 2013, 06:35:12 PM

Quote from: Anon136 on September 11, 2013, 03:46:12 PM

i was just thinking that maybe ww3 would be hugely bullish for bitcoin because it would allow for commerce between the subjects of different factions when the governments could probably restrict such commerce through the traditional banking channels.

I believe WW3 would be atomic war, and no computer infrastructure will be present because of nonexistent power plant supply. So very bad scenario for bitcoin

gooryheta

member

Activity: 167

Merit: 10

Quote from: Anon136 on September 11, 2013, 03:46:12 PM

i was just thinking that maybe ww3 would be hugely bullish for bitcoin because it would allow for commerce between the subjects of different factions when the governments could probably restrict such commerce through the traditional banking channels.

I believe WW3 would be atomic war, and no computer infrastructure will be present because of nonexistent power plant supply. So very bad scenario for bitcoin

icoins

newbie

Activity: 18

Merit: 0

just as that the internet and the electrical grid would be shut down, the financial system reset and subjugated to total surveillance, but probably not transparency, and the bankers will get it all - if we do not invent and digitally implement the new layers of a true productive constructive intelligent sharing and participating society. The bitcoin code also allows for transparency of transactions (preventing corruption) and documenting proof, see https://www.proofofexistence.com/about , and other features not to forget. Just how can I upload my dna and my consciousness into the blockchain if the earth is radioactively contaminated for 100 million years?

Quote from: markjamrobin on September 11, 2013, 03:55:03 PM

I think it would increase Bitcoin's value, similar to how stocks go down, in war.

markjamrobin

sr. member

Activity: 462

Merit: 250

I think it would increase Bitcoin's value, similar to how stocks go down, in war.

Anon136

legendary

Activity: 1722

Merit: 1217

i was just thinking that maybe ww3 would be hugely bullish for bitcoin because it would allow for commerce between the subjects of different factions when the governments could probably restrict such commerce through the traditional banking channels.

monbux

legendary

Activity: 1736

Merit: 1029

Quote from: zeta1 on September 11, 2013, 11:01:36 AM

define "soon"

Yeh, I just lol'd when I saw this topic... Tongue

zeta1

full member

Activity: 171

Merit: 100

define "soon"

icoins

newbie

Activity: 18

Merit: 0

Another great source to get educated:

Leuren Moret, Radiologist and Whistleblower:

scroll down for a lot of interviews here:
http://www.youtube.com/user/X888Quetzalcoatl888X/videos

Quote from: icoins on June 10, 2013, 07:21:36 PM

In this context I suggest to read this piece about the banksters:

"Sorcha Faal" from June 3rd: http://www.whatdoesitmean.com/index1684.htm

including:

"Press TV in their article “Banksters Attack Syria To Enslave America” also said:

“Israel bombs Syria and threatens Iran. Russia moves its warships into the Mediterranean, and furnishes Syria with advanced anti-aircraft weapons. Hezbollah defends Syria against al-Qaeda. Pro-Israel US Senators like John McCain join forces with al-Qaeda.

What is really going on here? Who is fighting whom, and why? Will Syria become the flash point for World War III?

Is the West attacking the Islamic world in a “clash of civilizations”? Then why are the Israeli and American governments backing al-Qaeda in Syria?

The old narratives no longer make sense.

The real war isn't between nations, civilizations, or religions.

The real war is the bankers' war to conquer the entire world.
"
[...]

Dasneko

member

Activity: 82

Merit: 10

Quote from: TomUnderSea on June 10, 2013, 11:36:28 AM

Quote from: Dasneko on June 10, 2013, 10:45:30 AM

Quote from: TomUnderSea on June 09, 2013, 11:02:34 PM

Quote from: Dasneko on June 09, 2013, 10:49:18 PM

Oh please like I care what you bother to call any particular phenomena, theory, function etc... Its just a waste of time to go through the trouble.

Since when did "Nuclear fuel" become "Bombs"? I think i should have been notified of this in advance since well.. I am the one you are talking to.

Anyway back on topic. Albert Einstein and the Manhattan project. Put down the ground work and the possibility for the research into nukes to exist, driving force behind the programs creation, personal connections with other major people etc.. etc.. etc..

I wonder what would have happened to the project if Albert Einstein had not signed the letter. Would the allies simply have rejected it or perhaps not taken it seriously at all? Who knows. All i know is its like Einstein invented electricity and they made a battery.

I guess the cookie question was too much for you. When I was 19, it was all the rage in the crowd I ran with.

"The most common fissile nuclear fuels are uranium-235 (235U) and plutonium-239 (239Pu)."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fuel

Only fissile isotopes of certain elements have the potential for use in nuclear weapons. Additionally they must be produced in sufficient quantity and purity to be usable. Uranium-235 and plutonium-239 are well known examples for which this is the case.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weapons-grade

U-235 and Pu-239 are both fuel and, in a more refined form, weapons grade material. I expected you to be familiar with this.

What if Albert Einstein had not signed the letter? No idea. What if Leó Szilárd didn't write it? What if Teller and Wigner had not agreed with the concerns in the letter? What if Alexander Sachs had failed to deliver it? Sounds like Al gets 20% of the credit.

BTW, it would be discovered electricity and invented the battery. One existed before it was discovered where the other one was created for the first time.

... Great... remind me never to play "lets pretend" with you since you do not understand what imagination is. Whatever equivalency aside you actually graced my point here. What if Leo Szilard had not written that letter? Would there have been someone else who could or would have? Most likely YES. Could you have taken those 130,000 people involved in the manhattan project and replace them while still end up with a nuke? Most likely YES. Would it have been possible without Einstein? No.

If Einstine had not given this project his support and done the discoveries he did before that there would have been no nuke above Hiroshima Monday, August 6, 1945.

So. Your proof for this statement is?

I am of the opinion that some other luminary would be point man on the letter with as much effect.

What proof do you provide that nuclear physics would not have developed with out E=mc^2?

BTW, what was the first practical experiment that showed E=mc^2 was the correct equation? This might help you determine how important this idea was to building the atom bomb.

E=mc^2 does not necessarily need to be directly proven because its a consequence of Special relativity. Not to mention its proven useful in practice. Its kind of like how we dont need to directly observe black holes or the higgs to assume they are there because assuming they exist helps us understand other parts like how much energy can be released from a nuke.

Without Einstein saying you can make a bomb out of radioactive materials is like saying i can make a bomb out of peanut butter. Its not like gunpowder where you just need to add fire and watch it explode. The whole point of the Manhattan project was to figure out in practice how to do something they had already done on paper.

Aside from that E=mc^2 has very little implications to nuclear physics (and i never said otherwise). It only comes into effect when you go from atoms to energy or back and unifies nuclear physics with energy physics.

icoins

newbie

Activity: 18

Merit: 0

In this context I suggest to read this piece about the banksters:

"Sorcha Faal" from June 3rd: http://www.whatdoesitmean.com/index1684.htm

including:

"Press TV in their article “Banksters Attack Syria To Enslave America” also said:

“Israel bombs Syria and threatens Iran. Russia moves its warships into the Mediterranean, and furnishes Syria with advanced anti-aircraft weapons. Hezbollah defends Syria against al-Qaeda. Pro-Israel US Senators like John McCain join forces with al-Qaeda.

What is really going on here? Who is fighting whom, and why? Will Syria become the flash point for World War III?

Is the West attacking the Islamic world in a “clash of civilizations”? Then why are the Israeli and American governments backing al-Qaeda in Syria?

The old narratives no longer make sense.

The real war isn't between nations, civilizations, or religions.

The real war is the bankers' war to conquer the entire world.
"
[...]

COINPRADER

full member

Activity: 150

Merit: 100

I'm gonna go with BTC would not be very helpful during WW3 - gotta have working computers and internet to make this currency go around...

Malawi

full member

Activity: 224

Merit: 100

One bitcoin to rule them all!

Quote from: AquaMan on June 09, 2013, 10:34:38 PM

A pound in silver is a good start... Silver is actually more rare than gold, and because of price maniulation, silver prices should be much higher.

Silver is more rare than gold in refined form. But that is because it's recycled and reused while gold is hoarded.

Silver is much more common "in the wild" but much more resources are put towards mining gold because of the high price it catches.

TomUnderSea

full member

Activity: 126

Merit: 100

Quote from: Dasneko on June 10, 2013, 10:45:30 AM

Quote from: TomUnderSea on June 09, 2013, 11:02:34 PM

Quote from: Dasneko on June 09, 2013, 10:49:18 PM

Oh please like I care what you bother to call any particular phenomena, theory, function etc... Its just a waste of time to go through the trouble.

Since when did "Nuclear fuel" become "Bombs"? I think i should have been notified of this in advance since well.. I am the one you are talking to.

Anyway back on topic. Albert Einstein and the Manhattan project. Put down the ground work and the possibility for the research into nukes to exist, driving force behind the programs creation, personal connections with other major people etc.. etc.. etc..

I wonder what would have happened to the project if Albert Einstein had not signed the letter. Would the allies simply have rejected it or perhaps not taken it seriously at all? Who knows. All i know is its like Einstein invented electricity and they made a battery.

I guess the cookie question was too much for you. When I was 19, it was all the rage in the crowd I ran with.

"The most common fissile nuclear fuels are uranium-235 (235U) and plutonium-239 (239Pu)."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fuel

Only fissile isotopes of certain elements have the potential for use in nuclear weapons. Additionally they must be produced in sufficient quantity and purity to be usable. Uranium-235 and plutonium-239 are well known examples for which this is the case.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weapons-grade

U-235 and Pu-239 are both fuel and, in a more refined form, weapons grade material. I expected you to be familiar with this.

What if Albert Einstein had not signed the letter? No idea. What if Leó Szilárd didn't write it? What if Teller and Wigner had not agreed with the concerns in the letter? What if Alexander Sachs had failed to deliver it? Sounds like Al gets 20% of the credit.

BTW, it would be discovered electricity and invented the battery. One existed before it was discovered where the other one was created for the first time.

... Great... remind me never to play "lets pretend" with you since you do not understand what imagination is. Whatever equivalency aside you actually graced my point here. What if Leo Szilard had not written that letter? Would there have been someone else who could or would have? Most likely YES. Could you have taken those 130,000 people involved in the manhattan project and replace them while still end up with a nuke? Most likely YES. Would it have been possible without Einstein? No.

If Einstine had not given this project his support and done the discoveries he did before that there would have been no nuke above Hiroshima Monday, August 6, 1945.

So. Your proof for this statement is?

I am of the opinion that some other luminary would be point man on the letter with as much effect.

What proof do you provide that nuclear physics would not have developed with out E=mc^2?

BTW, what was the first practical experiment that showed E=mc^2 was the correct equation? This might help you determine how important this idea was to building the atom bomb.

Dasneko

member

Activity: 82

Merit: 10

Quote from: TomUnderSea on June 09, 2013, 11:02:34 PM

Quote from: Dasneko on June 09, 2013, 10:49:18 PM

Oh please like I care what you bother to call any particular phenomena, theory, function etc... Its just a waste of time to go through the trouble.

Since when did "Nuclear fuel" become "Bombs"? I think i should have been notified of this in advance since well.. I am the one you are talking to.

Anyway back on topic. Albert Einstein and the Manhattan project. Put down the ground work and the possibility for the research into nukes to exist, driving force behind the programs creation, personal connections with other major people etc.. etc.. etc..

I wonder what would have happened to the project if Albert Einstein had not signed the letter. Would the allies simply have rejected it or perhaps not taken it seriously at all? Who knows. All i know is its like Einstein invented electricity and they made a battery.

I guess the cookie question was too much for you. When I was 19, it was all the rage in the crowd I ran with.

"The most common fissile nuclear fuels are uranium-235 (235U) and plutonium-239 (239Pu)."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fuel

Only fissile isotopes of certain elements have the potential for use in nuclear weapons. Additionally they must be produced in sufficient quantity and purity to be usable. Uranium-235 and plutonium-239 are well known examples for which this is the case.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weapons-grade

U-235 and Pu-239 are both fuel and, in a more refined form, weapons grade material. I expected you to be familiar with this.

What if Albert Einstein had not signed the letter? No idea. What if Leó Szilárd didn't write it? What if Teller and Wigner had not agreed with the concerns in the letter? What if Alexander Sachs had failed to deliver it? Sounds like Al gets 20% of the credit.

BTW, it would be discovered electricity and invented the battery. One existed before it was discovered where the other one was created for the first time.

... Great... remind me never to play "lets pretend" with you since you do not understand what imagination is. Whatever equivalency aside you actually graced my point here. What if Leo Szilard had not written that letter? Would there have been someone else who could or would have? Most likely YES. Could you have taken those 130,000 people involved in the manhattan project and replace them while still end up with a nuke? Most likely YES. Would it have been possible without Einstein? No.

If Einstine had not given this project his support and done the discoveries he did before that there would have been no nuke above Hiroshima Monday, August 6, 1945.

TomUnderSea

full member

Activity: 126

Merit: 100

Quote from: US Andy on June 09, 2013, 11:10:53 PM

The world is in what Jim Rickards refers to as a currency war, with each country in a race to devalue it's currency more than it's neighbor so as to increase it exports. The only way the little guy can retain some of his/her wealth is to buy assets such as Gold, Silver and yes Bitcoin.

The ugliness comes when there is no more room to devalue. Then what?

Historically, economic implosions are closely followed by wars of aggression.

First nation to the bottom, starts the war.

FdaFedGov

newbie

Activity: 11

Merit: 0

Quote from: AquaMan on June 09, 2013, 10:53:27 PM

Yes, food and water will be traded as if it were like Gold.

But, when shit hits the fan, and it will someday, gold and silver will once again be used as currency.

It was in the beginning and it will be in the end....

yeah if anyone is left.
M.A.D.
it would be along time till anyone
cared about precious metals in that scenario.

but a limited nuclear war of course it most likely would still be used currently.

Topic: World War III and BTC (Read 7493 times)